Keith Self Introduces Bill Requiring Warrants for Federal Access to Flock Camera Data

By R.J. Morales | TX3DNews

WASHINGTON, D.C. — If you drive through North Texas, chances are your vehicle passes automated license plate reader cameras every day. The cameras have become a common tool for law enforcement, helping recover stolen vehicles and investigate crimes. But they have also raised questions about how much information is collected and who should have access to it.

Congressman Keith Self, R-TX-03, says federal law enforcement should have to get a warrant before accessing that data.

On July 15, Self introduced the Protecting Rights in Video and Equipment Acquired Discovery (PRIVACY) Act, legislation that would require federal agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing surveillance data collected by state and local governments, including automated license plate reader systems commonly associated with Flock Safety.

The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

A bill focused on federal access

The proposal would not ban Flock cameras or prevent local police departments from using them. Instead, it focuses on when federal agencies can access information collected through those systems.

Under the bill, federal investigators would generally need a warrant before accessing or searching data collected through covered state and local surveillance technologies. It would also limit how long federal agencies could keep data obtained under a warrant to 30 days unless it becomes evidence in a criminal case or a court grants an extension.

Another provision would restrict most federal funding from being used to purchase or install covered surveillance technologies, with limited exceptions. The bill would also create what it calls a “Jurisdictional Wall List,” identifying the types of surveillance technologies covered under the law. And it would bar federal agencies from using that data to track someone solely for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Self said the legislation is intended to ensure advances in technology do not weaken constitutional protections.

“Americans’ Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their privacy does not disappear just because of new technology or artificial intelligence,” Self said in a statement. “Americans have a constitutional right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, and our government is supposed to get a warrant before invading that privacy. This bill simply restores that protection. Get a warrant.”

Self argues that federal agencies should not be able to lean on data collected by state and local governments as a way to sidestep a warrant they would otherwise need.

Why Flock cameras are part of the debate

Flock cameras are automated license plate readers that photograph passing vehicles and record license plates along with details such as the vehicle’s make, model and color. Law enforcement agencies use the technology to help investigate crimes, recover stolen vehicles and locate missing people.

According to Self’s office, 49 states have installed cameras along roadways, and the average driver’s vehicle is recorded six to eight times a day — creating large databases of vehicle movements that federal agencies can access through state and local partners.

Supporters of the technology say it has become an important investigative tool. Privacy advocates argue those same databases can reveal where people travel even when they are not suspected of committing a crime.

The debate has grown louder in recent months. As more agencies adopt the cameras, some cities and states have canceled or suspended their contracts with Flock, citing surveillance and privacy concerns — the backdrop against which Self introduced his bill.

Support from fellow lawmakers

Self introduced the bill with Reps. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., and Andrew Clyde, R-Ga.

Crane said the legislation would prevent federal agencies from using state and local surveillance systems to bypass traditional warrant requirements. Clyde said Americans’ Fourth Amendment protections should apply even as surveillance technology continues to expand, specifically referencing automated license plate reader systems such as Flock cameras.

Flock Safety also voiced support for establishing clear legal standards. The company said public safety, privacy and Fourth Amendment rights can coexist and noted that courts have generally upheld the use of automated license plate readers in public places.

What happens next

The PRIVACY Act is awaiting consideration in the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The courts may weigh in too. Legal experts are watching how recent Fourth Amendment rulings on location data could shape the future of large plate-reader networks, a question that remains unsettled as the technology spreads.

If the bill advances and is ultimately signed into law, it would change how federal law enforcement agencies access surveillance data collected by state and local governments. It would not prevent local law enforcement agencies from continuing to use automated license plate reader systems.