Cultura y noticias hispanas del Valle del Hudson
At the end of August, the civil and human rights advocacy organization LatinoJustice PRLDEF, together with the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.), released the report Flock Favors: Police Across New York Search Flock on Behalf of ICE.
The report examines how state and local police departments in New York have used Flock Safety’s network of cameras and automatic license plate readers to conduct vehicle searches on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), even when the drivers being sought were not suspected of committing any crime. The authors maintain that some of these searches were explicitly logged as immigration-related, while others appear to have been concealed using vague, incomplete, or nonexistent reasons.
Flock Safety is a private surveillance technology company founded in Atlanta in 2017 and valued at more than $8 billion. Its cameras, known as ALPRs (automatic license plate readers), photograph vehicles and automatically read their license plates. The system can also record vehicle characteristics such as color, make, model, visible damage, and other attributes.
The company has more than 120,000 cameras in over 6,000 communities across 49 states and processes approximately 20 billion records per month. The network is marketed primarily to law enforcement agencies, which can use it to search information stored by other departments or jurisdictions participating in the network.
According to the report, the Nassau County Police Department conducted license plate searches on people who were not suspected of any crime and listed the reason as “Immigration (civil/administrative).” In Beacon, the reason for one search was “civil/administrative immigration”; in Glen Cove, simply “ICE” was used; and in Cheektowaga, “Wanted by ICE.” According to the report, these records constitute the clearest cases because the officers themselves documented that they were searching for information for ICE.
However, the authors believe these cases represent only part of the problem. Flock allows officers to enter any reason to justify a search, or even no reason at all. The report identifies several cases in which searches appear to have been conducted for immigration purposes but were logged using much more general terms, such as “investigation” or “inv.” These practices conflict with New York’s new legislation, known as the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, passed as part of the 2026 state budget. Beginning August 25, the law prohibited formal agreements between local law enforcement agencies, such as 287(g) agreements.
But there are gaps in the implementation of the new law. Some departments that apparently assisted ICE through Flock searches did not have 287(g) agreements. Therefore, banning only those formal agreements would not be enough. The authors interpret the prohibition of any “formal or informal” agreement that allows an officer to assist with immigration enforcement as
also preventing police from routinely conducting Flock searches at ICE’s request to locate people who are not suspected of crimes.
S.T.O.P. and LatinoJustice recommend a statewide policy requiring law enforcement agencies to document every search conducted in ALPR databases. Records should include who conducted the search, a specific and detailed reason, and a case number.
They also propose limiting police use of this technology. They recommend allowing license plate reader searches only to investigate serious crimes, locate stolen vehicles, and find people reported missing. They also recommend limiting data retention to 48 hours, unless there is a legal reason to preserve the data as evidence or pursuant to a court order. Flock has currently announced a default retention period of seven days, which the authors consider too long.
These measures would not only allow for better oversight of collaboration with ICE, but would also reduce other potential abuses of the technology, such as tracking people seeking abortions, protesters, activists, and former partners of police officers.
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, makes clear that it does not matter which technology companies own the cameras appearing on our streets; they all share the same problems: they seek to profit by invading our privacy. The ACLU also provides tools for communities.
Mariel Fiori
Director COPYRIGHT 2026
La Voz, Cultura y noticias hispanas del Valle de Hudson
The report examines how state and local police departments in New York have used Flock Safety’s network of cameras and automatic license plate readers to conduct vehicle searches on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), even when the drivers being sought were not suspected of committing any crime. The authors maintain that some of these searches were explicitly logged as immigration-related, while others appear to have been concealed using vague, incomplete, or nonexistent reasons.
Flock Safety is a private surveillance technology company founded in Atlanta in 2017 and valued at more than $8 billion. Its cameras, known as ALPRs (automatic license plate readers), photograph vehicles and automatically read their license plates. The system can also record vehicle characteristics such as color, make, model, visible damage, and other attributes.
The company has more than 120,000 cameras in over 6,000 communities across 49 states and processes approximately 20 billion records per month. The network is marketed primarily to law enforcement agencies, which can use it to search information stored by other departments or jurisdictions participating in the network.
According to the report, the Nassau County Police Department conducted license plate searches on people who were not suspected of any crime and listed the reason as “Immigration (civil/administrative).” In Beacon, the reason for one search was “civil/administrative immigration”; in Glen Cove, simply “ICE” was used; and in Cheektowaga, “Wanted by ICE.” According to the report, these records constitute the clearest cases because the officers themselves documented that they were searching for information for ICE.
However, the authors believe these cases represent only part of the problem. Flock allows officers to enter any reason to justify a search, or even no reason at all. The report identifies several cases in which searches appear to have been conducted for immigration purposes but were logged using much more general terms, such as “investigation” or “inv.” These practices conflict with New York’s new legislation, known as the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, passed as part of the 2026 state budget. Beginning August 25, the law prohibited formal agreements between local law enforcement agencies, such as 287(g) agreements.
But there are gaps in the implementation of the new law. Some departments that apparently assisted ICE through Flock searches did not have 287(g) agreements. Therefore, banning only those formal agreements would not be enough. The authors interpret the prohibition of any “formal or informal” agreement that allows an officer to assist with immigration enforcement as
also preventing police from routinely conducting Flock searches at ICE’s request to locate people who are not suspected of crimes.
S.T.O.P. and LatinoJustice recommend a statewide policy requiring law enforcement agencies to document every search conducted in ALPR databases. Records should include who conducted the search, a specific and detailed reason, and a case number.
They also propose limiting police use of this technology. They recommend allowing license plate reader searches only to investigate serious crimes, locate stolen vehicles, and find people reported missing. They also recommend limiting data retention to 48 hours, unless there is a legal reason to preserve the data as evidence or pursuant to a court order. Flock has currently announced a default retention period of seven days, which the authors consider too long.
These measures would not only allow for better oversight of collaboration with ICE, but would also reduce other potential abuses of the technology, such as tracking people seeking abortions, protesters, activists, and former partners of police officers.
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, makes clear that it does not matter which technology companies own the cameras appearing on our streets; they all share the same problems: they seek to profit by invading our privacy. The ACLU also provides tools for communities.
Mariel Fiori
Director COPYRIGHT 2026
La Voz, Cultura y noticias hispanas del Valle de Hudson
Comments | |
| Sorry, there are no comments at this time. |