Lawmakers Challenge Police Use of Flock Surveillance Cameras

Lawmakers, police officials and privacy experts are debating the use of Flock automated license plate readers and AI-powered surveillance systems across the United States after concerns about government access, data use and oversight grew in 2026. The debate involves local police departments, federal agencies and technology companies using tools that combine cameras, records and analytics.

According to NPR, real-time crime centers powered by software such as Axon Fusus can combine data from body cameras, dashcams, 911 dispatch systems, gunshot detectors and participating private surveillance cameras. The number of law enforcement agencies using Fusus more than doubled after more than 100 agencies had deployed the technology in 2024, according to Axon.

Axon describes Fusus as a "rapidly deployable real-time crime center in the cloud." The software company says the platform is designed to connect information sources for police command centers.

Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, a George Washington University law professor, said privacy concerns should extend beyond license plate readers.

"I have been watching the debate about Flock with a little bit of puzzlement. Because real-time crime centers have not just ALPR cameras and sensors, but video analytics and drones and essentially a way to create a visual single-pane-of-glass vision of what's going on in a city, with time machine capabilities where you can go back and investigate crime." said Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, a law professor at George Washington University.

Police officials using the systems argue they improve investigations by reducing the time needed to gather information from multiple sources.

"We could put analysts in a room and have them access 40 different systems. But that slows them down. So the biggest leveraging factor for a real-time information center to be productive is to have software that can incorporate all these things into one usable area." said Benjamin Weir, a captain with the Oklahoma City Police Department.

Quincy Whitner, a lieutenant with the Greenville County Sheriff's Office in South Carolina, described how the technology was used in an investigation involving a shooting of a police officer.

"Instead of having to go to a million different systems, a million different places to find answers, we can get it in one platform in one place somewhat instantaneously," said Quincy Whitner, a lieutenant with the Greenville County Sheriff's Office.

Privacy advocates have warned that easier access to surveillance data could remove limits that previously slowed investigations.

"In addition to all of the things that you would want in place requiring some kind of criminal predicate to launch it, there is just this kind of organic friction that imposes some constraints. As that friction gets lifted, it becomes easier and easier to do investigations, to look at people and even to pull up broad-scale information." said Rachel Levinson-Waldman, director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Police officials say safeguards are needed but argue the technology helps identify suspects and solve crimes.

"I understand people's concerns, but if you're not up to no good, we're not looking at you. We are looking at people who are committing crimes," said Michelle Iezzi, deputy director of the Operational Intelligence Division at the Montgomery County Police Department in Maryland.

Axon CEO Rick Smith said the company views privacy protections as an important part of deploying the technology.

"We just have to be thoughtful and understand those concerns and say, 'Look, this is a tool to amplify human ability, not to replace human judgment.'" said Rick Smith, CEO of Axon.

Ferguson warned that broad surveillance networks could create risks if governments misuse access to information.

"What happens if there is a government that wants to silence a particular group or even a particular person? And you just built the architecture of surveillance that makes that super-easy," said Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, a law professor at George Washington University.

Lawmakers have also introduced proposals targeting federal access to Flock data. The Ban Flock Act introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Jeff Merkley would restrict federal agencies from using automated license plate readers and limit related funding.

"At a time of growing concern about the unchecked power of artificial intelligence, Flock is eviscerating the very notion of privacy by installing tens of thousands of cameras in communities across America without their consent. Going to the doctor? Flock knows.

Dropping your kid off at school? Flock is tracking you. Flock is always watching.

We cannot allow America to become a surveillance state where a handful of AI oligarchs profit by giving the government the power to track our every movement." said Bernie Sanders, senator.

Other lawmakers also criticized widespread use of AI camera networks.

"AI-powered cameras are keeping track of our every move and weaponizing this data against working people to make record profits. The widespread integration of this technology into American society is unconscionable." said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, representative.

"No one should have this unchecked surveillance power at their fingertips, which is why I'm teaming up with Senator Sanders to rein in this dangerous technology." said Jeff Merkley, senator.

Demand Progress senior policy advisor Hajar Hammado supported stronger restrictions on the systems.

"The Ban Flock Act is the gold standard for any legislation working to fight invasive Flock cameras on the federal level. Flock and other ALPR companies have wormed their way into communities across the nation and drastic, all-encompassing action is needed to root them out." said Hajar Hammado, senior policy advisor at Demand Progress.

Separately, Senator Josh Hawley proposed the Stop Flock Abuse Act, which would require written approval for searches, limit data retention to ten days except for active investigations and prohibit ALPR networks from adding facial recognition technology.