12-07-2025
‘Dragnet warrantless surveillance': Advocates raise concerns over license plate tracking database
'This is hugely concerning from a privacy and civil liberties perspective, particularly in communities that have some welcoming city or Trust Act law on the books that restricts information sharing pertaining to immigration,' said Kade Crockford, director of the Technology for Liberty Program at the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.
Advertisement
In a statement, Flock Safety said that departments must opt-in to share any data from their cameras with the broader network. Departments can choose to keep their data to themselves, share with specific other agencies, set geographic limits, or contribute to a national database, Flock Safety chief executive Garrett Langley
Advertisement
'Each city should lay out acceptable and unacceptable use cases for [the system], as determined by the laws and values of its jurisdiction,' Langley wrote. 'And law enforcement agencies should regularly conduct audits to ensure all users are complying with the letter and spirit of those policies.'
The Flock Safety data was acquired by the ACLU of Massachusetts following a public records request and shared with the Globe. It shows that 88 police departments in Massachusetts requested information from it over the past 12 months. It is unclear how many of those departments have cameras that share data nationwide, and Flock Safety did not respond to a request for that information.
Michael Bradley, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, described automatic plate readers as a 'proven public safety tool' typically governed by departmental policies that restrict access to authorized personnel and limit data retention.
'They help locate stolen vehicles, identify vehicles associated with missing or endangered individuals, and support investigations involving violent crime, organized theft, and more,' Bradley wrote in an email. 'When properly used, ALPR systems allow law enforcement to act swiftly and effectively, often in time-sensitive situations, without intruding on the public's civil liberties.'
Unlike at least 16 other states, including Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire, Massachusetts has no law specifically regulating the use of ALPR systems.
But the expansion of large-scale ALPR networks has prompted efforts to regulate the technology on Beacon Hill. In February, Watertown Representative Steven Owens filed legislation that would prohibit agencies from disclosing ALPR data, except as required by a judicial proceeding, and bar police from using plate recognition systems to track activity protected by the First Amendment.
Advertisement
The legislation would also set a 14-day limit for retaining ALPR data, unless it is needed for a specific criminal investigation. The legislation has been referred to the Joint Committee on Transportation.
The ACLU of Massachusetts has endorsed the legislation, saying it strikes the right balance between recognizing the public safety utility of ALPR systems and protecting driver privacy.
'We have compromised, essentially,' Crockford said. 'It's our view that ideally, this information shouldn't be collected at all.'
Holly Beilin, Flock Safety's director of communications, said the company supports 'the goals of legislation that would strengthen privacy protections and look forward to working with the legislature on this important issue.'
The 88 agencies listed in the Flock dataset cover municipalities across the state, and range from urban agencies like the Springfield and Lowell police departments to suburbs and small towns. In Bellingham, a Norfolk County town of 17,000 people, the police department signed a deal to have Flock install cameras in 2023, Police Chief Ken Fitzgerald said in an interview.
Fitzgerald said one perk of the system is that Flock operates the cameras and maintains the images they capture, cutting down on the administrative burden for the department.
'The nice portion of this for us, I suppose, is that government is not taking pictures or storing pictures of anyone,' he said. 'This is a private company.'
That same privatization is worrisome for civil liberties advocates, who have voiced concerns that Flock is not accountable to the Massachusetts public.
'It is dragnet warrantless surveillance that targets all motorists,' Crockford said. 'Not people suspected of criminal activity, but anyone.'
In 2020, the
Advertisement
But the Supreme Judicial Court cautioned that if a larger network of cameras existed, that could track a driver's movements in more detail, it could trigger constitutional protections against warrantless searches.
'In declining to establish a bright-line rule for when the use of ALPRs constitutes a search, we recognize this may bring some interim confusion,' Justice Frank M. Gaziano wrote in the decision. 'We trust, however, that as our cases develop, this constitutional line gradually and appropriately will come into focus.'
Five years later, that focus remains elusive, legal analysts said. The SJC has not clarified its ruling, as more sophisticated ALPR networks have reached the market, and there is no Massachusetts legal challenge poised to raise those questions.
Dan Dolan, a criminal defense lawyer and professor at New England School of Law, said the SJC's ruling was based on the narrow facts of that case, where a small set of cameras only tracked movements over the Bourne and Sagamore bridges.
'There was certainly, to me, no question they said those devices may constitute some sort of constitutional violation, depending on the amount of data being collected,' Dolan said.
