A single sentence buried in a massive federal highway bill could upend how American law enforcement tracks vehicles. The amendment, set for introduction this week, would cut off highway funding to any state or city that uses automated license plate readers for anything except collecting tolls. Its sponsors come from opposite wings of Congress. Yet they agree on one point. The technology has morphed into a vast, warrantless surveillance net.
Rep. Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican and Freedom Caucus member, joined forces with Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García, a progressive Democrat from Illinois. Their proposal targets the heart of programs run by companies like Flock Safety. These systems photograph millions of plates daily. They log times, locations and movements. Officers search the resulting databases thousands of times a day. The amendment states simply: “A recipient of assistance under Title 23, United States Code, may not use automated license plate readers for any purpose other than tolling.”
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee planned to mark up the $580 billion, five-year surface transportation reauthorization on May 22, 2026. Title 23 money supports roughly a quarter of U.S. public roads. That includes most arteries where cameras now perch on poles, overpasses and traffic lights. Cities and states that accept the cash — nearly all of them — would face a stark choice. Rip out the cameras. Or limit them strictly to toll booths. Few jurisdictions turn down federal dollars.
Privacy advocates cheered the move. They have warned for years that aggregated plate data creates a de facto tracking system. No warrants required. No judicial oversight in many cases. The Brennan Center for Justice has shown how ALPR feeds merge into larger police data-fusion platforms that blend vehicle locations with social media and other surveillance streams. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has cataloged abuses. Officers targeting mosques. Cameras placed disproportionately in poorer neighborhoods. One Texas deputy even queried a national network to follow a woman because she “had an abortion,” according to court records uncovered by the EFF and reported by 404 Media.
In Illinois, García’s home state, concerns hit close. State officials audited Flock last year and found it violated rules by sharing data with federal immigration authorities. Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias ordered the company to stop. Flock paused some federal pilots nationwide after earlier public statements proved inaccurate. The episode fueled broader distrust.
Yet police departments insist the tools deliver results. Flock spokesperson Josh Thomas pointed to a recent case in Manor, Texas, near Austin. Authorities credited the system with helping catch suspects tied to multiple shootings. “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 told WIRED.
The scale is enormous. Flock operates the largest network with tens of thousands of cameras across the country. San Jose, California, alone ran 474 cameras that captured more than 360 million photographs in 2024. Police across the state searched that data roughly 15,000 times daily in late 2025. The city now faces a class-action lawsuit from the Institute for Justice alleging Fourth Amendment violations. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan has defended the network as essential for public safety.
Federal courts have mostly avoided declaring routine ALPR queries a search under the Constitution. Drivers on public roads, judges have said, lack a reasonable expectation of privacy. But legal experts see cracks forming. A Congressional Research Service report noted courts warning that advancing technology could soon trigger stronger protections. The Perry-García amendment dodges that fight. It uses Congress’s spending power instead. Similar tactics once pushed states to raise the drinking age or adopt DUI limits.
But the proposal lands amid a patchwork of state and local responses. Many places have already moved to curb the technology. Stateline reported that conservative-led states including Arkansas, Idaho and Montana passed laws in 2025 to safeguard personal data collected by plate readers. Left-leaning states such as Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Washington blocked federal immigration agencies from accessing driver’s license records. Cities from Boulder, Colorado, to Syracuse, New York, and Austin, Texas, terminated Flock contracts over privacy fears and data-sharing risks. At least 30 localities deactivated or canceled systems since early 2025.
Washington state took a different route. It enacted Senate Bill 6002 in early 2026. The law sets strict rules on data retention, sharing and permissible uses. Police cannot stop vehicles based solely on an ALPR hit. Certain agencies face outright bans on specific applications. These measures reflect growing unease even as some officials fight to keep the cameras.
Then came fresh tension from the federal level. Just days before the amendment news broke, the FBI published a request for proposals. The bureau wants vendors to supply near real-time access to a nationwide network of license plate cameras. Coverage must reach at least 75 percent of locations. The contract, potentially worth tens of millions, would let agents search by plate, location or vehicle type and generate heat maps. The goal: track subjects and manage threats to safety and property. Ars Technica first highlighted the May 14, 2026, solicitation. It arrives as many states tighten rules on sharing such data with federal authorities. The contrast could not be sharper.
Critics argue the FBI plan would supercharge the very surveillance the amendment seeks to curb. Commercial vendors, including Flock, appear well-positioned to bid. Their platforms already feed local police. Opt-in agreements with cities could give the bureau indirect access. Privacy groups worry about errors, mission creep and chilling effects on everyday travel. And they point to past incidents where misconfigured cameras leaked live video and data.
Supporters of ALPR technology counter that restrictions ignore real benefits. The systems help recover stolen cars, locate missing persons, solve violent crimes and identify suspects faster than ever. In an age of rising urban violence and strained police resources, they say, abandoning these tools makes streets less safe. Austin police fought hard to retain Flock cameras before city leaders pulled the plug. Similar battles play out in Denver and other cities where mayors sometimes override council votes to keep the contracts alive.
The amendment’s success remains uncertain. Perry and García occupy ideological extremes. Their districts and state governments largely oppose broad bans. Law enforcement lobbies wield significant influence on Capitol Hill. Transportation committee members may view the provision as a distraction from the bill’s core infrastructure goals. Still, its emergence signals something larger. Bipartisan fatigue with unchecked surveillance has crossed traditional party lines.
Demand Progress senior policy adviser Hajar Hammado called the proposal “commonsense.” She told WIRED that Flock cameras “are easily abused and have already been banned in many municipalities across the nation for their failure to keep our data safe.” The country, she added, risks becoming a mass surveillance dystopia.
Whether the amendment survives markup or influences future policy, the debate has intensified. States continue experimenting with limits. Lawsuits test constitutional boundaries. The FBI pushes for broader access. And companies like Flock expand their footprint even as contracts get canceled elsewhere. The cameras keep snapping photos. The databases keep growing. But the political momentum to restrain them has clearly shifted. Lawmakers on both sides now question whether perpetual vehicle tracking aligns with American expectations of privacy. The coming weeks in Congress will test how far that skepticism runs.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication