Legislation, Public Policy & Civic Engagement

Dear Fellow Republicans,

I want to bring to your attention a nationwide government surveillance network that has expanded rapidly across cities and counties in recent years. This is directly related to why I appeared before the Hays County Commissioners Court a few weeks ago.

While Flock cameras and automated license plate readers (ALPRs) are a significant part of this issue, I have equal concerns about the growing role of artificial intelligence and the ability of multiple surveillance platforms to communicate, integrate, and analyze data across systems. Flock is not operating in isolation. Companies such as Axon, Motorola, and others are developing technologies that can collect, connect, analyze, and share information across multiple platforms.

When these systems are interconnected, the concern goes beyond a single camera recording a license plate. Large amounts of information can potentially be combined and analyzed by AI to create detailed patterns about people’s movements, associations, and activities—even when those individuals are not suspected of any crime.

This raises important constitutional and civil-liberties questions about privacy, due process, unreasonable searches and seizures, data retention, access, and government sharing of information. We need to understand what these systems are capable of before they become fully interconnected, rather than after the infrastructure is already in place.

This is not just a concern for Hays County. Several city councils across Senate District 25 are considering, or have considered, contracts involving Flock cameras and similar technologies. Before approving these systems, local governments should carefully examine how the technology works, how AI may be used, whether different platforms can communicate with one another, who can access the resulting data, how long it is retained, and what constitutional safeguards are in place.

What is Flock?

Flock cameras are automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras that photograph vehicles as they pass, capturing the license plate number, time, location, and vehicle characteristics. That information is stored in a searchable database.

Concerns have grown about how much information is collected, how long it is retained, who has access to it, who can search it, and whether individuals should be tracked when they are not suspected of any crime. These concerns also extend to the collection and use of facial images and the potential integration of this information with other surveillance technologies and artificial intelligence.

This debate has moved far beyond whether Flock cameras are simply another law-enforcement tool. It is now a broader discussion about transparency, accountability, privacy, taxpayer-funded government spending, the expansion and integration of surveillance technology, and the constitutional rights of the people.

National Attention

Last week, those questions reached the national stage when Senator Josh Hawley chaired a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing examining Flock Safety’s nationwide AI-powered surveillance network. Witnesses raised concerns about data collection, retention, sharing, and the ability of government agencies to search vast databases of vehicle-location information. Some witnesses described the personal harm caused by erroneous AI matches and government overreach. There appears to be few effective guardrails protecting constitutional rights under these systems.

Where is Texas?

Texans are having similar conversations closer to home. In response to public backlash and cities and counties dropping contracts, Governor Greg Abbott has halted continued state funding for the camera systems while allowing existing installations to remain up. It is therefore up to the public to engage on decisions that were often made with little advance notice and given by way of grant funding from the state to our cities, towns, and counties. Given the potential for abuse and the absence of clear boundaries on information gathering, these systems warrant serious scrutiny before further expansion.

SREC Resolution

The issue has become significant enough that the Republican Party of Texas State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) recently adopted a resolution expressing concern about public funding for Flock camera expansion and supporting greater scrutiny of government surveillance systems. I authored that resolution. It reflects a growing belief among grassroots activists that taxpayer-funded surveillance programs deserve a higher level of public review before expansion occurs.

Participation in Local Government Matters

Most decisions about surveillance technology are not made in Washington. They are made at city council meetings, county commissioners court meetings, budget workshops, and public hearings. Often these decisions are buried inside larger budget packages, contract renewals, grant applications, or consent agendas that receive little public attention. Citizens frequently learn about them only after the agreements are approved and implemented, with limited prior public notice.

Imagine every major road into a small Texas town having a camera that records every passing vehicle, the time it was there, and its direction of travel. These cameras are deliberately placed at high-traffic locations and at entrances and exits. The system retains detailed records of billions of images that can be searched later. Officials say the technology helps law enforcement catch stolen vehicles and locate missing persons. Yet if the systems were as decisive as sometimes claimed, we would expect clearer, measurable reductions in the serious crimes they are said to address. The broader policy questions about mass data collection remain unresolved.

What Flock Actually Captures

These cameras do not capture only license plates. They store vehicle information including dents, bumper stickers, and other identifying characteristics. Public statements and testimony have indicated the systems can also involve searches related to personal images. Flock operates more than 120,000 cameras across 49 states, generating over 20 billion vehicle scans each month, with access available to thousands of agencies. In Texas alone, there are more than 17,000 Flock cameras. A city-by-city listing is available at https://www.findingflock.com/cameras/texas.

Senator Hawley has raised legitimate concerns that ordinary Americans going to work, school, church, and the grocery store may now have their movements stored and searchable.

Necessary Questions for Public Officials

These are not anti-law-enforcement questions. They are public-accountability questions grounded in transparency, privacy, and constitutional limits:

• If a camera records your vehicle every day on the way to work, how long should that information be kept?
• Who should be allowed to search it, and should agencies outside your community have access?
• Should a warrant be required for certain searches?
• How much are taxpayers spending, and for how long is the contract (including any automatic renewals)?
• Can searches be audited and independently reviewed?
• What artificial intelligence or machine-learning tools are used, and what conclusions are generated automatically versus reviewed by humans?
• What safeguards exist to prevent or correct AI errors?
• How does the system comply with applicable state laws?
• What happens to the data when cameras are deactivated, or the contract ends?

Accountability to the Taxpayer

As these technologies continue to expand, we have a responsibility to ensure that innovation does not outpace constitutional protections. Before local governments enter contracts for Flock cameras or other interconnected surveillance and artificial-intelligence systems, the public deserves clear answers about what information is collected, how it is used, how long it is retained, who can access it, and with whom it can be shared.

Public safety and constitutional rights are not competing priorities. We can support effective law enforcement while insisting on clear limits, meaningful oversight, accountability, and protection of individual privacy. These decisions involve more than technology—they involve the proper boundaries of government power and the rights of every citizen.

I urge you to review your city and county agendas, attend commissioners court and city council meetings, request the relevant contracts and data-retention policies, and contact your state representatives ahead of the next legislative session. The infrastructure is already being built. The time for public scrutiny is now.