The Camera on the Corner: How Resistance to Flock Safety’s License Plate Readers Got Organized

Of all the emerging-technology fights now running in American communities, the one over automated license plate readers has produced the most concrete results in the least time. Cities have cancelled contracts. A state audit found a vendor in violation of state law. Two members of Congress asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate. One state passed what is now the country’s strongest statute. And a federal court ruled the other way.

This is a summary of the public record. Citizens United for Transparency does not allege that Flock Safety or any law enforcement agency has committed a crime. Where audits or lawsuits make allegations, we identify them as allegations and link to the source so readers can judge for themselves.

Cities are cancelling

The cancellations began locally and spread. Austin ended its contract in June 2025 after organizing by residents, documented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Separately, the Austin Chronicle reported on June 3, 2025, based on internal emails, that more than 20 percent of Austin Police Department searches in some quarters carried no case number or clearly documented reason.

Evanston, Illinois deactivated its cameras and terminated its contract in August 2025, effective the following month. Denver ended its contract in February 2026 and moved to a different vendor. In July 2026, the Los Angeles Police Department allowed its contract to expire, citing what TechCrunch reported as serious concerns over civil liberties and privacy.

Newsweek reported on July 28, 2026, drawing on the volunteer mapping project DeFlock, that 47 jurisdictions have cancelled, 25 have rejected proposals, 22 have deactivated cameras, and one has banned them outright.

The audits

On August 25, 2025, Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias announced that an audit found the company in violation of state law over data sharing with federal immigration authorities. The finding was independently reported by NBC Chicago.

In California, the City of Oxnard suspended all of its cameras on February 27, 2026 after its own review found that a vendor-enabled feature had allowed out-of-state and federal agencies to run nationwide queries despite the department’s settings being configured for California only. The city’s release is the primary document and states the findings in the department’s own words.

That Oxnard finding is the one civic technologists should sit with longest. The department did not misconfigure its system. The department configured its system correctly and the configuration did not do what the department believed it did.

Congress

On November 3, 2025, Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi urged the FTC to investigate the company’s data-security practices. Their letter states that multi-factor authentication was not mandatory for customer accounts and cites a security firm’s finding that credentials for 35 customer accounts had been stolen by malware. Earlier, on August 6, 2025, Representatives Robert Garcia and Krishnamoorthi wrote directly to the company’s chief executive.

The courts are split

In Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, a Fourth Amendment challenge brought by residents with the Institute for Justice, the district court granted summary judgment for the city on January 27, 2026. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Fourth Circuit (No. 26-1227). A separate suit, SIREN v. San Jose, was filed in November 2025 with the ACLU of Northern California and EFF as counsel.

Anyone claiming this question is settled in either direction is ahead of the case law.

The legislative answer so far

Washington State enacted what is currently the most detailed ALPR statute in the country. Senate Bill 6002, sponsored by Senator Yasmin Trudeau, was signed on March 30, 2026 and is summarized by the Washington State Standard; the bill text as passed is public.

Much of the local organizing has run through DeFlock, an open-source project that maps camera locations from public records and volunteer submissions. Its dataset is now cited by national outlets, which is itself a notable fact about where authoritative information on this technology currently comes from.

The company’s own position

We repost the company’s statement because readers should have it directly rather than filtered through us. Reposting is not endorsement.

One detail in the company’s earlier policy writing deserves scrutiny rather than applause. In its October 30, 2025 post on transparency, the company described giving agencies control over which fields appear in public transparency exports, including the search reason and the case number. A transparency feature that lets an agency omit the reason a search was run, and the case it was run under, is a feature that can produce a compliant-looking report about nothing. Agencies that adopt these tools should publish both fields as a matter of local policy, and councils approving contracts should require it in writing.

The other side of the ledger

Not every jurisdiction is walking away, and a watchdog that reports only the cancellations is not reporting. In July 2026, Cleveland City Council voted 9–6 to extend its contract for six months while seeking a transition to a different provider, with council members citing the technology’s role in active investigations. Police departments in many cities describe these systems as materially useful in solving violent crime, and that claim deserves to be tested on evidence rather than dismissed.

The question is not whether the technology works. It is who may point it at whom, under what rule, reviewable by whom, for how long. Those are answerable questions, and every one of them is answerable in public.

# # #

---

---

Note on sources and fairness. This is a news summary compiled by Citizens United for Transparency from public reporting, official government records, court filings, and organizations’ own published statements, each linked above. It does not allege that any specific person or organization has engaged in unlawful conduct. Allegations described in lawsuits, letters, or audits are allegations only, and all parties are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise. Where material is reposted or excerpted from another organization, it is identified as that organization’s statement and reproduction does not constitute endorsement. Corrections are welcome and will be posted.

---

Media & tips: Contact us — we welcome confidential submissions from the public, researchers, and officials.

← Back to all news updates