Modern law enforcement agencies are deploying advanced surveillance tools that capture far more than standard vehicle registration data, prompting a wave of concern among researchers, civil rights advocates, and municipal officials. In a recent webinar hosted by SciLine, a panel of criminal justice experts examined the widespread adoption of automated license plate reader (ALPR) technology—such as systems manufactured by Flock Safety—and outlined the complex legal, social, and policy challenges facing cities as these networks expand.
According to Kimberly Przeszlowski, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Quinnipiac University, officers scanning thousands of license plates per hour are now gathering comprehensive digital profiles on everyday motorists.
“Flock calls it a ‘vehicle fingerprint,’” Przeszlowski explained during the briefing. “It’s similar to what a fingerprint could tell you about an individual. Beyond the plate, it can tell you the make and model of a vehicle, the camera location, the date and time stamp, and vehicle characteristics—not only body type but color. Depending on the settings, it can also capture characteristics like damage to a bumper or a bumper sticker.”
These sophisticated camera networks are capable of tracking individual patterns of activity over time. Increasingly, they are being integrated with other emerging law enforcement technologies, including automated drone deployment, artificial intelligence, and facial recognition software, through centralized hubs known as real-time crime centers. Johnny Nhan, a criminology and criminal justice professor at Texas Christian University, noted that hundreds of these real-time crime centers are already operational nationwide, turning what once felt like speculative fiction into an everyday reality for American cities.
“These things are not science fiction anymore,” Nhan said. “It creates a bit of a slippery slope.”
As local governments grapple with the pressure to adopt these technologies while simultaneously managing public anxiety over privacy and government overreach, the panelists offered critical insights and practical advice for navigating the complex market of municipal surveillance.
A central warning from the panel centered on the aggressive marketing tactics employed by surveillance vendors. Industry representatives are often skilled at courting local officials, offering promotional deals that can quickly bind a municipality into long-term financial commitments.
“Some of the Flock users I’ve talked to compare it to Costco or to drug dealers,” Nhan said, describing how companies frequently offer free samples or trial periods. “They give you a free sample, some free cameras, and you get hooked because it’s effective at certain things. Then it’s contract time.”
Steven Keener, director of the Center for Crime, Equity and Justice Research and Policy at Christopher Newport University, echoed these concerns, noting that he has observed multiple instances where police departments became entirely dependent on the technology after accepting initial promotional offers. In one meeting involving both a mayor and a police chief, Keener recalled the chief declaring, “If you take this away from me, I don’t know how we’re going to do this without this tool now.” That psychological reliance—the inability of an agency to adapt back to traditional policing methods after experiencing automated tracking—is a critical trap for municipal leaders to monitor.
Furthermore, vendors often utilize bundling strategies, offering discounts for additional software packages or hardware integrations, which causes the scope and cost of the surveillance network to expand incrementally over time. Keener also highlighted the presence of top-down public relations playbooks supplied by ALPR companies to help local leaders manage community pushback. He expressed surprise at encountering nearly word-for-word defenses of the technology delivered by city council members across entirely different jurisdictions.
To counter these pressures, experts emphasized the necessity of securing genuine public input before any ALPR systems are installed. Too often, municipal leaders find themselves reacting to resident outrage only after the hardware is already mounted on utility poles.
“All too often, mayors and city council members tell concerned residents that the cameras are here now, so we just have to deal with it and put guardrails up,” Keener said. “There’s something to be said for reversing the process, so that there’s some form of public input before the next kind of surveillance shows up.”
As a positive model for municipal governance, Keener pointed to Harrisonburg, Virginia. Following significant community debate, the city canceled its contract with Flock Safety, removed the existing cameras, and subsequently passed a formal ordinance requiring structured public input before any future surveillance technology can be considered or installed.
Another major challenge highlighted by the panel is the stark lack of regulatory uniformity surrounding ALPR usage. Przeszlowski noted that policies governing data retention, access control, data sharing, and official oversight vary dramatically from state to state and even between neighboring municipal jurisdictions.
While a universally accepted “gold standard” for governing ALPR technology is still evolving, Nhan pointed to progressive departments that have successfully mitigated resident complaints by establishing transparent and robust operating guidelines drafted in collaboration with public forums and civil liberties organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union.
Equity in the deployment of surveillance assets represents another profound concern for researchers. In the Hampton Roads region of Virginia, a federal judge ordered local officials to release the exact geographic locations of all publicly funded ALPR cameras following a legal challenge. Keener noted that until that disclosure, data regarding official camera placement was largely obscured from the public.
When Keener’s research team overlaid the newly released camera locations with local sociodemographic variables, they discovered a distinct disparity: cameras were disproportionately concentrated in areas characterized by higher percentages of Black residents and elevated poverty rates.
“If you live in a predominantly Black neighborhood in this region, your default is surveillance,” Keener said.
In the city of Norfolk, Virginia, cameras were found to be heavily clustered in formerly redlined districts that have historically suffered from structural disinvestment and underinvestment. According to Keener, the overarching narrative of their research suggests that modern municipal governments are effectively directing high-tech surveillance infrastructure into historically neglected communities, thereby replicating past inequities under the guise of technological modernization.
Questions surrounding data access and information sharing also pose significant security and privacy risks. Last summer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accessed Flock data across five Virginia municipalities without the knowledge or explicit consent of local officials, utilizing what Keener described as "side-door access."
While sharing ALPR data between different law enforcement agencies is frequently touted as a primary benefit for tracking suspects across municipal and county boundaries, Keener stressed that this interconnectedness is precisely where system vulnerabilities emerge.
Legislative efforts are beginning to address these cross-jurisdictional data-sharing concerns. Przeszlowski pointed to a new Connecticut law that restricts police departments from sharing ALPR data with agencies outside neighboring states without obtaining a probable-cause warrant, while also explicitly prohibiting the transfer of such data for immigration enforcement purposes.
Finally, researchers underscored the urgent need for rigorous, objective documentation of the technology’s actual effectiveness. Nhan recounted his participation in a study intended to measure potential correlations between the proliferation of Flock cameras and measurable reductions in crime rates or increases in solved cases. Ultimately, the research proved unfeasible due to a lack of standardized data collection practices among police departments.
While collecting empirical outcome data is essential for determining whether surveillance investments are genuinely efficient and effective, Przeszlowski noted practical hurdles within law enforcement agencies. Officers stationed inside real-time crime centers are tasked with processing fast-moving investigative intelligence rather than inputting administrative metrics into spreadsheets. Consequently, assigning dedicated personnel to track and document performance outcomes remains a vital prerequisite for any agency deploying advanced surveillance systems.
