License Plate Surveillance: A Bipartisan Crackdown on Mass Tracking

The United States has long prided itself on its commitment to civil liberties and individual freedom. Yet, under the guise of public safety and security, a pervasive network of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) has been spreading across the country, transforming America’s roads into a vast surveillance state.

Representatives Scott Perry (R-PA) and Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL) are pushing an amendment to curb this trend. The proposed legislation would prohibit any recipient of federal highway funding from using ALPRs for purposes beyond tolling. This has significant implications, as Title 23 funds roughly a quarter of all public road mileage in the US, making it nearly impossible for states and municipalities to opt-out of the ALPR program without sacrificing essential infrastructure investments.

The bipartisan support for this amendment is telling. Representative Perry’s involvement suggests that even some conservative lawmakers are beginning to recognize the surveillance concerns surrounding ALPRs. Representative García’s participation speaks volumes about the growing awareness among progressive circles of the potential for mass tracking through this technology.

Advocacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Demand Progress have extensively documented police misuse of ALPRs, including instances where individuals were targeted based on their license plate data. A particularly egregious example is from Texas, where a sheriff’s deputy used Flock’s nationwide network to track a woman who had undergone an abortion.

The Perry-García amendment sidesteps the constitutional issue at play – whether ALPR queries constitute a Fourth Amendment search. By limiting the use of these devices to tolling alone, Congress would be imposing a de facto ban on ALPRs nationwide through its spending power.

This move has significant implications for state and local governments, which currently rely heavily on federal funding to maintain their infrastructure. While some may argue that states can simply decline the money, historical precedent suggests otherwise – almost none have opted-out in the past.

The Perry-García amendment represents a crucial step towards reining in mass tracking technologies like ALPRs as the country grapples with its own unique set of surveillance concerns. If adopted, it would mark a significant shift in the balance between individual freedom and government oversight.

The Surveillance State on America’s Roads

ALPRs have become an increasingly ubiquitous feature of American road infrastructure. Mounted on poles, overpasses, traffic signals, and even police cruisers, these cameras photograph every passing license plate, logging times and locations, and feeding data into searchable databases shared across agencies and jurisdictions. This system has been decried by privacy advocates as a “de facto warrantless tracking system,” with the potential for widespread misuse.

The Institute for Justice’s class action lawsuit against the city of San Jose, California – alleging that its 474-camera network violates the Fourth Amendment rights of residents – serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of unchecked surveillance. The city’s database captured over 360 million photographs in 2024 and was searched an astonishing 15,000 times a day by police across California.

A Bipartisan Solution

The Perry-García amendment is notable not only for its bipartisan backing but also for its pragmatic approach to addressing the issue at hand. By leveraging Congress’s spending power, lawmakers can effectively impose a nationwide ban on ALPRs without engaging in contentious constitutional debates. This move has significant implications for state and local governments, which must now weigh their commitment to surveillance-free roads against the lure of federal funding.

As this amendment makes its way through Congress, one thing is clear: if adopted, it would mark a significant turning point in the national conversation around mass tracking technologies like ALPRs. Whether this proposal ultimately succeeds remains to be seen, but for those concerned about individual freedom and civil liberties, the Perry-García amendment represents a crucial step towards reclaiming America’s roads from the shadows of surveillance.

The fate of the Perry-García amendment will undoubtedly be shaped by various factors, including public outcry, opposition from special interest groups, and the stance taken by key lawmakers. If Congress fails to act on this proposal, it would send a chilling message about its commitment to protecting Americans’ right to privacy.