Automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) have become one of the fastest-growing—yet most controversial—technologies in modern policing. In cities across Texas, including Amarillo, local governments and private entities have turned to these systems as tools for investigating crimes, locating stolen vehicles, and assisting in missing-person searches. But with the rapid expansion has come an equally rapid rise in concerns: privacy, cybersecurity, and now, licensing compliance.
Those concerns reached a new level after it was revealed that Flock Safety, Inc., one of the nation’s largest ALPR providers, had been operating in Texas under an expired state license. The discovery comes at a moment when lawmakers, civil liberties groups, and even some law enforcement officials are questioning whether the benefits of ALPRs still outweigh the risks.
A Company Under Scrutiny
Flock’s devices are now familiar sights: sleek, pole-mounted cameras pointed at major intersections, neighborhood entrances, or business parking lots. They automatically capture the license plate number, time, and location of each passing vehicle. Police then compare the captured data to databases related to stolen vehicles, wanted suspects, or Amber Alerts. The technology works—officers have used these systems to solve serious crimes.
But the cameras do much more than read plates. Flock’s high-resolution images can log additional identifying details, including vehicle color, make, and even bumper stickers. And its cloud-based system links data from jurisdictions across the country in real time, creating a nationwide network that maps vehicle movement.
In 2024, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) began receiving complaints that Flock had been installing and operating ALPRs on private property without a valid license, as required under state law for private security operations. The agency issued a cease-and-desist order in September of that year. Despite documented violations, the company was later granted a license—but that license expired on September 30, 2025.
According to Flock Director of Communications Holly Beilin, the lapse was not intentional. “This situation is due to an administrative error that we are currently working to resolve with the licensing board,” she said in an email.
Still, an expired license raises new concerns. Evidence collected by ALPRs installed by private companies—such as homeowners’ associations and businesses—could now be in legal limbo. Under Texas law, data collected by a private security company operating without a license may not be admissible in court. State Rep. Briscoe Cain, an attorney, has argued that information gathered while a company is unlicensed is not valid evidence.
How Amarillo Uses Flock
The City of Amarillo and the Amarillo Police Department rely heavily on Flock’s technology. The city has contracted with Flock to manage its LPR system. Roughly 80 ALPR devices are currently deployed at public intersections, such as 34th and Bell or I-40 and Coulter, with more on the way.
The cameras provide several clear law enforcement functions:
Automatic capture: Every passing license plate is logged.
Database integration: Captured plates are cross-referenced with state and national law enforcement databases.
Alerts: Officers receive instant notifications about stolen vehicles, wanted individuals, or missing-person cases.
Investigations: Detectives use the system to track suspects, establish timelines, and locate witnesses.
City officials maintain that the system is not intended to create a live surveillance dragnet. Data is purged within 30 to 90 days, unless needed for an active investigation, and officers must obtain authorization before searching the database. Access is managed by the Amarillo Regional Crime Center.
Amarillo is not alone. The City of Canyon, Potter County. and Randall County all have ALPR networks associated with Flock. Cities across the state—from Dallas to El Paso—continue to expand their systems.
But not everyone is expanding.
Texas Cities Are Pulling Back
Earlier this year, both the City of Austin and Hays County terminated their contracts with Flock over escalating concerns about privacy and data use. They joined a growing list of local governments nationwide that have severed ties with the company.
Why? Part of the unease comes from how ALPR data is stored, shared, and protected. While Flock says it keeps data for only 30 days, there are no federal or Texas regulations requiring that limit. Lawmakers and industry watchdogs argue that data retention policies shouldn’t rely solely on a company’s goodwill.
David Dunmoyer of the Texas Public Policy Foundation says that as ALPR technology grows more powerful, policymakers must grapple with how much privacy Texans are willing to sacrifice. “The biggest issue from the TPPF perspective is making sure that when the ‘move fast and break things’ realm of technology conflicts with our civil liberties and privacy there is an honest discussion about what we Texans are willing to trade off privacy-wise in return for enhanced security.”
Dunmoyer also warns that the cybersecurity protections around ALPR systems are alarmingly weak. “There’s no multi-factor authentication (MFA) for users or ‘cyber-hygiene’ requirements for these agencies contracting with Flock, which is just surreal,” he said. “Some of the most highly sensitive information possible doesn’t have any authentication.”
Concerns About Cybersecurity and Data Abuse
Cybersecurity holes aren’t theoretical. Last month, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden and U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Flock for alleged “negligent cybersecurity practices,” citing examples of ALPR data stolen by hackers.
They warned: “Flock’s failure to natively support and require phishing-resistant MFA means that if hackers or foreign spies steal, phish, or otherwise learn a law enforcement officer’s Flock password, they can gain access to law-enforcement-only areas of Flock’s website and search the billions of photos of Americans’ license plates collected by taxpayer-funded cameras across the country… This threat is not theoretical.”
Concerns aren’t limited to hacking. Human misuse of the system has been documented across the country.
The Houston Chronicle reported that officers frequently accessed the Flock database without citing legitimate investigative purposes—recording reasons such as “random,” “stolen elephant,” or “donut.” In Kansas City, the police chief resigned after using Flock’s system more than 200 times to track his ex-girlfriend and her new partner.
These examples fuel the argument that even if ALPRs help solve crimes, they remain vulnerable to abuse.
Who Owns the Data? Who Can See It?
Another unresolved question is data ownership. DJ Seeger of the DPS Private Security Advisory Committee said that Flock often installs its own equipment instead of selling it outright, then charges users for access to the collected data. That raises questions about who, ultimately, controls the information.
Seeger put it bluntly: “So, who owns the data? My big concern with Flock really is the privacy and how do we know if Flock is selling information to the highest bidder. China or Russia or Al Qaeda?”
There are differing interpretations of whether ALPR data should be available to the public. In Texas, the Attorney General ruled last year that Flock data is exempt from open records requests. But in Washington state, a judge ruled that ALPR information collected by taxpayer-funded cameras is public—posing the possibility that other courts may follow.
Meanwhile, ALPR use is being challenged in federal court in Virginia on grounds that mass data collection may violate Fourth Amendment protections.
The Road Ahead
As of publication, Flock’s Texas license renewal remains pending, and DPS officials have said there is an active criminal investigation into the company. Whatever the outcome, the debate over ALPRs is clearly moving from city councils and privacy advocates to the courts, Congress, and state legislatures.
Technology will continue to advance. Flock itself is developing tools that go beyond tracking vehicles to identifying individual people. At the same time, public trust in law enforcement technology hinges not just on effectiveness, but on transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties.
ALPRs undeniably help police fight crime. But as the Texas Public Policy Foundation warns, Texans must decide what level of surveillance they are willing to accept—and what safeguards they expect in return.
%20(1)%20(1)%20(1).png)
