Four bills target Flock's camera network as Congress moves to curb surveillance

Four bills introduced in Congress in a month would restrict the license plate surveillance network sold by Flock Safety, putting a system that processes more than 20 billion vehicle reads a month under pressure from both the left and the right. The proposals range from banning federal use to requiring warrants and tighter controls on police searches. None has become law. ^[3][5]

The latest and broadest, introduced on October 2, 2026, by Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Jeff Merkley, would prohibit federal agencies from using automatic license plate readers or accessing their data. It would also block grants from five federal departments, including Justice and Homeland Security, to state and local governments that use the technology. Its reach extends beyond Flock to the entire industry. ^[1][3][5]

That is the immediate threat to Flock: not simply more scrutiny of individual officers, but legislation that could cut off public funding or restrict the sharing that makes its network valuable. More than 200 cities have terminated contracts with Flock and other license plate reader companies since the beginning of 2026, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Congress is entering a dispute that is already changing local purchasing decisions. ^[3]

The legislative push follows investigations by 404 Media into police searches involving immigration enforcement, protesters and a woman who had self-administered an abortion. Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and Merkley cited those investigations in announcing their bill. Senator Josh Hawley also pointed to the reporting at a September hearing. ^[1]

Flock says it supports federal rules, while opposing a blanket ban. That leaves a substantial fight over what regulation should mean: limits on an officer's conduct, limits on the network itself, or an end to federal support for it. ^[2][5]

Four bills, four different restraints

The sequence began on September 2, when Representative Thomas Massie introduced the Flock-Off Act, H.R. 10221. It would prevent federal money from paying for the purchase, installation, maintenance, operation or upgrading of automatic license plate readers and biometric surveillance cameras. Systems that had received federal funding would have to go offline within 180 days. ^[3][5]

Massie's proposal draws a line at funding rather than imposing an outright prohibition. "If a city or county wants to have Flock cameras, they can do it," he said, "but my bill says we're not going to charge the American taxpayer for that." Its cosponsors include Democrat Ro Khanna and Republicans Lauren Boebert, Chip Roy and Paul Gosar. ^[3][5]

Hawley's Stop Flock Abuse Act, introduced on September 30, takes a different approach. It would ban local governments from selling or sharing vehicle data collected by license plate readers, require permanent deletion within 10 days unless the data is tied to an active criminal investigation, and prohibit facial recognition on the networks. Searches would need written approval, and data would have to be encrypted and stored only in the United States. ^[2][4][5]

The bill would also require police to preserve audit logs and supervisors to review them regularly for warning signs, including repeated searches for the same person. That addresses a basic weakness exposed by misuse cases: an officer's stated reason for searching is not proof that the search is legitimate. ^[2][3]

Representative Greg Steube, a Florida Republican, has introduced the Flafo Act, which would require federal agencies to obtain judicial warrants before accessing or sharing data from networked license plate readers. It puts a court, rather than an agency's own approval process, at the gate to federal access. ^[5]

The Sanders-Ocasio-Cortez-Merkley proposal goes furthest. Despite its name, the Ban Flock Act does not name Flock in its text. It covers all automatic license plate reader systems, with exceptions for toll collection and uses that Congress approves through future legislation. Those future exceptions would have to limit retention to 48 hours. ^[3]

The bill, introduced in the House as H.R. 10691, would also allow Americans to sue the federal government for violations of their rights through license plate reader use and give state attorneys general enforcement powers. Its combination of a federal prohibition, grant restrictions and routes to legal action makes it more than a purchasing ban. ^[1][3][5]

These lawmakers have identified the same target without agreeing on the remedy. A funding cutoff could leave locally financed systems operating. A warrant requirement would constrain federal access without dismantling local networks. Hawley's rules would regulate continued use. The Ban Flock Act would make continued use much harder for governments that depend on federal grants. That difference will matter if the bills advance.

One camera buys access to much more

Flock, an Atlanta-based company founded in 2017, operates more than 120,000 cameras across 49 states and serves more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies. Its venture backers have valued it at more than $8 billion. ^[3][4][6]

The cameras capture still images of vehicles rather than continuous video. Software extracts details such as the license plate, make, model and color, and records the time and location. The surveillance power comes from making those observations searchable across a network, not merely from photographing traffic at one intersection. ^[3][6]

A camera and annual subscription cost about $3,000. In return, a customer gets access to a nationwide database containing images from tens of thousands of cameras. An apparently local purchase can therefore open a much larger field of search. ^[6]

That is why restrictions on sharing could matter as much as restrictions on installation. The value of a networked reader is not confined to the road beside it. Severing access between jurisdictions would change the product police are buying, even if the cameras remained in place.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has pressed Flock chief executive Garrett Langley about the company's National Lookup Tool, which allows law enforcement agencies to search camera data across jurisdictions. Schumer requested a response by October 16. ^[5]

Federal access is under scrutiny too. Representatives Greg Casar and Shontel Brown wrote to FBI Director Kash Patel asking how the bureau plans to acquire nationwide access to license plate reader data, after 404 Media reported that plan in May. The reported plan, rather than an established nationwide FBI arrangement, is the subject of their inquiry. ^[1]

The searches that brought the backlash

The pressure grew after 404 Media reported in May 2025 that local police were running Flock searches for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Flock subsequently stopped other agencies from searching cameras in Illinois, California and Virginia and introduced a tool designed to block impermissible searches in real time. ^[1]

Further investigations reported police use of Flock to investigate an immigration protest in California and monitor No Kings demonstrations. The outlet also reported that Flock taught officers how to surveil protesters in a company webinar, and that a Texas officer searched nationwide for a woman who had self-administered an abortion. Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and Merkley specifically cited those findings. ^[1]

Separate misconduct cases have given lawmakers concrete examples of what weak oversight can permit. A former Milwaukee police officer pleaded guilty to misconduct after searching Flock for his then-partner and her ex 179 times, entering "investigation" as the reason. A search log can record an explanation without making it a truthful one. ^[3]

Five Indianapolis officers were charged in late September with abusing Flock data to track ex-partners and stalk strangers. Those are charges, not convictions. In Texas, a federal jury found that the Bexar County Sheriff's Office used license plate readers in a scheme that flagged drivers for unconstitutional traffic stops and searches. ^[2]

At Hawley's September 23 hearing, Lindsey Isaacs testified that she was wrongly accused of fleeing a fatal accident and jailed in solitary confinement after a Flock camera misidentified her Dodge Durango. Her account put the consequences of an erroneous match before the committee in direct terms: the result was not just a bad database entry, but imprisonment. ^[4]

The Institute for Justice has catalogued 258 cases of license plate reader abuse since 2018, including stalking, wrongful stops and detentions, and other misconduct. That count covers license plate readers generally, not just Flock. ^[2]

Together, these cases expose two distinct problems. Officers can misuse accurate records, and police can act on inaccurate matches. Approval rules and audits address the first. They do not, by themselves, resolve the second.

Flock offers safeguards as the market shifts

Flock has changed its controls. In August, Langley announced that the default retention period would fall from 30 days to seven. Customers also had to use an audit tool that locks officers out pending review when it flags unusual searches. ^[3]

The seven-day default is shorter than Hawley's proposed 10-day ceiling, but the two measures are not equivalent. A vendor's default is a product setting. A statutory deletion requirement would be a legal obligation. Hawley's proposal also reaches sharing, search approvals and supervision, not just storage. ^[2][3]

In a letter to Hawley, Flock said Americans' privacy should not depend on one vendor's good judgment and said it has consistently supported clear, sensible legislation. The company says its technology has helped solve approximately one million crimes and reunite roughly 10,000 missing people with their families. Those are Flock's figures. ^[2][6]

Its opposition to prohibition is explicit. "A blanket ban would take a proven investigative tool away from communities and officers who rely on it," spokesperson Andrew Smith said. ^[5]

The company faces commercial pressure alongside the bills. According to the ACLU, cities terminated contracts with Flock and other license plate reader providers at a rate of more than three per day in August. Competitors include Vigilant Solutions, Motorola and Rekor, while Axon has begun taking over public contracts from cities that previously used Flock. A cancellation does not necessarily mean an end to surveillance. ^[3]

Semafor reported on September 23 that Flock was considering selling itself. That remains a reported possibility, not an announced transaction. ^[6]

State action is moving too. Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe signed an executive order in mid-September requiring state and local agencies using license plate readers to delete data after 30 days and adopt other safeguards. Oregon lawmakers are considering legislation that could ban the cameras in 2027. ^[2][5]

The next federal test is whether scrutiny produces enforceable rules. The chief executives of Flock, Axon, Motorola Solutions and Verkada declined to appear at Hawley's September 23 hearing, and Hawley suggested subpoenas could follow. Schumer's October 16 deadline gives Langley a nearer obligation: explain the nationwide lookup system that Congress is now trying to constrain. ^[5][6]