sign for Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) system by Flock Safety operating in Los Altos Hills, CA – bluestork/Shutterstock
.
Across the U.S., some cities are beginning to resist the growing presence of Flock Safety cameras, which law enforcement uses to track millions of vehicles daily. Facing increasing scrutiny, many of Flock’s contracts are being questioned, and questions are mounting over the legality of the company’s practices. Recent controversies in Colorado, Illinois, and Texas have led to legal action and canceled contracts in response to what critics call some of the most egregious abuses.
.
Flock Safety camera monitors vehicles outside a grocery store – Aaron of L.A. Photography/Shutterstock
Flock Safety’s technology has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over surveillance in law enforcement. The company’s cameras, which track vehicles through a searchable license plate database, now cover hundreds of cities nationwide. Flock markets its system as a simple plate reader, claiming “billions of monthly plate reads”—highlighting that ordinary citizens, not just criminals, can end up in its database. In one notable case, a Virginia resident discovered he had been tracked 526 times in just four months after investigating the company. Beyond license plate scanning, Flock markets AI-driven tools such as “Vehicle Fingerprint,” which can identify cars even without plates by analyzing paint colors, truck bed contents, and other distinguishing features.
Flock Safety search tool used by law enforcement identifies a landscaping truck – Flock Safety
Federal Enforcement Raises Legal Questions
Flock has recently faced criticism for enabling federal immigration and border enforcement agencies to access its data—actions some say violate state and local laws. In one case, the city of Evanston, Illinois, ordered the removal of 19 cameras on August 26 after Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias’ office found that Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access its system illegally. Though Flock initially removed 15 cameras in early September, residents were alarmed when some cameras reappeared, either in their original locations or swapped with different models. Evanston issued a cease-and-desist order after discovering the reinstalled units, which provide far more detailed information than what local police typically obtain.
Several other municipalities have also ended contracts with Flock, including Austin, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Oak Park, Illinois; and Sedona, Arizona. In many cases, these decisions followed significant local pushback. However, some contracts have been renewed. For example, although the Denver City Council unanimously rejected a contract extension with Flock in May, Mayor Mike Johnston’s administration approved a continuation unilaterally, maintaining cameras at nearly 70 intersections. The move prompted immediate criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado. Austin, which terminated its Flock contracts in June, is now evaluating alternatives, including competitor LiveView.
Growing Concerns Over Warrantless Surveillance
Colorado has emerged as a focal point in the nationwide debate over Flock’s cameras. Beyond Denver, the technology is in use in Boulder, Colorado Springs, Lafayette, Louisville, and Loveland. Audit logs obtained through a Colorado Open Records Act request show that Denver’s Flock data was accessed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials more than 1,400 times in the year starting June 2024. These searches were conducted by both local and out-of-state agencies. According to the ACLU of Colorado, the mayor’s office and Denver Police Department were aware of these practices despite official denials. Public records reviewed by SlashGear indicate thousands of additional searches by local and state agencies across the country, from Washington to Georgia.
Similar patterns of surveillance misuse have been reported in Illinois, Texas, and other states. The Institute for Justice has criticized Flock for enabling “warrantless mass surveillance,” citing reports of police using the system to stalk ex-partners, improperly sharing data with federal agencies, and fabricating reasons for searches. In response, Flock CEO Garrett Langley stated in an August 25 blog post that the company had paused certain “limited pilots” with federal immigration and homeland security agencies and pledged to add “new compliance tools” to its software.
As cities across the country grapple with the balance between public safety and privacy rights, the controversy over Flock Safety cameras shows no sign of abating.