U.S. Residents Increase Vandalism and Opposition to Police License-Plate Reader Cameras
Activists and citizens in at least 36 states are sabotaging Flock automated license-plate readers, while law-enforcement agencies defend the technology as a tool for locating stolen vehicles and missing persons.
Residents across the United States are increasingly targeting Flock brand automated license-plate readers, a type of police surveillance camera that records vehicle details and stores them in cloud databases. In Crystal, Minnesota, activist Brady O'Rourke uses a roof rake with a bright sign to block a camera at a busy intersection, saying he does not want to be surveilled with tax-payer money. Similar actions—stealing, sawing down, painting over or even shooting at the devices—have been reported in at least 36 states, according to a review of local news reports.
Flock Safety, the Atlanta-based manufacturer, says more than 5,000 law-enforcement agencies use its cameras, and an advocacy group estimates there are over 130,000 AI-powered license-plate readers on U.S. streets. The systems capture billions of license-plate reads each month, providing police with data on vehicle movements that can be used to locate stolen cars, find missing persons, and, according to a preliminary study, deter car theft.
Critics argue the technology raises privacy and constitutional concerns. Clare Garvie, deputy director of technology law and policy at New York University’s Policing Project, notes that the cameras can track individuals’ daily routines and may violate Fourth-Amendment protections. Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, warns that the data can be misused for “police fishing expeditions” and cites instances of officers using the system to stalk ex-partners or to pursue immigration enforcement without local approval.
A 2024 analysis by a California police department found the cameras misread license plates in 71 % of alerts, highlighting accuracy issues. In response, Flock has adjusted some features, shortening recommended data-retention periods and restricting access for officers who appear to misuse the tool. CEO Garrett Langley told NPR that the company does not own or sell the data and that municipalities control storage duration and sharing.
The backlash has prompted at least 100 cities to deactivate the cameras or cancel contracts with Flock or similar vendors. Community opposition appears bipartisan, with critics ranging from progressive activists to conservative Republicans, according to the ACLU. While law-enforcement leaders, such as Jeff Potts of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, maintain that license-plate readers are “very helpful tools,” the growing grassroots resistance underscores an ongoing debate over the balance between public safety and privacy.
"There’s no question that license plate readers can be very helpful tools for law enforcement," said Jeff Potts, executive director of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association.
"The potential for police fishing expeditions is unlimited," said Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst with the ACLU.
"We did not set up a system of governance in this country that says, ‘Just don’t do anything wrong and you won’t have anything to worry about.’" said Clare Garvie.
"We are so transparent about the business. We don’t own this data. We don’t sell this data. Cities have control over how long it’s stored and who it’s shared with," said Garrett Langley, CEO of Flock.