US lawmakers plan to introduce an amendment Thursday at a House committee markup hearing that would prohibit any recipient of federal highway funding from using automated license plate readers for any purpose other than tolling—a sweeping restriction that, if adopted, would bring an immediate end to state and local ALPR programs across the United States.
The amendment, obtained first by WIRED, is sponsored by Representative Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican and Freedom Caucus member, and Representative Jesús “Chuy” García, an Illinois progressive whose state has become a flash point in the national fight over ALPR misuse.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will mark up the underlying bill—a $580 billion, five-year reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs—at 10 am ET on Thursday.
Neither Perry nor García's offices immediately responded to WIRED's request for comment.
The amendment runs a single sentence: “A recipient of assistance under Title 23, United States Code, may not use automated license plate readers for any purpose other than tolling.”
The amendment is brief, but its reach would be vast. Title 23 funds roughly a quarter of all public road mileage in the US, including most state and county arteries and many city streets where ALPR cameras are becoming ubiquitous. Conditioning that funding on a ban of the technology would, in practical effect, force any state, county, or municipality that takes federal highway money (essentially all of them) to either remove the cameras or restructure their use around tolling alone.
The amendment’s cosponsors, Perry and García, represent opposite ends of the House’s ideological spectrum but converge on a surveillance concern that has gathered momentum in legislatures and city halls across the US as ALPR networks have quietly become a pervasive layer of American road infrastructure.
ALPR cameras—mounted on poles, overpasses, traffic signals, and police cruisers—photograph every passing license plate, log times and locations, and feed data into searchable databases shared across agencies and jurisdictions.
In Illinois, where García's district sits, Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias announced last August that an audit by his office had found Flock Group—the Atlanta-based company that operates the country's largest ALPR network—in violation of state law for giving US Customs and Border Protection access to Illinois ALPR data. Giannoulias ordered the company to cut off federal access.
Flock said at the time that it would pause federal pilots nationwide, arrangements the company had previously denied existed in what Flock CEO and founder Garrett Langley said were public statements that “inadvertently provided inaccurate information.”
In response to WIRED's request for comment, Flock spokesperson Josh Thomas points to recent coverage of police advocates in Austin, Texas, championing ALPRs after law enforcement in Manor, a nearby suburb, said they used the technology to help apprehend one of three suspects they claim are connected to a dozen shootings and other recent crimes.
Austin city manager TC Broadnax effectively ended the city's use of Flock cameras last year amid public outcry over privacy concerns and against the wishes of the Austin Police Department.
“We hope the Committee members review this amendment carefully before heading down a similar path that would leave our first responders without the tools they need to keep residents safe,” Thomas says.
Privacy advocates have long warned that the aggregation of license plate data amounts to a de facto warrantless tracking system. New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice has documented the integration of ALPR feeds into police data-fusion systems that combine plate data with surveillance and social media monitoring. And the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights nonprofit, has documented a range of police misuse, including the past targeting of mosques and the disproportionate deployment of the technology in low-income neighborhoods.
Court records obtained by the EFF and reported by 404 Media last year revealed that a Texas sheriff’s deputy has queried Flock’s nationwide network—roughly 88,000 cameras at the time—to track a woman because, he wrote, she “had an abortion.”
“Flock cameras are easily abused and have already been banned in many municipalities across the nation for their failure to keep our data safe,” says Hajar Hammado, senior policy adviser at Demand Progress, who believes the Perry-García amendment is “commonsense” and says that the country has become a “mass surveillance dystopia”
In April, the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, filed a class action lawsuit against the city of San Jose, California, and its police department, alleging the city’s 474-camera network violates the Fourth Amendment rights of its residents. The database, which captured more than 360 million photographs in 2024, was searched roughly 15,000 times a day by police across California in the second half of 2025, the complaint says. The city has appeared in the case through the San Jose City Attorney’s Office but has yet to file a substantive response.
San Jose mayor Matt Mahan, who is named as a defendant in a separate state-court ALPR challenge filed in November by the EFF and American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, has been a vocal proponent of the city’s camera network.
Federal courts have been hesitant so far to rule that ALPR queries categorically constitute a Fourth Amendment search, with some ruling that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy on the road. A Congressional Research Service brief earlier this year noted, however, that “state and federal courts have cautioned that the technology could run afoul of the Fourth Amendment moving forward,” with one court even suggesting that, due to rapid advancements in the technology, “that day might well be on the horizon.”
The Perry-García amendment would effectively side-step the constitutional issue altogether by creating a spending-power restriction—as Congress has done in the past with the drinking age and DUI standards.
States reserve the right to simply decline the money. Historically, almost none ever do.
Updated 10:15 pm ET, May 20, 2026: Added comment from a Flock spokesperson.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。