WASHINGTON, June 16, 2026: Flock cameras and other License Plate Reader (LPR) cameras are in the news again as congress begins the process of limiting access to the data stored by the companies that operate them. Last December we brought to you a story about how the El Paso Police Department was using the controversial Flock cameras that other communities across the nation were canceling.
As we reported, El Paso had deployed 150 cameras since May 2025. The city paid $702,500 for the cameras with a one-year grant from the Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority (MVCPA). The MVCPA is a state agency funded through a $5 fee added to automobile insurance.
After questions arose about how the El Paso Police Department was using the cameras after our story was published, city representatives Chris Canales and Lily Limón put an agenda item on the city council agenda for the March 3rd meeting to cancel the Flock camera contract. Limón told us that one of her reasons for seeking to cancel the Flock camera was the “potential for misuse for immigration enforcement.” Among the controversies with the Flock cameras has been their use for immigration enforcement in Denver, where officials there canceled the contract when it was revealed that Flock maintained a “secret partnership” with the U.S. Border Patrol to access their data.
Canales had previously told us that he had been investigating the Flock cameras after he was alerted to them on social media and would seek to cancel them as soon as the contract expired in March.
On March 3rd, the city council voted against ending the contract six to two with Canales and Limón the sole dissenters.
Reps. Boebert and Massie Introduce Surveillance Accountability Act
Last April, two Republican House of Representatives members, Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced legislation requiring searches of the LPR camera data initiated by government officials to require probable cause warrants to be issued before the searches are started.
According to Massie, the “Bill of Rights is not a suggestion, and Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches conducted by the government are not optional.” He added that the legislation seeks to limit information accessed by officials “even if the information sought is stored on a phone, in the cloud, or held by a third party.”
Boebert said that the legislation “forces the government to obey the Fourth Amendment in the digital age,” adding that there should be “no more creepy warrantless facial recognition or tracking.”
The legislation does away with the so-called “third-party doctrine” loophole that allows law enforcement to bypass warrant requirements by purchasing personal data from data brokers. Data brokers collect vast amounts of personal data from Americans across the country, much of it is sensitive data such as social security numbers and other identifying information.
At least one data broker partner for Oracle “openly and explicitly advertises data on U.S. individuals’ interest in political organizations,” including Americans who support organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
The personal information kept by the private data brokers is sold to marketers, political candidates and others, including law enforcement with little oversight. By purchasing private data, law enforcement can use the data for criminal investigations without the need for search warrants.
The Surveillance Accountability Act seeks to end the use of private data for investigating crime without a search warrant.
In addition to ending the third-party doctrine loophole, the legislation would allow Americans to sue for violations of their rights, including those in the Fourth Amendment.
The legislation is currently before the House Committee on the Judiciary. The Ludlow Institute keeps a website about the legislation with updates as it makes its way through Congress.
Like Us and Follow Us On Our Social Media!