A wave of local resistance to automated license plate reader cameras made by Atlanta-based Flock Safety has reached the halls of Congress. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky announced on X on July 25, 2026, that he intends to introduce legislation withholding federal funding from municipalities and law enforcement agencies that deploy the systems, marking the clearest sign yet that a grassroots privacy fight has become a national policy issue.
Flock Safety, founded in 2017, makes internet-connected cameras that photograph passing vehicles, read license plates, and use computer vision to log details such as make, model, color, and even distinguishing features like roof racks or bumper decals. The company says the system does not use facial recognition and typically holds data for 30 days unless local rules dictate otherwise. That data-retention model is precisely what has drawn scrutiny, since the cameras create a searchable record of vehicle movements that can be queried well after the fact.
Documented Cases of Misuse
The backlash has been fueled by a string of documented abuse cases. In Milwaukee, prosecutors charged an officer in February 2026 with using the system to track a romantic partner, and an internal affairs detective investigating that same case was separately arrested in July for allegedly doing the same thing. The Institute for Justice has identified more than two dozen cases nationwide where officers resigned or faced arrest over allegations of using license plate readers to stalk partners.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also documented cases where agencies searched license plate databases during the 2025 No Kings protests, and where Texas deputies queried Flock data during an investigation that was initially logged as a missing-person case but was later tied to abortion-related surveillance. Those findings have hardened the argument that the technology's use extends well beyond the crime-fighting purpose it was sold on.
Governments Start Pulling Back
Several local governments have already begun reversing course. The Los Angeles Police Department suspended its Flock partnership in July 2026, citing privacy, data-sharing, and contract concerns, while Monroe County, Indiana, voted to end its contract a year early despite acknowledging the cameras had helped solve serious crimes. Leon County, Florida, delayed funding for additional units after residents raised concerns about how the data is collected, stored, and shared.
Public opposition has taken more visible forms too. Between June and July 2026, activists across 23 states carried out at least 33 documented incidents of spray-painting, taping over, disabling, or destroying Flock cameras, with several facing criminal charges as a result. In St. Petersburg, Florida, 77-year-old Carl Gunn has staged solo protests holding signs to block camera views, while in Fresno, California, a community forum on the technology drew an overflow crowd of objecting residents.
Company Response
Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley recently walked back earlier comments describing anti-Flock activists as a “terroristic organization,” calling the remark “a mistake.”
There are groups today that have real valid criticisms of the business.
Fresno Police Chief Mindy Casto offered a similar acknowledgment of the tension at play, telling residents at the local forum that officials have to find a balance between safety and liberty. With a member of Congress now moving to attach funding conditions to the technology, the debate over automated surveillance looks set to shift from city council chambers to a national stage.
