Last month in Richmond, Virginia, a mother’s car was stolen with her two young sons inside—a 1-month-old infant and a 3-year-old child with autism. The incident prompted a swift response from local authorities, who used the city’s Flock Safety camera system, an automatic license plate reader (ALPR) network, to locate the vehicle within an hour. The children were safely recovered, and a suspect was apprehended.

Richmond Police Chief Rick Edwards praised the rapid intervention facilitated by the technology. The mother said she wished such cameras were more widely deployed, highlighting their role in enabling quick recovery in emergencies.

Flock Safety provides ALPR technology to police departments through subscription services, allowing for automated scanning of license plates on vehicles passing fixed surveillance cameras. While these systems have drawn criticism from various quarters for privacy concerns, many law enforcement officials emphasize their utility in solving crimes efficiently.

The technology has been in use in the United States for decades, with at least two-thirds of large police departments employing ALPRs by 2016. The cameras can identify vehicle license plates and, in more advanced systems, also capture make, model, and color data. Advocates point to numerous instances where ALPRs have helped locate suspects involved in hit-and-run incidents, shootings, and other serious crimes.

Critics argue that ALPR networks risk creating a pervasive surveillance state. U.S. Senator Rand Paul expressed concerns about mass tracking and the erosion of privacy rights. However, courts have repeatedly ruled that ALPR use generally does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Unlike technologies such as GPS trackers or cell-phone data tracking, ALPRs scan vehicles only at specific, fixed locations on public roads, where individuals have a reduced expectation of privacy.

Moreover, ALPR coverage remains limited. For instance, less than 1% of Houston’s roadways were monitored by the city’s roughly 4,000 ALPR cameras in mid-2024, restricting the scope of data collection.

Still, the potential for misuse of ALPR systems exists. Reports have emerged of some police officers using the technology for personal reasons, such as tracking acquaintances. To address such risks, experts advocate for stronger regulatory measures rather than outright bans. Suggested policies include mandatory logging of database access, requiring supervisors’ approval for certain queries, limiting data retention to 30 days, restricting use to investigations of serious crimes, and imposing criminal penalties for misuse.

Supporters argue that well-regulated ALPR use strikes a balance between protecting privacy and enhancing public safety. The Richmond case underscores the technology’s ability to assist in urgent situations, illustrating the practical benefits of maintaining and responsibly managing such surveillance tools.