Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has opened an investigation into Flock Safety’s automated license plate reader (ALPR) network, demanding documents on the company’s “collection, retention, and dissemination” of driver data, according to a letter the source attributes to Hawley. The source reports Hawley chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism and that the panel will lead the probe.
“Congress never authorized this network”
In the letter to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley, quoted by the source, Hawley wrote: “Congress never authorized the network your industry has built. Your company’s internal policies are, in practice, the only safeguards for hundreds of millions of Americans.” He continued: “In light of this abuse of driver information, the American people want to know who has access to their personal data and how. This investigation will seek those answers.”
The letter requested “all documents and information” by September 8, 2026, according to the source. It also stated, “If you have questions about the scope of these requests, please contact my office to discuss.” The source notes the letter did not mention using subpoenas.
What Hawley wants from Flock
Per the source’s account of the letter, Hawley asked Flock to:
- State the parameters under which customers can conduct statewide or nationwide searches of vehicles or driver data.
- State the total number of confirmed instances of misuse since Jan. 1, 2021.
- Describe what a user must enter to justify a search.
- Name every restriction Flock imposes on the purposes for which its systems can be searched.
Misuse and error cases cited in the letter
The source says Hawley’s letter argues that most people in Flock’s records have committed no crimes and cites alleged harms from a “lack of safeguards.” One cited example: in Milwaukee, prosecutors charged a police officer who allegedly searched his girlfriend’s license plate 124 times and her former boyfriend’s 55 times, entering “investigation” as the justification each time. The letter, per the source, states the officer “was not caught by the company’s audit systems—he was caught because a private citizen looked up his own plate on a public website.”
The letter also cites a Florida resident who, according to the source, spent 13 days in jail and faced eight felony counts, including three counts of vehicular homicide, for a crime she did not commit.
Beyond the letter, the source reports that an innocent driver in Wisconsin was held at gunpoint in early August after a camera made a mistake, and that the Institute for Justice found 30 instances where officers used ALPR systems to “stalk romantic interests.”
Legislation: bans vs. safeguards
The source reports that no bill has been introduced in Congress to ban ALPRs outright. Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna said on July 22 she was working on a bill to ban them completely, though the source says that bill has not yet been introduced. In July, Republican Rep. Tim Burchett introduced the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act to ban federal agencies from purchasing or operating Flock cameras or any form of automated surveillance that “identify, track, or record individuals,” according to the source. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, the source adds, said he planned to introduce legislation to withhold federal funds from local municipalities and police departments using Flock and ALPRs.
The source also notes that some cities canceled their Flock contracts and that former President Donald Trump said on Aug. 17 that Flock cameras have “pros and cons.”
Flock’s response: courts and the Fourth Amendment
Flock previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) that Congress should adopt “strong, clear safeguards” rather than ban ALPRs, according to the source. “We believe public safety, privacy, and Fourth Amendment rights can and must coexist,” a Flock spokesperson told the DCNF, per the source. The spokesperson said “more than 40 courts across the country have considered LPRs in the context of the Fourth Amendment and ruled overwhelmingly that the use of these tools in public spaces does not require a warrant,” and urged that “accountability, oversight, and responsible use are enshrined in law.”
