More License Plate Reader Mission Creep: School Residency Verification, Background Checks, and Noise Complaints | Electronic Frontier Foundation
Skip to main content
AboutContact
Press
People
Opportunities
EFF's 35th Anniversary
IssuesFree Speech
Privacy
Creativity and Innovation
Transparency
International
Security
Our WorkDeeplinks Blog
Press Releases
Events
Legal Cases
Whitepapers
Podcast
Annual Reports
Take ActionAction Center
Electronic Frontier Alliance
Volunteer
ToolsPrivacy Badger
Surveillance Self-Defense
Certbot
Atlas of Surveillance
Cover Your Tracks
Street Level Surveillance
apkeep
DonateDonate to EFF
Giving Societies
Shop
Sponsorships
Other Ways to Give
Membership FAQ
DonateDonate to EFF
Shop
Other Ways to Give
Email updates on news, actions,
and events in your area.
Join EFF Lists
Copyright (CC BY)
Trademark
Privacy Policy
Thanks
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Donate
If you use technology, this fight is yours.Donate today
Electronic Frontier Foundation
AboutContact
Press
People
Opportunities
EFF's 35th Anniversary
IssuesFree Speech
Privacy
Creativity and Innovation
Transparency
International
Security
Our WorkDeeplinks Blog
Press Releases
Events
Legal Cases
Whitepapers
Podcast
Annual Reports
Take ActionAction Center
Electronic Frontier Alliance
Volunteer
ToolsPrivacy Badger
Surveillance Self-Defense
Certbot
Atlas of Surveillance
Cover Your Tracks
Street Level Surveillance
apkeep
DonateDonate to EFF
Giving Societies
Shop
Sponsorships
Other Ways to Give
Membership FAQ
DonateDonate to EFF
Shop
Other Ways to Give
More License Plate Reader Mission Creep: School Residency Verification, Background Checks, and Noise Complaints
DEEPLINKS BLOG
By Dave Maass and Rindala AlajajiMay 26, 2026
More License Plate Reader Mission Creep: School Residency Verification, Background Checks, and Noise Complaints
Share It
Share on Mastodon
Share on Bluesky
Share on Facebook
Copy link
An EFF analysis of millions of searches of Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) data by police has uncovered a troubling pattern: in the absence of a warrant requirement to search ALPR databases, law enforcement agencies have moved beyond specific investigations to use these surveillance networks for virtually any whim.
Our findings suggest that the absence of a warrant requirement has fostered a culture of unrestricted access to sensitive location data, allowing agencies to leverage that data beyond the scope of specific criminal investigations.
As a refresher: Law enforcement agencies lease or purchase camera systems from Flock Safety and then mount them by the side of the road and at intersections to document every vehicle that passes, including the plate, make, model, color and distinguishing characteristics, along with the date, time and location of where it was seen.
Law enforcement's talking points—often scripted by the company itself—trumpet their role in solving high-stakes crimes. But the data reveals a different story. What they're not saying is that ALPRs are also frequently used for extremely low-level investigations, such as verifying whether a student lives within a particular school zone. In some cases, police have even used this tech to conduct employment background checks and investigations into loud music complaints. Recently, a motorcyclist was even targeted for simply holding a cell phone while riding.
The reach of this ALPR surveillance is amplified by the nature of the indiscriminate sharing these technologies encourage. Most agencies choose to share broadly, often as part of a nationwide pool, making it common for a single city's system to be searched hundreds of thousands of times each month. By analyzing these "network audit logs," privacy advocates and journalists have uncovered evidence of the technology being used to surveil protesters, abortion-seekers, immigrants, and even ethnic Roma populations.
While these high-profile abuses are shocking, the more mundane uses are also problematic, signaling a massive, unchecked mission creep that has turned an alleged “crime-fighting” tool into a universal tracker of everyone’s movements.
Residency Checks
School systems in the U.S. conduct "residency verification" investigations of their parents or guardians to ensure enrolled children live in the district. To carry out these checks, some school districts have enlisted law enforcement officers for help, leveraging ALPR databases to track the comings and goings of families across the region.
Buford City Schools in Georgia, which serves only about 6,000 students, illustrates the scale of this prying. Between January 2025 and March 2026, school police ran more than 375 searches where officers listed school residency verification, or simply "RV," as the reason for the search. That accounts for more than half of all ALPR searches in that period, and in those three months of 2026, three-quarters of all searches were related to residency verification.
School officials stand by the searches. "[B]ecause Buford City Schools is a highly sought-after district, we experience ongoing challenges with residency fraud," a spokesperson told Appen Media, which shared the email with EFF. "Flock Safety is one of the tools we use to verify residency and protect the integrity of the Buford City School System for families who live within the district."
A search of ALPR data will show a lot more than whether a family lives within the right zone. In these Buford cases, officers ran some searches across more than 5,800 different networks nationwide. Every time a plate is searched, it can reveal personal information about a family: when they go to the doctor, when they go to worship, when they go out at night, and where they travel on vacation. None of that is the school district's business, and these searches are a huge invasion of privacy.
While Buford was by the far the most prolific, it wasn't the only agency to run school residency checks. For example, Delhi Township Police Department (DTPD) in Ohio ran 35 searches related to students in five schools in a three-month period during spring 2025, and similarly stood by the practice, citing a warning given to parents that submitting a false statement of residency may be a felony.
After EFF sent an inquiry to DTPD, the agency conducted a brief investigation and found that "these searches were not done to verify residency upon submission, but to investigate cases where it was believed the form was filled out with false information." DTPD did not say what kind of evidence was required to establish suspicion before an ALPR query, nor did it offer information on how many of these investigations turned out to be justified.
However, the official told EFF: "in response to your inquiry, the department will be implementing a change to how these queries are documented in the Flock system and internally, to increase accountability and help avoid any confusion moving forward."
Other agencies that ran school residency searches include Cortland Police Department in Ohio and Lincoln Police Department in Alabama. Several agencies also ran searches with "residency," "residency investigation" or "residency verification" as the reason, but that could refer to a number of public services. These agencies include Ridgeland Police Department in Mississippi, Fairfield County Sheriff's Office in South Carolina, Manteno Police Department in Illinois, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and Mora County Sheriff's Office in New Mexico.
Background Checks
Few people would imagine that applying for a government job would open you up to an ALPR search. Yet, several law enforcement agencies ran searches through the Flock network related to employment.
For example:
Jefferson County Sheriff's Office in Missouri ran six searches across 2,853 networks, documenting "employment" in the reason field.
Little Elm Police Department in Texas ran 10 searches across 6,306 networks, documenting "EMPLOYMENT" in the reason field.
Ridgeland Police Department in Mississippi ran two searches across more than 6,000 networks documenting "employment background inv" in the reason field.
Texas City Police Department, Texas ran three searches across 728 networks, documenting "pre employment background" in the reason field.
Zion Police Department in Illinois ran a research across 585 networks documenting "Employee Background" in the reason field.
Davidson Police Department in North Carolina logged a search listed as "Employment Background," but in response to an inquiry from EFF, the chief described this as "poor choice of words by our investigator." He further stated that the agency does not use ALPRs as part of employment background checks, but in this case, the agency shared that a potential violation of a protective order came to light during a background check, hence the reference to it in the search log.
In addition to the agencies mentioned, several agencies ran searches that simply referred to "background check" or "background checks," which could be related to employment or perhaps some other issue, such as a concealed weapons permit, for example. These include Avon Police Department in Indiana, Rockford Police Department in Illinois, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office in California, and Seaford Police Department in Delaware.
Noise Complaints
Many people have probably been irritated at some point or another by a car blasting a deep bassline or even the infamous "whistle tip." Some may have even called the cops to complain about a neighbor’s house party. But that's a far cry from the types of serious crimes that Flock and its customers have claimed that the ALPR systems would be used to solve.
Yet, EFF identified 26 agencies where officers felt it was appropriate to pry into a driver's life because of a noise complaint, ranging from house parties to loud exhausts to just "music":
Some of these agencies searched upwards of 6,500 networks’ cameras—the equivalent of launching a nationwide goose chase over a booming subwoofer or a busted muffler.
When Mission Creep Is Just Plain Creepy
An observant reader of this report may have noticed that Ridgeland Police Department in Mississippi ran searches in all three of the categories we reported above.
However, after the city first installed the Flock Safety cameras, the then-police chief told the press that the technology helps solve cases that range from "theft to crimes of violence"—without disclosing that the range would extend much further.
When police and salespeople trot out cherry-picked cases to argue that a mass surveillance technology is an "important" tool, they obfuscate that it's a convenient shortcut around due process. For serious crimes, police can already go through the standard legal process: making the case to a judge on why they should get a search warrant for location data, whether it's from cell phones or service providers. But police treat ALPR databases as if no such threshold exists, giving them free rein to track a person’s movements without a sliver of judicial oversight.
When police and salespeople trot out cherry-picked cases to argue that a mass surveillance technology is an "important" tool, they obfuscate that it's a convenient shortcut around due process.
"This is the same as if I put a police officer on the side of the road with a pen and a notepad and he writes down every license plate number that drives by,” the former chief said, repeating a commonly circulated talking point.
That rhetoric may sound reasonable if we were just talking about a single camera on a street corner, but Ridgeland now operates more than 50 cameras—the equivalent of one for every 500 residents—and maintains access to tens of thousands more.
If the chief had stood in front of the city’s aldermen and asked for permission to search more than 20,000 cameras so his officers could investigate the high crime of "music," it’s quite unlikely that they would have been nodding their heads along.
Ridgeland Police Department did not respond to EFF’s requests for comment.
Related Issues
Street-Level SurveillanceStudent Privacy
Share It
Share on Mastodon
Share on Bluesky
Share on Facebook
Copy link
Related Updates
Press Release
| February 10, 2026
Coalition Urges California to Revoke Permits for Federal License Plate Reader Surveillance
SAN FRANCISCO – California must revoke permits allowing federal agencies such as Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to put automated license plate readers along border highways, a coalition led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Imperial Valley Equity &...
Deeplinks Blog
by Melissa Srago
| February 9, 2026
EFFecting Change: Get the Flock Out of Our City
Flock contracts have quietly spread to cities across the country. But Flock ALPR (Automated License Plate Readers) erode civil liberties from the moment they're installed. While officials claim these cameras keep neighborhoods safe, the evidence tells a different story. The data reveals how Flock has enabled surveillance of people seeking...
Deeplinks Blog
by Cooper Quintin
| January 7, 2026
ICE Is Going on a Surveillance Shopping Spree
We need to have a hard look at the surveillance industry. It is a key enabler of vast and untold violations of human rights and civil liberties, and it continues to be used by aspiring autocrats to threaten our very democracy. As long as it exists, the surveillance industry, and...
Deeplinks Blog
by Dave Maass, Rindala Alajaji
| November 20, 2025
How Cops Are Using Flock Safety's ALPR Network to Surveil Protesters and Activists
Through an analysis of 10 months of nationwide searches on Flock Safety's servers, we discovered that more than 50 federal, state, and local agencies ran hundreds of searches through Flock's national network of surveillance data in connection with protest activity. In some cases, law enforcement specifically targeted known activist groups...
Press Release
| November 18, 2025
Lawsuit Challenges San Jose’s Warrantless ALPR Mass Surveillance
SAN JOSE, Calif. – San Jose and its police department routinely violate the California Constitution by conducting warrantless searches of the stored records of millions of drivers’ private habits, movements, and associations, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU-NC) argue in a lawsuit...
Deeplinks Blog
by Rindala Alajaji, Dave Maass
| November 3, 2025
License Plate Surveillance Logs Reveal Racist Policing Against Romani People
More than 80 law enforcement agencies across the United States have used language perpetuating harmful stereotypes against Romani people when searching the nationwide Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) network, according to audit logs obtained and analyzed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Share on MastodonShare on BlueskyShare on Facebook
Related IssuesStreet-Level SurveillanceStudent Privacy
Back to top
Follow EFF:
mastodon
facebook
instagram
Blue Sky
youtube
flicker
linkedin
tiktok
threads
Check out our 4-star rating on Charity Navigator.
Contact
General
Legal
Security
Membership
Press
About
Calendar
Volunteer
Victories
History
Internships
Jobs
Staff
Diversity & Inclusion
Issues
Free Speech
Privacy
Creativity & Innovation
Transparency
International
Security
Updates
Blog
Press Releases
Events
Legal Cases
Whitepapers
EFFector Newsletter
Press
Press Contact
Donate
Join or Renew Membership Online
One-Time Donation Online
Giving Societies
Corporate Giving and Sponsorship
Shop
Other Ways to Give
Copyright (CC BY)
Trademark
Privacy Policy
Thanks
JavaScript license information |
An analysis of data from Flock Safety automated license plate reader systems reveals a significant issue of mission creep, demonstrating that law enforcement agencies are utilizing these surveillance networks for purposes extending far beyond specific criminal investigations, often without a warrant requirement. This lack of warrant requirement has fostered a culture of unrestricted access to sensitive location data, allowing agencies to leverage the technology for virtually any objective. Law enforcement agencies lease or purchase these systems, which document the license plate, make, model, color, and distinguishing characteristics of every vehicle passing through monitored areas, along with the time and location.
While authorities often present the technology as a tool for solving high-stakes crimes, the data indicates a broader application for extremely low-level investigations, including verifying student residency within school zones, conducting employment background checks, and investigating noise complaints. The indiscriminate sharing encouraged by these technologies means that a single city’s system can be searched hundreds of thousands of times monthly across a nationwide pool of data. Privacy advocates and journalists have uncovered evidence that this technology has been used to surveil protesters, abortion seekers, immigrants, and ethnic Roma populations, highlighting the technology’s role in mass surveillance.
The application of this surveillance is evident in several areas. For residency verification, some school districts have enlisted law enforcement to utilize ALPR databases to track family movements. For instance, Buford City Schools in Georgia conducted numerous searches for residency verification, which often involved searching across thousands of networks nationwide, potentially revealing sensitive personal details about families’ movements, such as doctor visits, places of worship, and vacation locations, which are outside the scope of school district responsibilities. Other agencies, such as the Delhi Township Police Department in Ohio, also conducted such searches, and in response to inquiries, clarified that some searches were related to investigating suspected false residency statements rather than verifying residency upon submission. Other jurisdictions, including Cortland Police Department in Ohio and Lincoln Police Department in Alabama, have also engaged in similar searches related to residency.
Furthermore, the ALPR network has been employed for background checks related to employment. Several law enforcement agencies have conducted searches across the Flock network documenting "employment" or "employment background" in the reason field, including the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office in Missouri, the Little Elm Police Department in Texas, and the Ridgeland Police Department in Mississippi. Although some agencies have explained that they do not routinely use ALPRs for employment background checks, the existence of such searches demonstrates the technology's latent use in this context. Additionally, agencies have searched using terms like "background check" for various matters, which could relate to employment or other issues.
The capacity for this mission creep is also evident in the use of the technology for mundane complaints. Law enforcement agencies have used ALPRs to investigate noise complaints ranging from loud music to exhaust, and EFF identified multiple agencies where officers sought to pry into drivers’ lives based on such complaints. In some cases, agencies searched upwards of six thousand five hundred networks to investigate noise issues, which amounts to a nationwide search for specific disturbances.
The rhetorical framing used by law enforcement often obscures the actual scope of surveillance. While some argue that this technology is an important tool for crime fighting, this argument bypasses the standard legal process of obtaining a search warrant for location data. This approach functions as a convenient shortcut around due process, treating ALPR databases as if no such legal threshold existed. As the text notes, this circumvents the necessary judicial oversight required for locating private habits and movements. Moreover, the analysis of audit logs has revealed instances where agencies used language that perpetuated harmful stereotypes against Romani people while searching the network, further illustrating potential forms of bias in policing. |