Listen to the article
Automatic license plate reader cameras are creating a privacy controversy across Washington state, as law enforcement agencies praise their effectiveness while civil liberties advocates sound alarms over potential abuse. The situation has become particularly urgent after a Skagit County judge ruled in November that nearly all images captured by these cameras are public records available to anyone who requests them.
Spokane County Sheriff John Nowels describes the technology, supplied by industry leader Flock Safety, as “revolutionary.” These sophisticated cameras can identify not only license plates but also a vehicle’s make, model, color, and even distinctive features like dents or roof racks. Nowels credits the system with saving hundreds of investigative hours and helping reduce auto theft rates.
“To replicate this with humans, I would have to have 70 people standing on the street 24/7 and they’d have to have perfect recall for everything they took a picture of for 30 days,” Nowels explained. “It’s impossible.”
However, the sheriff expressed serious concerns about the public records ruling, which essentially makes these images available to anyone. He worries about scenarios where the technology could be weaponized for harassment or stalking.
“Let’s say an ex-boyfriend who’s violent decides that he can’t find his ex, but he wants to, and he thinks she lives here in Spokane, and he happens to know what car she drives,” Nowels said. Such an individual could theoretically submit a records request for all instances where a specific license plate was captured.
The controversy has already prompted several Washington cities to shut down their Flock camera programs. Unlike nearly half of U.S. states, including neighboring Idaho, Washington lacks comprehensive laws regulating automatic license plate readers.
As the 2026 legislative session begins, lawmakers have introduced a bill to address these concerns. The proposed legislation would significantly restrict Flock camera usage, prohibiting them near hospitals, schools, food banks, and churches. The cameras couldn’t be used for immigration enforcement or to monitor protests. Crucially, only academic researchers would be permitted to request the data through public records.
Sen. Yasmin Trudeau, D-Tacoma, a co-sponsor of the bill, acknowledges the complex balancing act involved. “That’s going to remain probably one of the contentious points of the bill and negotiations moving forward,” she said. “There are people that feel very passionately about public records, and they should.”
The debate intensified after revelations that some law enforcement agencies were using Flock cameras for controversial purposes. Independent journalists at tech site 404 Media discovered that some police departments were conducting searches on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). A University of Washington research project revealed that at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies had given U.S. Border Patrol access to Flock images, potentially aiding immigration enforcement—something forbidden under state law.
The public records ruling has created new challenges. Some individuals have already begun using the system for their own purposes. Jim Leighty, a Spokane area activist, requested camera data on a vehicle used to transport ICE detainees to track the agency’s activities. Private investigator Thomas Stotts made requests to locate a parent who had fled with their children.
“As soon as you walk out the door, you have no expectation of privacy,” Stotts argued.
Spokane County has attempted to mitigate potential harm by cross-referencing records requests with lists of individuals under protective orders. However, the system remains vulnerable because requests can be submitted anonymously.
The proposed legislation would slash data retention from 30 days to just three, a change that Sheriff Nowels fears could make the cameras “completely useless.” The bill has unusual bipartisan support, with Republican Sen. Jeff Holy, a former Spokane Police detective, joining Democrat Trudeau as co-sponsor.
“Everyone is happy and unhappy about my current draft, which means we’re probably on a good path to compromise,” Trudeau noted.
Public records advocates remain concerned that the bill cuts off access to important information. Collette Weeks, executive director of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, said the proposal “raises 100 questions for me, with each question leading to 100 more.”
Ironically, the most prominent examples of Flock technology being misused for stalking have involved law enforcement officers themselves. In Georgia, a police chief was arrested for allegedly using license plate readers to harass people, while in Kansas, officers used the technology to track ex-partners.
As state legislators convene in Olympia this month, they won’t be recorded by Flock cameras—the city shut off its system last month due to the mounting privacy concerns.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
Automatic license plate readers can be a valuable tool, but the public records ruling is troubling. Broad access to such data could enable stalking and other abuses. Striking the right balance between public safety and individual privacy will require nuanced policymaking.
I agree, this is a challenging situation that demands thoughtful, balanced regulation. Protecting vulnerable individuals from potential misuse should be a top priority while still allowing legitimate law enforcement use of the technology.
The sheriff makes a compelling case for the investigative benefits of these cameras, but the privacy implications are very concerning. Policymakers will need to carefully weigh the tradeoffs and establish clear guidelines to prevent abuse while still enabling appropriate use by law enforcement.
This is a complex issue without easy answers. While the technology can aid investigations, the privacy concerns raised are valid. Policymakers will need to carefully craft regulations that allow legitimate use by law enforcement while putting robust safeguards in place.
This is a concerning issue with privacy implications. Automated plate readers can be a powerful investigative tool, but the public records ruling seems to open the door for potential abuse and stalking. Proper safeguards and oversight are crucial to balance public safety and individual privacy.
Agreed. The sheriff raises valid points about the benefits, but the potential for misuse is worrying. Policymakers need to carefully weigh these competing interests and establish clear guidelines to protect vulnerable individuals.
It’s understandable that law enforcement sees these cameras as a valuable resource, but the privacy risks are serious. Broad public access to such data could enable stalking and other harmful activities. Thoughtful regulation is needed to prevent abuse while still allowing legitimate use.
You make a good point. These technologies have benefits, but the public records ruling seems to go too far. Targeted, controlled access may be a better approach to balance public safety and privacy protections.