FLOCK 00 laws and bills
page 1 / 1
ALPR / Surveillance Legislation & Regulation
factual-summary . retrieved 2026-07-11
sources: MRSC, ACLU-WA, Congress.gov (CRS IF13068), Police1, ObscureIQ state map, AZ Mirror, state coverage
archived for offline mesh reading
------------------------------------------------------------
The laws and bills governing automated license-plate readers (ALPRs) like Flock's, at the
state and federal level. Neutral summary; verify specifics against each statute.
The federal picture
- **No comprehensive federal ALPR statute.** The Congressional Research Service overview is
**CRS IF13068**, "Automated License Plate Readers: Background and Legal Issues."
- **Perry–García amendment (introduced May 21, 2026):** would bar recipients of **federal
highway funding** from using ALPRs "**for any purpose other than tolling**." Offered
during a House Transportation & Infrastructure markup of the surface-transportation
reauthorization. (Bipartisan: Reps. Scott Perry R-PA, Jesús "Chuy" García D-IL.)
- **FBI procurement:** the FBI has pursued a contract worth **up to $36M** for access to
**nationwide ALPR data** via a cloud platform.
- **Congressional investigation:** Reps. **Raja Krishnamoorthi** and **Robert Garcia**
opened a formal probe into Flock's role in enabling surveillance of women, immigrants, and
others.
Washington — SB 6002 (the most-cited new law)
Enacted **effective March 30, 2026** — Washington's first ALPR-specific restrictions:
- **Sensitive-location limits:** no ALPR use targeting **reproductive/immigration-services
facilities, places of worship, or schools.**
- **Warrant requirement** before law enforcement accesses ALPR data held by **private
entities.**
- **Data retention:** capped at **21 days** (ACLU had sought ≤7).
- **Prohibited uses:** **immigration enforcement**, and tracking people exercising
**constitutionally protected activity** (e.g., protest) or accessing **protected health
care.**
- **Registration:** agencies must **register their ALPR system with the WA Attorney
General** within 180 days.
State-by-state landscape (2025–2026)
- **Strict / prohibitionary:** **New Hampshire**, **Maine**.
- **Significant regulation:** **California**, **Virginia**, **Minnesota**, **Washington**,
**Oregon**.
- **Most states:** **no ALPR-specific statute** at all.
Notable individual actions:
- **California SB 274** — passed the legislature, **vetoed by Gov. Newsom (Oct 2025).**
- **Virginia HB 2724 (2025)** — new restrictions on ALPR use/retention.
- **Oregon (2026)** — statute in effect with a **30-day retention** limit.
- **Illinois** — state **audit** found Flock violated state law by giving **CBP** access to
Illinois ALPR data via an undisclosed pilot; Flock paused federal pilots.
- **Countertrend:** some legislatures moved the **other way** — e.g., an **Arizona** Senate
panel advanced a bill to **shield** police surveillance-camera records from public
disclosure (Feb 2026).
The recurring policy levers
Across bills, the same knobs appear: **warrant requirements**, **data-retention caps**,
**sensitive-location and prohibited-use lists** (immigration, abortion, protest),
**transparency/registration/audit** mandates, and **public-records treatment** of the data.
*How courts are treating these questions: [[../Legal & Litigation/00-lawsuits-and-rulings]].*
Sources
- MRSC; ACLU-WA; South Seattle Emerald; The Center Square — Washington SB 6002
- Congress.gov CRS IF13068 — federal background; Police1 — Perry–García amendment
- ObscureIQ — 2026 state legality map; AZ Mirror — Arizona shield bill
- State coverage — CA SB 274 veto, VA HB 2724, Oregon retention, Illinois audit
< prev page 1/1 next