Federal immigration authorities have found a workaround to access a vast, AI-driven network of surveillance cameras across the U.S.—by relying on local police. Internal documents show that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) indirectly tapped into Flock Safety’s automatic license plate reader (ALPR) system, which tracks vehicle movements in real time.
While ICE has no direct agreement with Flock, it has accessed the network thousands of times through police departments in various states. This revelation, uncovered through public records obtained from Danville, Illinois, raises serious questions about transparency, oversight, and the limits of surveillance in the digital age.
Thousands of Immigration-Related Searches Logged
Between June 2024 and May 2025, law enforcement agencies across the country conducted over 4,000 license plate searches using keywords like “immigration,” “ICE+ERO” (Enforcement and Removal Operations), and “ICE WARRANT.” The data shows requests coming from police departments in states such as Texas, Florida, Missouri, and Arizona.
These searches were often performed not for local investigations, but at the informal request of federal immigration agents. In some cases, local officers entered the queries themselves, effectively acting as intermediaries for ICE.
Although the federal agency doesn’t have formal access to Flock Safety’s camera system, this method of routing requests through local police allows ICE to benefit from nationwide surveillance capabilities it otherwise couldn’t legally use.
Flock Safety’s Expanding Reach
Flock Safety operates more than 40,000 AI-powered license plate reader cameras in over 5,000 communities nationwide. The system captures detailed information about vehicles—license plate numbers, color, make, model, and sometimes even unique features like bumper stickers or missing parts.
With this information, police can monitor where a car has been over days or even weeks. One key feature, the “National Lookup” tool, enables officers to scan across jurisdictions, essentially giving local police access to a countrywide surveillance web.
Flock claims local departments retain full control of their data and who gets access to it. However, critics argue that the company’s audit trails suggest otherwise. They point to a lack of clear oversight and enforcement, especially when federal agencies get involved.
Violations of State Laws and Company Policy
Illinois law explicitly prohibits the use of ALPR systems for immigration enforcement. Flock’s own internal policies also bar such activity. Yet, the audit logs tell a different story.
In Danville, local officials denied that their officers ran immigration-related searches. Still, 404 Media, which obtained and reviewed the documents, confirmed that multiple agencies used immigration-related terms during lookups. Some departments acknowledged they carried out searches at ICE’s request; others claimed task force members may have inputted such terms in error.
These inconsistencies have alarmed privacy experts, who warn that the loophole being exploited here—federal agencies leaning on local police to sidestep legal restrictions—undermines both state law and public trust.
Surveillance Without Warrants: A Slippery Slope?
The use of ALPR technology without a warrant is legal in many jurisdictions, but its expanding reach and usage raise deeper concerns. Civil liberties advocates argue that ICE’s ability to use local departments as a backdoor into national surveillance databases represents a dangerous erosion of privacy rights.
“This is surveillance without accountability,” said one privacy advocate. “It’s not just about immigration enforcement anymore—it’s about creating a system where federal agencies can avoid oversight entirely.”
The concern isn’t just theoretical. With such tools, officers can track someone’s movements with incredible precision, even if that person hasn’t committed a crime. Without proper oversight, critics say, the technology could easily be misused or weaponized.
Calls for Reform Grow Louder
Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are calling for immediate reforms. They’re demanding tighter restrictions on how ALPR data can be accessed and by whom. Many advocates argue that local governments must implement strict rules to prevent unauthorized data sharing, especially with federal agencies.
“Using local law enforcement to bypass restrictions is not just unethical—it’s illegal in some states,” said a representative from a digital rights group. “This entire system needs more transparency and public accountability.”
Flock Safety, for its part, has said it provides audit logs and data-use controls to agencies. But the latest findings suggest these measures may not be enough—or simply not being enforced properly.
