Flock Cameras Spread Across America as Lawmakers Weigh Tighter Limits on License Plate Readers

Flock Cameras Spread Across America as Lawmakers Weigh Tighter Limits

Automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, are high-speed camera systems that automatically photograph every license plate that passes them. Networked together and paired with specialized software, they can reconstruct where a vehicle has been over days or weeks. The technology now sits at the center of a growing debate over policing, privacy and oversight. Congress has started to take notice.

How License Plate Readers Grew Into a Policing Staple

The United Kingdom gave rise to the technology in the mid-1970s, when investigators used it to aid terrorism cases. Public safety agencies across the United States now use it widely. Flock Safety, founded in 2017, has become the leading ALPR vendor in that market.

The company estimates that its cameras helped with more than 1 million law enforcement investigations in 2025. That figure shows how deeply the systems have worked their way into everyday police work. It also explains why critics now scrutinize the company so closely.

This analysis uses the phrase “Flock cameras” to mean the company’s license plate reader technology specifically. It treats “law enforcement agency” and “public safety agency” as interchangeable terms. The figures below draw on data from Flock and other sources.

Where Flock Cameras Cluster Most Densely

The data shows a sharp divide between states, both in total cameras and in cameras per 100,000 residents. Georgia leads the per-capita ranking by a wide margin, with 80 cameras per 100,000 people. Its 8,944 cameras serve a population of roughly 11.2 million.

Ohio ranks second at 51 per 100,000, with 6,024 cameras. Texas follows at 49, Indiana at 48 and Alabama at 47. Kansas and Tennessee both register 43, while Illinois posts 42 and Missouri 40.

Raw totals tell a different story from density. California has 15,450 cameras, the most of any state in the portion of the table available, and Texas trails closely with 15,318. Yet California’s rate sits at just 39 per 100,000 residents because its population is far larger. Florida reports 7,520 cameras, which works out to 32 per 100,000.

Smaller States and Lower-Density Markets

Several states land in the middle of the pack. Colorado logs 36 per 100,000 with 2,124 cameras, and Kentucky and South Carolina each record 35. Louisiana follows at 34, while New Mexico and Mississippi each show 33.

Small states can still show meaningful density. Delaware has only 327 cameras, yet that translates to 31 per 100,000 residents. Rhode Island has 294 cameras and a rate of 26.

At the lower end of the available data, Washington and Iowa each register 25 cameras per 100,000 people. Georgia’s rate therefore runs more than three times higher than theirs. Density, in other words, depends heavily on local and state decisions rather than on population alone.

Abuses Prompt Calls for Regulation

The rapid expansion has not come without problems. Investigators have examined multiple cases of stalking and misconduct by law enforcement involving the company’s technology. Those cases show how a tool built to track vehicles can cut both ways when someone misuses access to it.

As a result, some lawmakers in Congress have proposed bills to regulate ALPRs more tightly. Others have floated the idea of banning the systems outright. The proposals reflect a growing view on Capitol Hill that the technology has outpaced the rules governing it.

The debate pits two claims against each other. Supporters point to the 1 million investigations that Flock says its cameras helped with in 2025. Critics point to the stalking and misconduct probes and to the ability of networked cameras to map a driver’s movements over weeks.

What the Numbers Mean for the Debate

The state-by-state figures give lawmakers and residents a clearer picture of how far the cameras have spread. Heavily covered states such as Georgia, Ohio and Texas may feel the effects of any federal restriction most directly. Lighter-coverage states could face different choices about whether to expand or limit their networks.

Any new rules will have to balance investigative value against privacy risk. The technology’s core capability, photographing every plate and stitching the results together, will remain the same whichever side prevails. For now, the cameras keep multiplying while Congress weighs its next move.