Lawmakers Introducing Flock Bills Left And Right: What Would Each Do?

Lawmakers have introduced several bills to restrict Flock Safety cameras and automated license plate readers (ALPRs).

Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle opposed Flock cameras and put forth legislation to restrict them, although no one has put forth a bill as of Thursday that would completely ban them. All of the bills introduced thus far would place restrictions on using ALPRs at the federal and local level, and some lawmakers have floated the idea of outright banning these technologies.

Republican Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett introduced the “Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act” in July, which would ban federal agencies from using automated surveillance. If passed, no agency would be permitted to “purchase, deploy, operate, access, or contract any automated surveillance system.”

Mike Fox, a legal fellow with the CATO Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the bill likely would not pass because congressional Republicans would face pressure from federal law enforcement agencies. He commended Burchett for bringing forth the bill, stating it would curtail the government’s ability to surveil the public.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Secret Service and other agencies accessed or used ALPR systems, which included commercial networks such as Flock. The agencies used facial recognition technology, AI-enhanced analytics, drones, biometric systems and camera networks.

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from December 2024 revealed that several agencies did not apply appropriate civil rights and privacy safeguards when handling citizens’ personal data.

“I haven’t seen any elected members of Congress come out in support of Flock cameras,” Fox told the DCNF. “But who has really come out in support of Flock cameras are other law enforcement agencies, and I would expect if Congressman Burchett’s bill moves forward, which I have a feeling it won’t, you’re going to get the Office of Legislative Affairs at [the Department of Justice] and the Department of Homeland Security, [who] are probably gonna be hugely opposed because this bill dramatically limits the ability of them to surveil the public, which is precisely why it’s such a good bill.”

While Burchett’s bill would place restrictions on federal agencies, Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie announced plans to slash federal funding for cities and police departments using Flock cameras in an upcoming bill.

“I’ll soon be introducing a bill to withhold all federal funding for cameras used to track American citizens,” Massie said on Aug. 7.

The legislation would also allow private citizens to sue government employees for Fourth Amendment rights violations.

Republicans Reps. Keith Self of Texas, Eli Crane of Arizona and Andrew Clyde of Georgia introduced the Protecting Rights in Video and Equipment Acquired Discovery (PRIVACY) Act in July to require federal law enforcement to obtain warrants before accessing or querying data from state and local surveillance systems, like ALPRs, and would restrict use of federal funds to purchase or install them.

The bill would limit law enforcement’s retention of data under a warrant to 30 days, unless the information could be used as evidence in a prosecution.

Self’s bill would only place restrictions on federal agencies and does not restrict what cities and local police can do with their own cameras. Massie and Boebert’s legislation applies to federal and local government.

No bills have been introduced thus far to outright ban these cameras, though Republican Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna and independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said they planned to introduce these bans. It is unknown when the bills would be introduced.

Sanders announced Wednesday he planned to introduce a bill banning Flock, arguing it violates Americans’ “privacy rights and civil liberties.”

“Totalitarianism is when a government or another entity with overwhelming power seeks to know, control and influence everything you do, say and even think. I fear very much that if we don’t act aggressively, that is where we’re heading … These AI cameras scan and record 20 BILLION vehicles every month across more than 6,000 communities. What does that mean for you? It means that if Flock is in your community, every time you leave your house, a Flock camera records and tracks you,” Sanders wrote on X.

“Do we want to live in an America where our privacy rights and civil liberties — enshrined in the Constitution — are traded away so that AI oligarchs can collect more information, and increase their profits even more?” Sanders continued. “The answer must be NO. We cannot allow America to become a surveillance state where a handful of AI oligarchs profit by giving the government the power to track our every movement. We must come together to stop Flock and AI mass surveillance. That is why I will soon be introducing legislation to do just that.”

Sanders’ office did not immediately respond to the DCNF about when the senator plans to introduce the bill.

Republican Indiana Rep. Marlin Stutzman said he planned to introduce a bill to restrict Flock cameras after a camera flagged his vehicle for having an expired registration, causing an officer to track and follow him to his private residence. The bill is in the preliminary stages.

“The repeated misidentification of innocent Americans and warrantless surveillance of millions are my two largest concerns with Flock cameras,” Stutzman previously told the DCNF. “No matter who you are or what you do, areas with Flock cameras are tracking you. While many localities are taking the right step in reevaluating their use of these cameras, more serious steps must be taken on the federal level to restrict any unregulated AI surveillance from taking place.”

Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, opened an investigation Wednesday into Flock cameras and requested documents and other information from Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley. Flock Safety spokesperson Paris Lewbel told the DCNF that the company intended to cooperate with Hawley.

In his letter to Langley, Hawley mentioned how prosecutors charged a police officer in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for allegedly searching his ex-girlfriend’s license plate 124 times and her former boyfriend’s plate 55 times. A Florida resident spent 13 days in jail and faced eight felony counts, including three counts of vehicular homicide, for a crime she did not commit.

Surveillance concerns mounted as officers used these systems to stalk ex-girlfriends or romantic interests. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-interest law firm, found 30 instances where officers used these cameras to “stalk romantic interests.”

An innocent driver in Wisconsin was held at gunpoint in early August after a camera made a mistake. Due to these concerns, some cities cancelled their Flock contracts.

Flock told the DCNF that Congress should consider “strong, clear safeguards” rather than outright banning automated surveillance.

“Rather than banning a critical public safety tool, Congress should consider strong, clear safeguards that ensure accountability, oversight, and responsible use are enshrined in law,” Lewbel previously said. “We do not have to choose between protecting privacy and giving law enforcement the tools it needs to keep communities safe. We can — and should — do both.”

Langley compared banning Flock cameras to outlawing vehicles during a Saturday interview on Fox News’ “Saturday in America with Kayleigh McEnany.”

“What we have to prioritize in the country is compromise. How do we have our safety and how do we balance privacy? And so when I think about legislation that calls for an outright ban, that’s like banning vehicles, and that has never made sense,” Langley said. “Instead, what we did is we introduced laws against drunk driving, laws around seat belts, laws around airbags.”

President Donald Trump said on Aug. 17 that Flock cameras have their “pros and cons.”