Bipartisan House Amendment Seeks to Restrict Automated License Plate Readers to Tolling Purposes Only

In a rare display of cross-aisle cooperation, United States lawmakers are set to introduce a high-stakes amendment on Thursday during a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markup hearing. The proposed measure seeks to prohibit any recipient of federal highway funding from utilizing automated license plate readers (ALPRs) for any purpose other than the collection of tolls. If adopted and signed into law, the amendment would represent one of the most significant federal interventions into local surveillance practices in decades, effectively dismantling thousands of law enforcement ALPR programs across the country.

The amendment is spearheaded by an unlikely duo: Representative Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican and prominent member of the House Freedom Caucus, and Representative Jesús “Chuy” García, an Illinois progressive. The two lawmakers, who typically sit at opposite ends of the political and ideological spectrum, have found common ground in the growing national concern over privacy, data retention, and the perceived overreach of mass surveillance technologies.

The legislative vehicle for this amendment is the reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs, a massive $580 billion, five-year spending bill that governs the nation’s roads, bridges, and transit systems. The committee is scheduled to begin the markup process at 10:00 a.m. ET on Thursday.

The Scope and Mechanism of the Proposed Ban

The language of the amendment, obtained by investigative journalists, is notably brief but carries profound legal weight. It consists of a single, declarative sentence: “A recipient of assistance under Title 23, United States Code, may not use automated license plate readers for any purpose other than tolling.”

To understand the magnitude of this proposal, one must look at the reach of Title 23. This section of the U.S. Code provides the primary framework for federal highway funding. Title 23 funds approximately 25 percent of all public road mileage in the United States. This includes nearly all interstate highways, major state arteries, and many county and city streets. Because almost every state and local municipality relies on federal assistance to maintain their transportation infrastructure, the amendment would create a de facto national ban on ALPR use for law enforcement purposes.

Under the current system, local police departments and state agencies have rapidly expanded their use of ALPR technology. These systems involve high-speed cameras mounted on fixed structures—such as traffic lights and overpasses—or mobile units attached to police cruisers. The cameras capture the license plate numbers of every passing vehicle, timestamp the entry, and record the GPS coordinates. This data is then uploaded to searchable databases, allowing authorities to track the movements of specific vehicles or conduct retrospective searches of where a car has been over weeks, months, or even years.

The Catalyst: Controversy and Misuse in Illinois

The involvement of Representative García is particularly significant given recent events in his home state of Illinois. The state has recently emerged as a primary battleground in the legal and ethical debate over ALPR data management. In August 2023, Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias announced the results of an audit that sent shockwaves through the privacy advocacy community.

The audit found that Flock Group—the Atlanta-based company that operates the largest ALPR network in the United States—was in violation of Illinois state law. Specifically, the company was found to be providing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with access to ALPR data collected within Illinois. This violated state statutes designed to protect residents from federal immigration enforcement overreach.

In the wake of the audit, Giannoulias ordered Flock to terminate all federal access to the state’s data. The incident also highlighted a lack of transparency within the industry. While Flock CEO and founder Garrett Langley had previously made public statements suggesting that such federal partnerships did not exist, the company later characterized those statements as having "inadvertently provided inaccurate information." Following the Illinois audit, Flock announced a nationwide pause on federal pilot programs.

The Rise of the "Surveillance Layer"

The proliferation of ALPR technology has transformed the American roadway into a pervasive surveillance layer. Industry leaders like Flock Safety and Motorola Solutions have marketed these systems as essential tools for modern policing. According to industry data, thousands of law enforcement agencies now utilize these networks, often sharing data across jurisdictional lines through "fusion centers" or private cloud-based platforms.

The primary selling point for ALPR systems is their ability to identify "hot list" vehicles—cars associated with stolen property, missing persons (Amber Alerts), or active warrants. When a camera identifies a plate on a hot list, it sends a real-time alert to nearby officers.

However, the technology does not only capture "hits." It captures every plate. This means that for every one criminal apprehended, the system logs the movements of thousands of innocent citizens. Privacy advocates, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), argue that this creates a "permanent record of everywhere we go," which can be used to map out an individual’s private life, including their visits to doctors, places of worship, political rallies, or legal counsel.

Public Safety vs. Privacy: The Austin Case Study

The debate over the Perry-García amendment is mirrored in local conflicts across the country, most notably in Austin, Texas. Last year, Austin City Manager T.C. Broadnax moved to terminate the city’s contract with Flock Safety, citing deep-seated privacy concerns raised by the public and civil rights groups.

This decision was met with fierce resistance from the Austin Police Department and local law enforcement advocates. The tension was recently highlighted by an incident in the nearby suburb of Manor, where police credited ALPR technology with the apprehension of a suspect linked to a string of a dozen shootings.

Responding to the proposed House amendment, Flock spokesperson Josh Thomas emphasized the role of the technology in solving violent crimes. "We hope the Committee members review this amendment carefully before heading down a similar path that would leave our first responders without the tools they need to keep residents safe," Thomas stated.

The law enforcement perspective argues that ALPRs are a "force multiplier," allowing understaffed departments to monitor vast areas with minimal personnel. They contend that the data is only used for legitimate investigative purposes and that the benefits to public safety outweigh the privacy risks.

Analysis of Legal and Civil Rights Concerns

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law has been at the forefront of documenting the risks associated with unregulated ALPR use. Their research indicates that ALPR data is increasingly being integrated into "police data-fusion systems." These systems combine license plate records with facial recognition, social media monitoring, and predictive policing algorithms to create a comprehensive profile of individuals.

Furthermore, the EFF has documented numerous instances of misuse. In several jurisdictions, ALPR cameras have been found to be disproportionately deployed in low-income neighborhoods or used to monitor specific religious groups, such as the surveillance of mosques in New York City.

From a constitutional standpoint, the Perry-García amendment touches on the evolving interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. In the landmark 2018 case Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the government generally needs a warrant to access historical cell site location information, noting that "society’s expectation of privacy in its movements should be protected." Privacy advocates argue that the long-term tracking enabled by ALPR networks is functionally identical to the tracking restricted in the Carpenter ruling.

Financial and Infrastructure Implications

If the amendment is adopted into the final surface transportation bill, the fiscal implications for state and local governments would be immense. Many municipalities have invested millions of dollars into ALPR infrastructure, often using federal grants or local tax revenue.

The transition would require a massive restructuring of how these systems are operated. Under the Perry-García proposal:

1. Removal or Repurposing: Thousands of cameras would need to be removed or restricted to tolling zones.
2. Contractual Terminations: Existing contracts with private vendors like Flock Safety and Leonardo (ELSAG) would likely be voided or require major renegotiation.
3. Loss of Investigative Leads: Law enforcement agencies would lose access to the "historical search" capability that has become a staple of modern criminal investigations.

However, proponents of the amendment argue that this is a necessary price to pay to restore the "right to travel" without constant government monitoring. They suggest that the current system of using federal highway funds to subsidize local surveillance was an unintended consequence of transportation policy that now requires a legislative correction.

Looking Ahead: The Markup and Legislative Path

The Thursday markup hearing will be the first major test for the amendment. As the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee debates the $580 billion bill, the Perry-García proposal is expected to face intense lobbying from both law enforcement associations and the surveillance technology industry.

The bipartisan nature of the sponsors provides the amendment with a unique advantage. By bridging the gap between the Freedom Caucus’s libertarian-leaning concerns about government overreach and the Progressive Caucus’s focus on civil liberties and racial equity, the proposal may gather enough support to pass the committee stage.

Regardless of the outcome in committee, the introduction of this amendment signals a shift in the national conversation. It marks the first time that federal lawmakers have sought to use the power of the purse—specifically the massive leverage of Title 23 highway funding—to set a national standard for privacy on the American road.

As the 10:00 a.m. hearing approaches, stakeholders on both sides of the issue are bracing for a debate that will define the boundary between public safety and personal privacy for the next generation of American infrastructure. The result will determine whether the "surveillance layer" of the U.S. highway system remains a permanent fixture of law enforcement or is relegated strictly to the administrative task of toll collection.