Legislators in Pennsylvania have put forward proposals to ban or restrict automated license plate readers, including Flock cameras, drawing opposition from candidates on both sides of the political aisle, including both gubernatorial contenders. Mounted on both privately owned and public infrastructure, the devices record vehicle imagery and apply artificial intelligence to identify licence plates, along with each car's make and model. The collected information can subsequently be compiled into a queryable vehicle location registry available to police agencies. Although the technology has been available for years, it has lately drawn heightened attention over its widening deployment, including its use by law enforcement agencies to supply data to immigration authorities and, in at least one documented instance, to investigate a woman on suspicion of terminating a pregnancy. By early September, members of both dominant political parties had put forward a total of at least nine pieces of legislation targeting automated license plate readers — either limiting their use or prohibiting them entirely, with seven of those proposals introduced within the preceding six weeks. The state's governor, Governor Josh Shapiro publicly stated his opposition to the technology at an unrelated press briefing in late August, telling a prominent news outlet that it did not serve the public interest, while his spokesperson Rosie Lapowsky indicated the administration was collaborating with the General Assembly on potential legislation to reach the Governor's desk to safeguard Pennsylvanians' privacy; his Republican gubernatorial counterpart Stacy Garrity also expressed support for a ban, describing the cameras as an undue intrusion on privacy, a House Democratic spokesperson noted that leaders would assess any bills addressing public safety, privacy, and accountability, and a Republican Senate leadership spokesperson did not respond before the publication deadline. One distinguishing characteristic of automated licence plate readers — ALPRs — compared with other automated enforcement tools such as speed cameras is the volume and breadth of information they collect. Roadside speed cameras record photographic evidence of individual drivers exceeding the posted limit, with that footage then used to support a legal case against the relevant motorist. These systems capture data on a continuous basis. Through a Flock arrangement, participating law enforcement agencies can contribute their recorded footage to a shared database that partner departments across nearly all states may also access. Comparable devices from manufacturers such as Motorola also offer this capability, though their user base tends to be smaller. Camera manufacturers and police organisations contend that the technology can aid in resolving offences ranging from theft and vandalism to abductions and homicides. Scott Bohn, executive director of Pennsylvania's police chiefs association, described licence plate readers in an emailed statement to a television network as a valuable investigative tool, citing their role in recovering stolen vehicles, connecting vehicles to criminal activity, locating vulnerable or missing individuals, and generating investigative leads, while also expressing opposition to any blanket prohibition on the technology. Kelly Callihan, executive director of the state District Attorneys Association, aligned with Bohn's position, contending that a prohibition would impede law enforcement's ability to address violent offences, locate stolen vehicles or missing individuals, and pursue other threats to public safety, while opponents maintain that the technology's actual performance falls short of vendor claims and that it enables broad surveillance with insufficient oversight of those who can access the collected data. Cases have been documented in which officers exploited ALPR technology to monitor individuals for personal reasons, as well as situations where the data generated erroneous matches that prompted stops of uninvolved motorists. Although Flock does not have a formal arrangement with federal agencies, Border Patrol and ICE personnel have obtained access to the platform via local law enforcement partnerships and drawn on it to locate individuals during immigration enforcement operations. Coverage from a broadcast outlet has indicated that law enforcement agencies may query ALPR databases by individual, rather than by vehicle alone. Liz Randol, legislative director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, stated in a written release that prolonged surveillance of this kind gradually assembles a detailed record of an individual's daily activities and movements. Randol noted that the concerns extend to religious observance, healthcare appointments, civic engagement, personal connections, and everyday activities, adding that regardless of which company operates surveillance equipment in a given area, the shared deficiencies remain consistent: insufficient transparency, inadequate oversight, and an absence of regulation governing how personal data is gathered, retained, and used, along with no clear mechanism for holding public or private entities accountable for misuse. The ACLU has spent years raising concerns about the spread of automated licence plate reader technology and distributing proposed regulatory frameworks. Randol noted that, short of a complete prohibition, legislators ought to focus on rules governing retention periods for ALPR data, the parties with whom it may be shared, and the permitted scope of its use by police. According to its website, Flock automatically removes stored information after a predetermined period. The default data retention period stood at 30 days until the previous month, when the company revised it downward following public criticism, with most jurisdictions now operating under a seven-day window unless local regulations specify a different timeframe. The platform additionally introduced options for agencies to customise their data-sharing preferences, such as restricting queries related to immigration matters. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 16 states have enacted legislation governing the use of ALPRs. Among the more restrictive state-level policies, New Hampshire's law mandates that footage be erased within three minutes unless it relates to an arrest, citation, protective custody, or the identification of a vehicle connected to a missing or wanted person broadcast, though no state has enacted a complete prohibition to date. The state of Florida ordered the removal of cameras from its highway network the previous month. Pennsylvania state Sen. Dan Laughlin (R., Erie) has put forward legislation to prohibit the technology, arguing that once the surveillance infrastructure is established, there is no assurance it will be confined to uses that are considered acceptable at present, while other legislators have advocated for a regulatory framework that would permit its continued use under defined conditions. House members Republicans David Rowe and Josh Bashline have put forward legislation that would mandate warrants for accessing license plate reader data and allow municipalities to prohibit the technology within their boundaries, with Rowe stating that the measure aims to establish government accountability over how such technologies are deployed rather than obstruct innovation; former state representative Josh Siegel, now serving as Lehigh County executive, noted that his position has shifted toward supporting oversight measures after hearing public concerns, expressing the view that proactive regulation is preferable; and state Senator Joe Picozzi, who introduced comparable legislation the previous year, indicated openness to discussing data retention and usage policies. Obtaining a precise count of how many ALPRs are operating across Pennsylvania has proven to be a challenging undertaking. A Flock representative chose not to disclose the number of its cameras operating across the state; DeFlock, a community-based organization that monitors the technology, has tallied thousands of units from multiple manufacturers throughout the region, while an Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney, Lisa Femia, told a broadcaster that each transfer of this data to another agency or entity extends its reach further, reducing oversight and the ability to ensure it is handled appropriately — a concern the Shapiro administration addressed by noting that no Flock cameras are positioned on state roads or government-owned land. Flock cameras were listed on COSTARS, a state procurement platform through which nearly 10,000 local governments, public bodies, and nonprofits can access pre-negotiated pricing on contracts. In 2025, Flock joined the COSTARS procurement program. According to a written communication from the Department of General Services to a broadcast outlet, only a single local government had procured a contract with Flock via the portal. Sandra Aguilera, the agency's acting secretary, noted that in response to the Governor's publicly stated concerns about the technology, the agency was moving promptly to withdraw Flock from COSTARS while also conducting a broader review of all other automated license plate recognition technologies listed on the platform.
