The Lehigh Valley is no exception to the proliferation of Flock Safety license plate reader cameras, nor the growing public opposition to such surveillance technology that some call a tool of “mass surveillance.”

There are at least 238 license plate reader cameras across the Lehigh Valley, from urban areas like Allentown and Bethlehem to suburbs like Hanover Township and rural North Whitehall Township, according to a crowd-sourced map of LPR cameras. Nationwide, over 6,000 communities use Flock Cameras to monitor the travel of anyone who passes by.

Not all cameras in the Lehigh Valley are operated by Flock; competitors like Motorola and Axon operate similar technologies. Yet Flock Safety has come under scrutiny recently amid reporting from news outlets like the Washington Post and 404 Media that has exposed misuse of the system — from security vulnerabilities to officers using the search system to stalk people, logging vague reasons for their search and sharing data with immigration enforcement.

Flock Safety License Plate Reader cameras instantly capture detailed data about license plates and vehicles, which is entered into an encrypted cloud system that is searchable to law enforcement. Agencies then use this data to investigate, find and arrest people suspected of crimes, and identify and locate missing persons. In addition to police departments, private businesses and homeowners associations can buy and use Flock Safety devices to monitor their areas.

Anti-Flock advocates have accused the company of creating a national surveillance network that could be used to monitor and suppress civil liberties.

These criticisms have led to increasing calls to restrict or even ban the technology altogether; in Pennsylvania, Gov Josh Shapiro has indicated he is open to a ban on license plate reader technology, and lawmakers have introduced bipartisan bills that would restrict or ban their use.

Still, some law enforcement leaders defend the technology, calling it a “game changer” in helping to solve crimes and identify missing persons.

Questions about transparency

Flock Safety’s cloud system requires police officers to log a reason for each search and keep records of their searches that can then be audited by police leaders or outside parties to ensure compliance with laws and policies.

But these audit logs are generally not made public, obscuring the ways in which police use this technology on a regular basis.

The Morning Call has partnered with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in a lawsuit seeking the release of Allentown’s Flock Safety license plate reader search audits. Allentown declined to release the audits because they claim the audits are confidential criminal investigative records; the news organization’s lawyers are challenging that claim, arguing that audit records of local law enforcement’s usage of a private surveillance company must be made public.

Allentown uses 67 automated license plate readers throughout the city and an unspecified number of Flock gunshot detective devices specifically in the downtown region; the city in 2024 used a $1.5 million state grant to finance the technology upgrades.

In a statement, Allentown police Chief Charles Roca said, “Flock ALPR is used for legitimate investigative and public safety purposes by trained police officers and investigators.”

“At the center of everything we do at the Allentown Police Department is our commitment to serving and protecting our residents,” Roca said. “Flock ALPR technology is an important investigative tool that has helped our officers and detectives in solving serious crimes and supporting our efforts to reduce violent crime and improve quality of life throughout the city.”

In a promotional video filmed with Flock Safety’s communications officer in 2025, Allentown Mayor Matt Tuerk said the city’s use of Flock Safety technology has helped police solve crimes more quickly and free up officers’ time to participate in community policing and other long-term outreach initiatives.

“You have to be willing to take chances on investments in technology, and then you have to really dedicate resources to it,” Tuerk said in the video. “Technology is a tool and it has to be used appropriately.”

Bethlehem operates at least 20 Flock Safety ALPRs citywide and has done so since around 2021, according to police Chief Michelle Kott.

Bethlehem has also declined to publicly release audit reports, although Kott said that the department will soon launch a public “Flock transparency portal” website, which will detail how many searches police conduct. However, these portals generally do not publish audit logs in their entirety.

In a recent public report posted to the department’s social media channels, Kott defended her department’s use of Flock against the mounting public criticisms.

“We understand that the use of technology by law enforcement can raise legitimate questions,” Kott wrote. “Unfortunately, misinformation can also create confusion and misunderstanding about what this technology does.”

In the report, Kott wrote that Flock ALPRs are “designed solely to document vehicles that pass a fixed location by recording license plate information and limited vehicle descriptors.” They do not continuously track individuals, identify drivers or passengers using facial recognition technology, record conversations or provide a live video feed of the areas they monitor, she said.

Flock Safety license plate readers have helped police investigate crimes like homicides, robberies, vehicle thefts, fatal crashes and child abductions, according to Kott.

“There’s just a lot of misinformation out there, and we are really trying to get ahead of that to explain to our community how we are utilizing this technology responsibility and within the constitution and relevant caselaw here in the country,” Kott said in an interview with The Morning Call.

Seeking accountability

Bethlehem police are required to log police report case numbers when running a license plate search; those logs are then turned into audit records that police review on a quarterly basis to ensure compliance with the city’s policies, Kott said.

To date there has not been documented misuse of the ALPR search system, Kott said. Bethlehem’s police department shares data with other police departments but does not actively share search data with federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, she said.

In Allentown, Jeremy Binder, a City Council member, began working with city administrators in March to address concerns about Flock Safety based on public feedback about the technology.

City Council is hosting an open discussion on the city’s use of Flock Safety in late September, and Binder said he hopes Council will agree to hire an outside consultant to help form a policy on how Allentown police use Flock Safety cameras responsibly.

“In researching some other cities with similar things where they used surveillance technology, they use policy and codify it underneath public oversight of surveillance technology ordinance,” Binder said. “It is a solid approach to allow residents to fully understand how surveillance is used in the city.”

Flock Safety itself has also implemented software changes and guardrails against abuse in response to the mounting criticisms.

In a series of reforms announced last month, Flock Safety announced that law enforcement customers can implement auditing tools that flag abnormal search behavior. The updates also shorten the retention window of license plate data down seven days (previously 30) in most cases, and requires officers to log a “case number” for each search, rather than just a written reason.

‘A violation of our rights’

Still, many critics of Flock say the reforms do not go far enough.

Becki Kiss, an Allentown resident and anti-Flock activist, said that such technology should not exist at all. The risks to women in particular are too high, she said, from authorities using Flock to track women who have abortions to stalking their wives and girlfriends.

“Ultimately I believe these LPRs are a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights and I do believe if you’re going to be looking something up, you have got to have a warrant,” Kiss said. “You can’t just blanketly accept, ‘I’m under surveillance, anywhere I go can be searchable, and that information is held by anybody.’”

She was particularly concerned by a report from the Washington Post, which found that over 50 police officers nationwide used Flock Safety or similar technology to stalk and surveil romantic partners and ex-partners.

Kiss said she has reached out to lawmakers to urge them to support laws banning Flock Safety technology across the state.

Even with their crime-solving capabilities, many activists believe that the privacy and security risks outweigh those benefits. Alex Miller of Bethlehem said that while he believes “thoughtful” leaders like Kott are in charge at the city’s police department, the technology is too invasive to be used responsibly by anyone.

“I’m not in favor of crimes not being solved, but … in an age of hyperscale computing the potential for weaponization just really grows, and so the risk of irresponsible use just continues to rise and there are very real possibilities at the federal level that flock moves toward national federal contracts,” Miller said.

It’s an argument that is gaining traction more and more in Pennsylvania and across the nation as bipartisan criticisms of Flock mount.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Shapiro said the governor has “real concerns” about Flock Safety license plate readers and is open to a statewide ban on the technology. The governor’s administration is working with legislators on a possible, future effort to either restrict or ban the technology all together.

Shapiro’s opponent in the gubernatorial election, Republican state Treasurer Stacy Garrity, has also called Flock technology an “intrusive invasion of privacy.”

Prominent leaders from both parties, including Vermont Democrat Sen. Bernie Sanders and Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, also have voiced privacy concerns about Flock technology.

In Harrisburg, lawmakers have introduced bills that would ban the technology entirely; require a legal warrant in order to search ALPR systems; and other guardrails like stricter penalties for police found misusing the search system. Both Democrats and Republicans have signed on to the bills. None have come up for a floor vote yet.

Reporter Lindsay Weber can be reached at Liweber@mcall.com.