BY SAL GRECO
Automated license plate readers were introduced to police departments across America with a compelling promise: help officers locate stolen vehicles, identify wanted suspects and solve serious crimes faster.
But years after Flock Safety cameras rapidly expanded across the country, the technology is facing growing resistance over privacy, accuracy and how information collected on millions of motorists can be stored and shared.
That debate recently reached Los Angeles.
The LAPD allowed its three-year agreement with Flock to expire in July 2026 and suspended routine access to the company’s system while officials addressed concerns involving privacy, data ownership, security and information sharing.
The controversy was discussed on Episode 218 of The Sal Greco Show, where Sal Greco introduced the growing backlash against Flock cameras with retired LAPD Sergeant Marlon Marrache joining the discussion.
“I Just Want to Catch Bad Guys”
Marrache argued there is an important distinction between using license plate readers as legitimate investigative tools and allowing surveillance technology to expand into everyday enforcement.
If police are hunting for a murder suspect, school shooter or other dangerous offender, Marrache said cameras could help investigators determine a vehicle’s direction of travel, obtain a license plate and build a case.
“Let’s try to see what direction of travel they went, and maybe we can go ahead and get their license plate and build our case. Stuff like that, that’s what it’s for.”
For Marrache, that’s what technology should help cops accomplish.
“I just want to catch bad guys. That’s what most cops want to do.”
The concern arises when a tool designed to find criminals begins documenting the movements of ordinary motorists on a massive scale.
LAPD’s Own Review Raised Questions
Those concerns became harder to ignore following an LAPD Inspector General review of the department’s automated license plate reader program.
According to reporting by the Los Angeles Times, Flock cameras scanned more than 210 million license plates during a two-month period beginning in August 2025. Alerts contributed to 337 stolen-vehicle recoveries, demonstrating the technology’s legitimate value.
But the review also identified 161 instances where vehicles flagged as stolen were not actually stolen, although not every incorrect alert resulted in a police stop.
The Inspector General raised broader concerns about oversight, privacy, security and agreements governing ALPR information.
That presents both sides of the Flock debate: the technology can help police solve crimes, but mistakes and inadequate safeguards can have real consequences for innocent people.
Who Controls the Information?
Perhaps the biggest controversy involves what happens to all the information these cameras collect.
A single camera recording a license plate may seem insignificant. A nationwide network recording millions of vehicles can potentially create a detailed picture of where people travel.
That raises obvious questions:
Who owns the information? Who can search it? How long is it retained? Can other police departments or federal agencies access it? And what happens to the information after a municipality ends its contract?
Those concerns contributed to LAPD stepping away from its existing Flock agreement, although the department has discussed the possibility of a new agreement containing stronger safeguards.
Los Angeles isn’t alone.
Communities elsewhere in the country have reconsidered or terminated Flock agreements as privacy advocates warn that interconnected ALPR systems can evolve from targeted investigative tools into broad surveillance networks.
When Does a Useful Tool Go Too Far?
During Episode 218, Greco and Marrache also questioned the potential for mission creep — when technology introduced for one legitimate public-safety purpose gradually expands into something very different.
Marrache specifically questioned turning these systems into tools for routine traffic enforcement.
His position wasn’t anti-technology. It was about defining its purpose.
There is an enormous difference between police asking, “Where did this murder suspect’s vehicle go?” and government having the technological ability to ask, “Where has this person been driving?”
That distinction may ultimately determine the future of Flock and similar systems.
Automated license plate readers can unquestionably assist law enforcement. They can locate stolen vehicles, identify suspects and provide investigators with information that might otherwise take hours or days to obtain.
But powerful technology requires equally powerful safeguards.
The controversy in Los Angeles demonstrates what can happen when technology advances faster than the policies controlling it.
For Marrache, the proper purpose remains straightforward: use technology to investigate serious crimes and “catch bad guys.”
When that same technology begins creating a massive searchable record of ordinary Americans who aren’t suspected of committing any crime, however, the public has every right to ask who is watching — and why.
That’s how a technology once welcomed as the future of policing ended with LAPD deciding, at least for now, to get the Flock out of Los Angeles.