New Report: The Backlash to Flock Cameras Is Overhyped

Evidence suggests license plate readers fight crime; smart reforms are better than bans. 

NEW YORK, NY– Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are a popular policing technology that uses cameras and integrated software to identify cars by their license plates (and, in some cases, other identifying characteristics). The leading ALPR provider, Flock Safety, has become the subject of sustained online and offline furor in recent months, prompting calls to ban or physically destroy them. A new Manhattan Institute report by fellows Charles Fain Lehman and Rafael Mangual explains why such proposals are mistaken. In accompanying model legislation, they advise policymakers to mitigate abuse of ALPRs through sensible regulation instead of outright bans. 

Their recommendations for how to properly regulate ALPRs include: 

• Logging all database access with individual user IDs and detailed case codes;
• Supervisory approval for non-emergency or off-duty searches; 
• A 30-day cap for data retention unless there is an active investigation;
• Quarterly audits whose results are reported publicly;
• Criminal penalties and exclusion of future police employment for those who abuse ALPRs;
• Restricting investigative use of ALPRs to major crimes like violent felonies, thefts, abductions, burglaries, arsons, gun crimes, drug crimes, and hit-and-runs. Exclude ALPRs use in investigation of traffic and parking enforcement;
• Banning the placement of ALPRs within 100 feet of polling places, medical facilities or places of worship without explicit consent from the owner. 

ALPRs themselves are not new; police departments across the country have been using them for decades for good reason. While the research is still developing, the best available evidence supports the proposition that ALPRs help reduce crime. A University of South Carolina study found there was an 11% reduction in motor vehicle theft and a 16% increase in vehicle theft clearance rates in areas that adopted ALPR technology. And there is a strong argument that their use does not contravene the Fourth Amendment as the courts today understand it. State and federal appellate courts are thus far unanimous in rejecting Fourth Amendment challenges to ALPR camera uses. The technology itself has a very small physical footprint with Flock cameras unable to even cover a single percent of roadways in the heavily monitored city of Houston. 

For these reasons, Lehman and Mangual posit that even legitimate concerns about privacy and misuse can be properly handled by targeted regulation efforts rather than bans.  

Read the full report here.