A single sentence buried in a sprawling federal highway bill offered one of the most direct challenges yet to the spread of automated license plate readers across American streets. The amendment would have barred any state or local government accepting Title 23 highway funds from using the devices for anything except collecting tolls. Its quiet defeat last week in a House committee reveals much about the entrenched interests, privacy fears and law enforcement priorities now colliding over this surveillance technology.
Rep. Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican and Freedom Caucus member, joined Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García, a progressive Democrat from Illinois, to propose the measure. They submitted it as Amendment 221 to the $580 billion BUILD America 250 Act during a marathon markup by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The vote came on May 21, 2026. It failed 20 yeas to 44 nays. Committee Chairman Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, and Ranking Member Rick Larsen, a Washington Democrat, both opposed it. No substantive debate occurred even though the session stretched past 14 hours.
The language was blunt. “A recipient of assistance under Title 23, United States Code, may not use automated license plate readers for any purpose other than tolling.” Because nearly every government entity takes this federal road money, the change would have forced agencies nationwide to scrap their systems or risk losing hundreds of millions or even billions in annual funding. States rarely walk away from such dollars. The mechanism mirrored past uses of spending power to set national standards on drinking age or drunk driving.
News of the amendment first surfaced in a WIRED report published May 20, 2026. The story detailed how the proposal, if passed, would have brought an immediate end to most state and local ALPR programs. It highlighted Flock Safety, the Atlanta company whose network has grown into the largest in the country. Flock powers systems for more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies and logs roughly 20 billion plate reads each month. Its cameras sit on poles, overpasses and police cruisers. They capture not only plates but timestamps, locations and often vehicle context.
Privacy advocates celebrated the amendment’s appearance. More than 40 civil society groups, including the Electronic Privacy Information Center, sent a letter urging support. “As the FBI prepares to spend $36 million on a nationwide license plate reader system capable of tracking any vehicle in ‘near real time,’ it is more critical than ever that Congress shields Americans from being subjected to warrantless, suspicionless tracking of their everyday lives,” the coalition wrote, according to the EPIC summary of the effort. They pointed to documented abuses. A Texas deputy once queried Flock’s then-83,000-camera network to locate a woman who had obtained an abortion. Officers in Kansas used the data to stalk an estranged spouse. In New Mexico, erroneous alerts led police to hold three people, including two minors, at gunpoint.
Illinois, home to García, has become a particular flashpoint. State auditors found Flock violated local law by sharing data with federal immigration authorities. Several Chicago suburbs canceled contracts. Evanston and Oak Park walked away. Mount Prospect drew national attention after its data played a role in an abortion-related congressional inquiry. García co-sponsored the amendment yet offered no public comments or push during the markup. His office later told IPVM that no one from Flock or its lobbyists had contacted them about the measure. The response was simply “no.”
Yet Flock’s influence appears to have grown. The company has more than tenfolded its federal lobbying spending in recent years. It retains high-powered firms including BGR Government Affairs and Mercury Public Affairs. One of its registered lobbyists, Don Andres, once served as deputy chief of staff and legislative director to García. IPVM’s investigation, published May 28, 2026, could not confirm direct intervention but noted the connection raises questions. Flock declined comment on the lobbying ties. Andres did not respond to inquiries.
The company’s public stance was clear. Before the vote, Flock Chief Communications Officer Josh Thomas told WIRED the amendment deserved careful review. “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.” Supporters of the technology point to real successes. ALPR data has helped recover stolen vehicles, identify suspects in shootings and locate missing persons. The Trump administration has backed warrantless use. The Justice Department filed a statement of interest defending the practice, noting reliance by 137,000 federal officers. Federal agents have also deployed the systems for immigration enforcement.
Courts remain divided on the constitutional questions. No federal appellate court has issued a definitive ruling on whether querying historical ALPR databases counts as a Fourth Amendment search. Several trial courts have upheld access, citing the plain view doctrine. License plates are visible on public roads. Drivers have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements from one place to another, some judges have written. Others warn that amassing billions of records creates something closer to the cell-site location data the Supreme Court limited in Carpenter v. United States. A Congressional Research Service report from July 2025 noted the patchwork of state rules and called on lawmakers to consider stronger oversight or grant conditions. That analysis observed that Congress holds institutional advantages in setting privacy rules for new technologies.
The amendment’s failure leaves the status quo intact. Flock and competitors continue expanding. Cities install fixed cameras that feed private databases accessible to hundreds of agencies. Retention policies vary. Some delete non-hits after days. Others keep data longer. Lawsuits pile up. Class actions seek billions from Flock over alleged privacy violations. Civil liberties groups file suits against municipalities. At the same time, state legislatures have moved faster than Washington. At least 16 states considered ALPR bills in 2025. Several enacted retention limits or sharing restrictions. The federal setback may only shift the battleground.
Backers of tighter rules see the Perry-García effort as a sign of growing momentum. An unusual alliance of libertarian conservatives and progressive Democrats formed around concerns that constant vehicle tracking chills free movement and enables abuse. Critics counter that restrictions would blind police to patterns that solve crimes. The markup record shows the amendment died without a fight. No one rose to defend it. No one explained its defeat. That silence itself carries weight.
IPVM’s reporting added crucial details on the lobbying backdrop and the scale of potential disruption. The company’s analysis concluded that the amendment’s mere appearance signals rising opposition even if the vote went against reform. Future Congresses will face the same pressures. New misuse cases, fresh lawsuits or state-level bans will feed the next attempt. The technology is not going away. Neither, it seems, is the debate over how much Americans should tolerate being watched every time they drive.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication