Home › Topics › police and surveillance AI
U.S. AI Laws: police and surveillance AI
As of 2026-08-12, AI Laws USA tracks 193 U.S. AI rules on police and surveillance AI across federal, state, county, and city government. Each entry links to its official source.
Federal police and surveillance AI rules (10)
-
In effect
FTC v. Evolv
FTC · Effective 2024-11-26 · Federal Trade Commission v. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-12940 (D. Mass. Nov. 26, 2024)
The FTC settled with Evolv Technology in November 2024 over claims it falsely marketed its AI-powered scanners as accurately detecting weapons in schools and venues, when in fact the systems missed weapons (including the knife in the Utica, NY school stabbing) and flagged everyday objects. Customers can cancel contracts.
-
In effect
FAA Reauthorization Act 2024 (drones)
United States · Effective 2024-05-16 · Pub. L. No. 118-63
The five-year FAA reauthorization sets the agenda for U.S. drone integration through 2028: it directs the FAA to finalize a Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight rule, expands counter-drone authority for federal and (in pilot programs) state and local agencies, advances Advanced Air Mobility (passenger drones / eVTOLs), and tightens rules on drones produced by countries of concern.
-
In effect
Drone Remote ID Rule
United States · Effective 2023-09-16 · 14 C.F.R. Part 89; 86 Fed. Reg. 4390 (Jan. 15, 2021)
Most drones flying in U.S. airspace must broadcast a digital 'license plate' — Remote ID — that includes the drone's ID, location, altitude, and the control station's location, so law enforcement and the public can identify drones in the sky.
-
Blocked / in litigation
NAACP v. xAI (Colossus 2 Air Pollution)
N.D. Miss. · Effective 2026-04-14 · NAACP et al. v. xAI Corp. et al., No. 3:26-cv-00074-MPM-JMV (N.D. Miss., filed April 14, 2026)
The NAACP and local organizations sued xAI and its affiliate MZX Tech in April 2026, alleging 27 natural gas turbines at xAI's Colossus 2 data center in Southaven, Mississippi were operated without required air permits, harming predominantly Black residents near the facility. In June 2026, the Trump DOJ moved to intervene and dismiss the case, arguing the lawsuit would 'hamper America's AI innovation' — marking the first time DOJ used a motion to dismiss a citizen Clean Air Act suit on AI-policy grounds.
-
In effect
Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon En
United States · Effective 2025-12-26 · Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon Entry to and Departure From the United States
This DHS/CBP final rule authorizes facial-biometric collection from all noncitizens on entry and exit at airports, seaports and land ports, removing prior exemptions and expanding to new travel modalities.
-
In effect
TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verificat
United States · Effective 2023-01-01 · TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verification Service)
TSA uses CAT-2 camera units at 350+ airport checkpoints to compare a live photo of a traveler to their ID photo (or to a CBP TVS gallery), with signage stating participation is voluntary and travelers may decline.
-
In effect
Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. I
United States · Effective 2022-06-01 · Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. International Airports
CBP completed nationwide deployment of Simplified Arrival, which photographs international arrivals at airport inspection points and matches faces against government passport/visa galleries, with opt-out for U.S. citizens.
-
In effect
CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports
United States · Effective 2020-01-01 · CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports
CBP runs biometric facial comparison at roughly 11 U.S. cruise seaports (including Miami and Port Everglades), scanning disembarking passengers' faces against passport/visa photos with a U.S.-citizen opt-out.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Chatrie v. United States (Fourth Amendment protection for lo
United States · Chatrie v. United States (Fourth Amendment protection for location data / geofence warrants)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people have a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in smartphone location data, holding that government access to such data (including via geofence warrants) is a search requiring constitutional protection.
-
Expired
Federal facial recognition moratorium (died)
United States · S. 4084 (2020) / S. 2052 (2021) / S. 681 (2023) — never marked up
Sens. Markey, Merkley, Sanders, Warren, and Wyden and Reps. Jayapal, Pressley, and Tlaib first introduced the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act on June 25, 2020 — and reintroduced it in 2021 and 2023. It would have banned all federal agency use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technologies, and conditioned federal grants on state/local moratoriums. Never received committee action across three congresses.
State police and surveillance AI rules (35)
-
In effect
Virginia § 15.2-1723.2 (facial recognition by local law enforcement, eff. July 1, 2026)
Virginia · Effective 2026-07-01 · Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (2026), effective July 1, 2026
Virginia Code § 15.2-1723.2, effective July 1, 2026, imposes statewide binding requirements on how local law enforcement agencies in Virginia may use facial recognition technology. Agencies wishing to use facial recognition must publicly post a policy meeting or exceeding the State Police model, publish annual use reports by April 1 each year, and give 30 days written notice to their governing body before procuring the technology. The law bans real-time tracking of identified individuals in public spaces and prohibits creating a live-video database using facial recognition. All searches must be logged and violations by operators constitute a Class 3 misdemeanor. The law applies to all Virginia localities, including Northern Virginia regional law enforcement systems.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Lorenzano-Nunez v. Roestenberg — FR wrongful arrest (2026)
Arizona · Effective 2026-06-11 · Lorenzano-Nunez v. Roestenberg, No. 2:26-cv-04153 (D. Ariz. filed June 11, 2026)
Javier Lorenzano-Nunez sued Phoenix cold-case detective Dominick Roestenberg, the City of Phoenix, and two further individual defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on 2026-06-11 in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Press accounts state he was arrested in 2024 for a 1998 Phoenix killing after investigators used facial recognition to identify him, spent roughly a year in jail, and had all charges dismissed on 2025-08-05 after DNA and fingerprint evidence excluded him, and that the suit alleges police knew his fingerprints did not match and that a detective misled the grand jury. The docket records the cause as 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, Nature of Suit 550.
-
In effect
Arizona HB 2678 — AI-generated CSAM criminalized
Arizona · Effective 2025-09-27 · Arizona HB 2678, 57th Leg., 1st R.S. (2025); amends A.R.S. §§ 13-3553 et seq. to criminalize AI-generated CSAM
Arizona House Bill 2678, passed in the 57th Legislature's 1st Regular Session and signed by Governor Katie Hobbs in approximately September 2025, criminalizes artificial intelligence-generated and computer-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in Arizona. The law expands the existing definition of 'visual depiction' in Arizona's child exploitation statutes to explicitly include digitally generated, AI-generated, and computer-generated images, meaning such images are treated the same as real photographs of child sexual exploitation. It also updates the definition of 'minor' within child-exploitation statutes to be consistent with this expanded scope. Offenses involving victims under 15 years old are classified as 'dangerous crimes against children,' carrying enhanced mandatory sentencing under Arizona law. The Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline endorsed the bill. The law's first known prosecution came in May 2026 when a Gilbert, Arizona man was charged with more than 20 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor for AI-generated images.
-
In effect
ME LD 1585 (FR limitation)
ME · Effective 2021-10-01 · P.L. 2021 ch. 394 (Me. LD 1585)
Maine LD 1585 is the strictest U.S. state law on government face surveillance — limits use to serious crime investigation via state agency conduit, with logging and a private right of action.
-
In effect
WA SB 6280 (2020, first-in-nation state FR-government law)
WA · Effective 2021-07-01 · RCW Ch. 43.386 (SB 6280, 2020)
Washington SB 6280 (signed March 31, 2020) was the first U.S. state law expressly regulating state and local government use of facial recognition. It requires accountability reports, public notice, warrant requirements for ongoing surveillance, and independent testing for accuracy and bias. Codified at RCW Ch. 43.386. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect
VT S.124 (statewide FR moratorium)
VT · Effective 2020-10-07 · 2020 Vt. Acts & Res. No. 166 §14
Vermont S.124 bars Vermont law enforcement from acquiring or using facial-recognition technology absent express legislative authorization — the nation's strongest statewide ban.
-
In effect
MN drone-warrant law (2020)
Minnesota · Effective 2020-08-01 · Minn. Stat. § 626.19
Minnesota requires police to get a search warrant before using a drone, with narrow exceptions, and to publish an annual public report listing every drone deployment, purpose, and cost. The annual transparency requirement is among the strongest in any state drone law.
-
In effect
UT drone-wildfire law
Utah · Effective 2017-05-09 · Utah Code §§ 65A-3-2.5, 76-6-2410
Utah responded to repeated incidents of hobby drones grounding aerial firefighting by criminalizing drone operation that interferes with manned aircraft fighting wildfires, conducting search-and-rescue, or supporting law enforcement, and authorizing public-safety agencies to disable or neutralize an intruding drone.
-
In effect
TN drone trespass / FFUSA
Tennessee · Effective 2014-07-01 · Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-609, 39-13-902 to -905
Tennessee prohibits warrantless drone surveillance by law enforcement, makes it a misdemeanor for any person to capture images of an individual or private property from a drone without consent, and bars using drones to surveil critical infrastructure or fireworks/sporting events.
-
In effect
IL Drone Surveillance Act
Illinois · Effective 2014-01-01 · 725 ILCS 167
Illinois requires police to obtain a search warrant before using a drone to gather information, subject to narrow exceptions (terrorism, search-and-rescue, crime-scene reconstruction). The 2023 Drones as First Responders amendments (HB 3902) added regulated exceptions for crowd surveillance and emergency response.
-
In effect
TX HB 912 (2013 drone privacy)
Texas · Effective 2013-09-01 · Tex. Gov't Code Ch. 423
One of the broadest state drone-privacy laws: it is illegal in Texas to use a drone to capture images of a person or private real property without consent, subject to 19 enumerated exceptions (newsgathering, mapping, etc.). Texas's drone-privacy chapter was partially struck down in NPPA v. McCraw (2022) on First Amendment grounds, but most provisions remain in force.
-
In effect
OR weaponized-drone ban
Oregon · Effective 2013-07-29 · Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 837.300–837.380
Oregon prohibits anyone from operating a weaponized drone, requires law-enforcement drones to be authorized for specific missions, and provides a civil action for property owners whose airspace is repeatedly invaded by drones flying below 400 feet.
-
In effect
FL drone surveillance act
Florida · Effective 2013-07-01 · Fla. Stat. §§ 934.50, 330.41
Florida bars law enforcement from using drones for surveillance without a warrant or specific exception, and (after SB 92/2015 and SB 44/2021 amendments) prohibits anyone from using a drone to capture images of private property or people on private property in violation of reasonable expectations of privacy. SB 44 (2021) also tightened state preemption over local drone ordinances.
-
In effect
VA warrantless drone ban
Virginia · Effective 2013-04-03 · Va. Code § 19.2-60.1
Virginia was the first state to limit law-enforcement drone use, imposing a two-year moratorium in 2013 and then permanently barring police use of drones without a warrant or specific exception (search-and-rescue, training, surveillance of an Amber-alert subject). Evidence from unlawful drone surveillance is inadmissible.
-
In effect
VT AG Clark
VT · Effective 2026-03-24 · VT AG Clark — 17-State Coalition Letter on Data Broker AI Surveillance Loophole (2026-03-24)
Joined 17-state coalition urging Congress to close the loophole letting federal agencies purchase commercial data for AI surveillance, bypassing Fourth Amendment protections.
-
In effect
Attorney General Mayes Announces Investigation into X's AI C
Arizona · Effective 2026-01-15 · Attorney General Mayes Announces Investigation into X's AI Chatbot (Grok)
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes opened an investigation into whether X's Grok AI chatbot violated Arizona law after reports it was used to generate and distribute harmful content, including child sexual abuse imagery and non-consensual exploitative images.
-
In effect
California SB 524 (AI-written police reports must be disclosed + audited)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · Cal. Penal Code 13663 (SB 524, 2025)
This law brings transparency to the use of AI in police reports. When a law enforcement report is generated wholly or partly by AI, the report must carry a per-page disclosure identifying the AI program used, along with the officer's signature verifying they reviewed it and that the facts are true. Agencies must keep the first AI-generated draft and an audit trail showing the user, data, and media involved, and vendors are barred from sharing or selling agency data except for the agency's own purposes.
-
In effect
TRAIGA
Texas · Effective 2026-01-01 · Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ch. 552; Tex. HB 149 (89th Leg., R.S., 2025), TRAIGA
Texas's AI law bans specific harmful uses of AI — intentional discrimination, behavioral manipulation encouraging self-harm or crime, social scoring by government, and certain biometric identification without consent — and requires government agencies to disclose AI interactions to consumers. It includes a regulatory sandbox and preempts local AI ordinances.
-
In effect
ND HB 1613 (drone evidence limits extended to robots; no armed police robots)
North Dakota · Effective 2025-08-01 · N.D. Cent. Code ch. 29-29.4; 2025 N.D. Laws (HB 1613)
North Dakota expanded its surveillance-by-drone chapter so the same rules now apply to 'robots' — powered, AI-driven machines or systems that can operate on their own. Information that law enforcement gathers using a robot is subject to the same evidentiary limits that already apply to information gathered by a drone. The law also bars law enforcement from using a robot or a drone to deploy a weapon or otherwise use force.
-
In effect
Va. Code 19.2-11.14 (humans, not AI, must decide bail/sentencing/parole)
Virginia · Effective 2025-07-01 · Va. Code 19.2-11.14; HB 1642 (2025), Va. Acts c. 637
Virginia requires that key criminal-justice decisions be made by a human being, even when an AI tool produces a recommendation or prediction. The rule covers pretrial detention or release, prosecution, adjudication, sentencing, probation, parole, correctional supervision, and rehabilitation. No such decision may be made without a human decision-maker, and any AI-generated recommendation is subject to any challenge or objection allowed by law.
-
In effect
Utah S.B. 180 (AI-written police reports need a disclaimer + officer sign-off)
Utah · Effective 2025-05-07 · Utah Laws 2025, S.B. 180; Utah Code 53-25-601, 53-25-602
Utah requires every law enforcement agency to adopt a written policy governing employee use of generative AI. Any police report or law enforcement record created wholly or partly with generative AI must contain a disclaimer that it includes AI-generated content, and the author must certify they personally read and reviewed it for accuracy.
-
In effect
LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) · Effective 2025-02-27 · LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar scanners plus AI-CCTV mobile detection)
LA Metro's board voted 10-0 to expand a one-year weapons-detection pilot using AI-powered pillar scanners and AI-CCTV mobile detection to identify concealed weapons on riders at busy stations and on buses.
-
In effect
Cease-and-Desist Order to Life Corporation over AI voice-clo
New Hampshire · Effective 2024-02-06 · Cease-and-Desist Order to Life Corporation over AI voice-clone voter-suppression robocalls
The NH Attorney General's Election Law Unit issued a cease-and-desist order to Life Corporation for AI-generated robocalls that cloned President Biden's voice to suppress votes in the 2024 primary, applying existing state voter-suppression law to deepfake audio.
-
In effect
VA EO 30 (2024)
VA · Effective 2024-01-18 · Va. Exec. Order No. 30 (Jan. 18, 2024)
Governor Youngkin's EO 30 directs the Virginia Information Technologies Agency (VITA) to issue AI policy and IT standards for state agencies, develops K-12 and higher-ed AI education guidelines, sets law-enforcement AI standards, and creates a Virginia AI Task Force.
-
In effect
USVI Act 8797 (RTCC)
US Virgin Islands · Effective 2023-12-19 · V.I. Act No. 8797 (2023); 3 V.I.C. § 263(a)
USVI Act 8797 establishes a centralized Real-Time Crime Center in the VI Police Department. Statutorily authorizes gunshot detection, a surveillance camera network, automated license plate readers, and fingerprint biometrics — putting AI-adjacent surveillance tech on a legal footing rather than restricting it. $2.5M appropriated.
-
In effect
Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition
New York State Education Department · Effective 2023-09-27 · Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition Technology in Schools
NYSED Commissioner Betty Rosa issued a statewide determination prohibiting all New York public and nonpublic schools from purchasing or using facial recognition technology, while leaving other biometric tools to local discretion subject to privacy and civil-rights review.
-
In effect
SEPTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Pilot Program
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) · Effective 2022-11-01 · SEPTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Pilot Program
SEPTA's board approved a ZeroEyes AI gun-detection pilot layered on its 30,000+ cameras to flag brandished firearms within seconds, but the year-long pilot was ended after the aging analog camera infrastructure proved incompatible.
-
In effect
ACLU v. Clearview AI
IL · Effective 2022-05-09 · ACLU v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 2020-CH-04353 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Ill.)
Clearview AI, which scraped billions of online photos to build a face-search engine sold to police, agreed to a nationwide consent order in May 2022. Clearview is permanently barred from selling its faceprint database to most private U.S. businesses, with additional Illinois-specific restrictions on government contracts.
-
In effect
Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of
Vermont · Effective 2020-03-10 · Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law
The Vermont Attorney General sued Clearview AI under the Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law for scraping Vermonters' photos and using facial-recognition AI to map faces and sell access without consent.
-
In effect
BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) · Effective 2018-09-13 · BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance
BART became the first transit district in the country to adopt a CCOPS-style ordinance requiring board approval, a surveillance impact report, a use policy, and annual reports before acquiring surveillance technology.
-
In effect
WI drone-surveillance ban
Wisconsin · Effective 2014-04-10 · Wis. Stat. §§ 942.10, 175.55
Wisconsin made it a Class A misdemeanor to use a drone to observe or record any person in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and requires police to obtain a warrant before using drones for surveillance.
-
Expired
Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport) · Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening
The Port Authority of NY & NJ deployed facial-recognition eGates at Newark Liberty that let enrolled travelers pass TSA checkpoints by matching a live facial scan against their identity document instead of a manual ID check.
-
Proposed / pending
MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monito
New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) · MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monitoring (Suspicious/Problematic Behavior Detection)
The MTA solicited vendors for AI computer-vision software to analyze feeds from its 15,000+ subway cameras to flag weapons, unattended items, and dangerous behavior, while stating facial recognition will not be used.
-
Proposed / pending
MTA/NYPD Evolv AI Weapons-Detection Scanner Pilot in NYC Sub
Metropolitan Transportation Authority / NYPD subway weapons scanners · MTA/NYPD Evolv AI Weapons-Detection Scanner Pilot in NYC Subway
The MTA and NYPD piloted Evolv AI-powered gun-detection scanners at NYC subway stations; a monthlong test of 3,000+ searches at 20 stations found no guns and over 100 false positives.
-
Repealed / replaced
VA SB 1392 / HB 2031 (2021 FR moratorium, narrowed 2022)
VA · Effective 2021-07-01 · Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (former, HB 2031 / SB 1392 2021) — substantially superseded by HB 1352 / SB 741 (2022)
Virginia's 2021 facial recognition moratorium (HB 2031, with Sen. Boysko's SB 1392 companion) prohibited local law enforcement use of facial recognition without legislative authorization. It was rolled back in 2022 by HB 1352 / SB 741 which authorized use with constraints — making the 2021 moratorium one of the shortest-lived state AI restrictions on record.
County police and surveillance AI rules (22)
-
In effect
Riverside County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy & Retention
Riverside County, CA · Effective 2025-07-22 · RCSD ALPR Policy (2025) (2025-07-22)
Riverside County Sheriff's Department adopted ALPR policy aligning with California Civil Code §1798.90.5 et seq.: 90-day retention cap, documented investigative purpose for queries, audit logging, and quarterly reporting to the Board of Supervisors.
-
In effect
Ventura County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy
Ventura County, CA · Effective 2025-05-20 · VCSO ALPR Policy (2025) (2025-05-20)
Ventura County Sheriff's Office adopted ALPR policy with 90-day retention, documented investigative purpose required for queries, audit logging, and prohibition on sharing data with commercial brokers, per California Civil Code §1798.90.5.
-
In effect
Orange County CA Sheriff ALPR Use & Retention Policy
Orange County, CA · Effective 2025-04-15 · OCSD ALPR Policy (2025) (2025-04-15)
Orange County (CA) Sheriff's Department adopted ALPR governance policy with 90-day retention cap, documented investigative purpose requirement, audit logging, and quarterly reporting to the Board of Supervisors per California Civil Code §1798.90.5 et seq.
-
In effect
Loudoun County Sheriff's Office ALPR General Order 401.8
Loudoun County, VA · Effective 2025-03-24 · LCSO General Order 401
Loudoun County Sheriff's Office General Order 401.8 (Operations) governs Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR / Flock Safety) use by LCSO personnel. Last reviewed March 24, 2025 with the next review scheduled for November 1, 2027. The order requires data-sharing among other agencies to be governed by MOUs, states that ALPR data is owned by LCSO and is not sold to third parties, and is updated to reflect VA legislative changes effective July 1, 2025.
-
In effect
Montgomery County MD Police Directive FC 0627
Montgomery County, MD · Effective 2024-10-01 · MCPD Directive FC 0627 (Use of Facial Recognition Technology), posted 2024-10-01
Montgomery County Police Department Function Code 0627 — 'Use of Facial Recognition Technology' — is the operational directive governing MCPD's use of facial recognition. The directive was published October 1, 2024 on the official MCPD policy library. It is paired with Council Bill 33-22 (adopted Feb. 13, 2023) at the legislative level. Maryland's statewide HB 338/SB 182 (signed May 16, 2024) adds reasonable-suspicion-of-qualifying-offense and no-sole-basis-for-arrest constraints that apply to all state, county, and municipal law-enforcement agencies including MCPD.
-
In effect
Orleans Parish / New Orleans Facial Recognition Restrictions
Orleans Parish County, LA · Effective 2024-07-25 · New Orleans City Council Ordinance (Orleans Parish coterminous) (2024-07-25)
Orleans Parish (coterminous with New Orleans) restricts NOPD's use of facial-recognition technology to investigations of specific violent crimes with supervisory approval, prohibits use as sole basis for arrest, and requires reporting to City Council.
-
In effect
Arlington County VA ACPD Automated License Plate Reader
Arlington County, VA · Effective 2024-04-01 · ACPD General Order 605 (ALPR policy) (2024-04-01)
Arlington County Police Department adopted formal ALPR governance policy with 30-day data retention limit, restricted access, audit trails, and required reasonable-suspicion or investigative purpose for queries; aligns with Virginia Code §15.2-1723.1.
-
In effect
King County FR Ban
King County, WA · King County, Wash., Ordinance 19296 (June 1, 2021)
King County (the Seattle area) was the first US county to ban its government, including the Sheriff's Office, from using facial recognition technology. The unanimous 2021 ordinance also bars county agencies from getting facial recognition information through third parties. Remains in effect as of June 2026.
-
In effect
Santa Clara County Surveillance Ordinance
Santa Clara County, CA · Santa Clara County, Cal., Ordinance Code div. A40 (NS-300.897, 2016)
Santa Clara County passed the nation's first county-level surveillance oversight law in 2016. County departments must get Board of Supervisors approval, publish a surveillance use policy, and file an impact report before acquiring surveillance technology, plus annual reports afterward. Still actively administered by the County Privacy Office.
-
In effect
Monongalia County Commission approves Flock Safety automated
Monongalia County, WV · Effective 2025-12-10 · Monongalia County Commission approves Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) surveillance program
The Monongalia County Commission voted on December 10, 2025 to approve a three-year contract using $60,000 in opioid settlement funds for 20 Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras, over resident privacy objections.
-
In effect
MCSO AI-assisted body scanner deployment for jail contraband
Maricopa County, AZ (Maricopa County Sheriff's Office) · Effective 2025-10-20 · MCSO AI-assisted body scanner deployment for jail contraband detection (LINEV Systems)
The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deployed ten AI-assisted X-ray body scanners across six jail facilities to detect internally concealed contraband on inmates using automated anomaly detection and drug-detection software.
-
In effect
Johnson County Sheriff nationwide Flock ALPR search (abortio
Johnson County, TX (Johnson County Sheriff's Office) · Effective 2025-05-09 · Johnson County Sheriff nationwide Flock ALPR search (abortion 'death investigation')
Johnson County Sheriff's deputies ran nationwide Flock automated license plate reader searches across tens of thousands of cameras and thousands of networks to locate a woman in a self-managed-abortion investigation, illustrating an operational sheriff ALPR practice.
-
In effect
RTC of Southern Nevada Wide-Scale ZeroEyes AI Weapons-Detect
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) · Effective 2024-06-19 · RTC of Southern Nevada Wide-Scale ZeroEyes AI Weapons-Detection Deployment
The RTC became the first US transit agency to deploy wide-scale ZeroEyes AI gun-detection analytics across its transit-center cameras, later expanding the program by over 300% to all eight transit centers.
-
In effect
Montgomery County Police Department Drone as First Responder
Montgomery County, MD · Effective 2023-11-20 · Montgomery County Police Department Drone as First Responder Program
Montgomery County Police launched a DFR program on November 20, 2023, limited to responding to calls for service, with no proactive surveillance, audio recording, or facial recognition and a warrant requirement for private areas.
-
In effect
Spokane County Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) surveillance us
Spokane County, WA (Spokane County Sheriff's Office) · Effective 2023-04-01 · Spokane County Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) surveillance use policy
The Spokane County Sheriff's RTCC fuses surveillance cameras, license plate readers, BriefCam video analytics, 911 and social media data for real-time intelligence while stating it does not use facial recognition biometric software and applies access controls and audits.
-
In effect
Ordinance prohibiting King County government and Sheriff use
King County, WA · Effective 2021-06-01 · Ordinance prohibiting King County government and Sheriff use of facial recognition technology
King County became the first U.S. county to ban its administrative agencies and the Sheriff's Office from using facial recognition technology, with a narrow exception for the National Child Search Assistance Act.
-
In effect
King County Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Ordinance 202
King County, WA (home to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport) · Effective 2021-06-01 · King County Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Ordinance 2021)
King County (which operates Sea-Tac's environs and the Sheriff's Office) became the first U.S. county to ban all county-agency use of facial recognition, though federal CBP use at Sea-Tac is unaffected.
-
In effect
Orange County SD Policy Manual, Policy 308 - Unmanned Aerial
Orange County, CA (Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department) · Effective 2021-03-01 · Orange County SD Policy Manual, Policy 308 - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
The Orange County Sheriff's UAV policy sets rules for lawful, FAA Part 107-compliant drone operations, requiring mission briefs, after-action reports, and prohibiting missions that violate the public's privacy rights.
-
In effect
Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD)
Riverside County, CA (Riverside Cal-ID Biometric Identification Network / RCSD) · Effective 2020-03-23 · Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD)
The Riverside County Sheriff's Department's Cal-ID biometric network governs use of its facial recognition system, restricting acceptable search reasons, requiring training, data-quality assurance, retention/purging rules, and oversight for participating law-enforcement agencies.
-
In effect
Suffolk County Jail AI inmate-call monitoring (LEO Technolog
Suffolk County, NY (Suffolk County Sheriff's Office) · Effective 2019-04-01 · Suffolk County Jail AI inmate-call monitoring (LEO Technologies 'Verus')
The Suffolk County Sheriff's jail deployed LEO Technologies' Verus AI, which uses Amazon speech-to-text to transcribe and keyword-flag inmate phone calls, monitoring over 2.5 million calls between April 2019 and May 2020.
-
Proposed / pending
Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (Brief
Cook County, IL (Cook County Sheriff / Cook County Jail) · Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (BriefCam) contract
The Cook County Sheriff's Office proposed a $1.12M three-year BriefCam contract to add AI video analytics, facial recognition, and object identification across Cook County Jail's video, drawing opposition from 80 community groups.
-
Proposed / pending
Santa Fe County Sheriff proposed Clearview AI facial recogni
Santa Fe County, NM (Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office) · Santa Fe County Sheriff proposed Clearview AI facial recognition pilot contract
The Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office asked the County Commission to approve a $17,100 one-year Clearview AI facial recognition pilot, but commissioners tabled it and required the office to first present a use policy and vet vendor data-sharing (including with ICE).
City / local police and surveillance AI rules (126)
-
In effect
Portland OR Twin FR Bans (2020, broadest-in-nation)
Portland, OR · Effective 2021-01-01 · Portland City Code Ch. 34.10 (private-sector); Council Action Sept. 9, 2020
On September 9, 2020, Portland, Oregon became the first U.S. city to ban both government AND private-sector use of facial recognition in places of public accommodation. The private-sector ban — codified at Portland City Code Ch. 34.10 — included a private right of action and remains the broadest municipal FR ban in the United States.
-
In effect
Newark Police FR Prohibition
Newark, NJ · Effective 2020-01-27 · NJ AG informal email moratorium (January 27, 2020); no formal directive number issued; no documented Newark PD formal adopting policy
New Jersey Attorney General directive (followed by Newark PD) bars all New Jersey law-enforcement agencies — including Newark — from using Clearview AI facial recognition.
-
In effect
Berkeley Government FR Ban (2019)
Berkeley, CA · Effective 2019-11-14 · Berkeley Mun. Code Ch. 2.99 (Ord. 7,676-N.S., 2019)
On October 15, 2019, Berkeley enacted Ordinance 7,676-N.S., prohibiting the City Manager and any city agent from obtaining, retaining, accessing, or using facial recognition technology — making Berkeley the fourth U.S. city to ban government FR. Codified at Berkeley Mun. Code Ch. 2.99. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect
Oakland Government FR Ban (2019)
Oakland, CA · Effective 2019-08-15 · Oakland Mun. Code Ch. 9.64 (2019, expanded 2020)
On July 16, 2019, Oakland became the third U.S. city (after San Francisco and Somerville, MA) to ban government use of facial recognition. Council expanded the ban in December 2020 to also cover predictive policing and voice/gait biometric surveillance — the first U.S. city to do so. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect
SF Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance (2019, first-in-nation)
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2019-07-15 · S.F. Ordinance No. 107-19 (2019); S.F. Admin. Code ch. 19B
San Francisco became the first city in the United States to ban its own government — including police — from using facial recognition technology. The Board of Supervisors gave final passage 10-1 on June 4, 2019; the ordinance became law without the mayor's signature on June 14, 2019 and took effect July 15, 2019, codified at SF Admin. Code Chapter 19B. It also requires Board approval and public use policies before city departments acquire any other surveillance technology. Still in effect 2026 and the template for municipal facial-recognition bans nationwide.
-
In effect
Somerville Face Surveillance Ban (2019, first East Coast)
Somerville, MA · Effective 2019-06-27 · Somerville, Mass., Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance (June 27, 2019)
On June 27, 2019, Somerville, MA became the first East Coast city — and the second U.S. city overall after San Francisco — to ban its government from using face surveillance technology. Unanimous council vote. Catalyzed a Massachusetts municipal FR ban wave including Brookline, Cambridge, Northampton, and Springfield. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect
Oakland Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban
Oakland, CA · Oakland, Cal., Mun. Code ch. 9.64
Oakland requires City Council approval and public use policies before city agencies acquire any surveillance technology, and bans city use of facial recognition. In December 2020 the city added first-in-the-nation bans on predictive policing and other biometric surveillance (such as voice and gait recognition). Remains in effect, overseen by Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission.
-
In effect
Portland (Maine) Facial Surveillance Ban
Portland, ME · Portland, Me., facial surveillance ban (Aug. 2020), as amended by Question B (Nov. 2020)
Portland, Maine's City Council banned city employees, including police, from using facial surveillance in August 2020, and voters strengthened the ban that November by passing Question B, which lets people sue the city for violations. Because it was enacted by referendum, the council could not amend it for five years. Remains in effect as of June 2026.
-
Blocked / in litigation
ACLU-WV v. Huntington (Flock contract mandamus)
Huntington, WV · Effective 2026-07-16 · ACLU-WV mandamus petition (relator Gregory Jimison) v. City of Huntington and Mayor Farrell, Cabell County Circuit Court, filed July 16, 2026
On July 16, 2026 — two days after the Huntington City Council approved a $2.1 million Flock Safety surveillance contract 6-4 — the ACLU of West Virginia filed a mandamus petition in Cabell County Circuit Court against the City of Huntington and Mayor Farrell seeking to block the contract. Rather than a constitutional privacy claim, the petition rests on a procurement/property-law theory challenging how the city entered the contract. The relator (the party on whose behalf mandamus is sought) is Huntington resident Gregory Jimison. The case is an early example of surveillance-contract litigation attacking the purchasing process itself.
-
In effect
Minneapolis rejects Skydio DFR contract 6-6 (Jul. 16, 2026)
Minneapolis, MN · Effective 2026-07-16 · Minneapolis City Council 6-6 deadlock, July 16, 2026, rejecting MPD Skydio drone-as-first-responder contract
On July 16, 2026, the Minneapolis City Council deadlocked 6-6 on a proposed contract with drone maker Skydio for a police drone-as-first-responder (DFR) program, killing the deal. The vote followed a 75-day free trial Skydio provided the Minneapolis Police Department in north Minneapolis. Council opposition centered on Skydio's sales to ICE and to Israel, and on data-leak concerns. The rejection ends, for now, MPD's path to a permanent DFR program, making Minneapolis one of the larger US cities to decline a police drone contract after piloting one.
-
In effect
LAPD lets Flock contract expire (Jul. 11, 2026)
Los Angeles, CA · Effective 2026-07-11 · LAPD Flock Safety contract expiration, July 11, 2026 (138 cameras; largest US department to end a Flock contract)
The Los Angeles Police Department let its contract with Flock Safety expire on July 11, 2026, shutting down its network of 138 Flock license plate reader cameras. Chief information officer Gialamas cited civil-liberties concerns and worries about immigration authorities' access to Flock data. LAPD is the largest US police department to break with Flock. The move caps a national trend: 82 Flock contracts were terminated nationwide between August 2021 and May 2026, 39 of them in the first five months of 2026 alone.
-
In effect
Kaukauna WI Flock non-renewal (announced Jul. 8, 2026)
Kaukauna, WI · Effective 2026-07-08 · Kaukauna, WI Flock Safety contract non-renewal, announced July 8, 2026 (contract expired June 2026)
The city of Kaukauna, Wisconsin announced on July 8, 2026 that it will not renew its contract with Flock Safety; the contract had expired in June. The police chief gave five reasons: fiscal responsibility, the loss of regional partner agencies that had shared the network, the department's inability to audit the system, security concerns, and reported misuse of Flock systems in other jurisdictions. The decision removes Flock license plate reader surveillance from the city and is indexed as a protective decision.
-
In effect
San Jose ALPR 30-day retention safeguards (2026)
San Jose, CA · Effective 2026-03-10 · City of San Jose ALPR Use Policy Amendment (City Council unanimous vote, March 10, 2026)
On March 10, 2026, San Jose City Council voted unanimously to tighten safeguards on the city's network of 474 Flock Safety license-plate-reader cameras. The new rules cut the data retention period from one year to 30 days, restrict where cameras can be placed, and limit data-sharing with outside law enforcement agencies to documented criminal investigations. San Jose is the largest U.S. city to have adopted a Government AI Coalition framework, and this vote aligned its ALPR rules with its broader digital-privacy principles.
-
In effect
DPD FR Policy (2023 update)
Detroit, MI · Effective 2024-05-30 · DPD Directive 307.5 (2023, as updated)
Updated Detroit Police Department policy directive on facial recognition technology issued after the Robert Williams settlement, restricting FR matches as the sole basis for arrest and requiring corroborating evidence and supervisory review.
-
In effect
Durham PD FR Restriction
Durham, NC · Effective 2024-03-01 · Durham PD Gen. Order, Facial Recognition (2024)
Durham Police Department general order restricting facial recognition use to case-tied investigations with supervisory approval and treating matches as investigative leads only.
-
In effect
Indianapolis Metro PD FR Prohibition
Indianapolis, IN · Effective 2023-04-01 · IMPD Gen. Order 2944094, Biometric Technology / Facial Recognition (available at public.powerdms.com/INDYMETRO/documents/2944094)
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department general order prohibiting use of facial recognition technology by IMPD personnel without express written authorization and case predicate.
-
In effect
San Diego Surveillance Tech Ordinance
San Diego, CA · Effective 2022-08-23 · San Diego Mun. Code ch. 2, art. 10, div. 41 (Ord. O-21492, O-21493) (2022)
San Diego ordinance requiring City Council approval and a published use policy for any city surveillance technology, including the Smart Streetlights and ALPR programs, with a Privacy Advisory Board overseeing impact reports.
-
In effect
St. Louis Surveillance Technology CCOPS Ordinance
St. Louis, MO · Effective 2022-04-29 · Ord. 71842 (BB 185) (2022-04-29)
24th U.S. CCOPS law; requires Board of Aldermen approval and impact reports for any city surveillance technology including face-recognition, ALPRs, predictive policing.
-
In effect
Yellow Springs Use of Surveillance Technology (Codified Ord. Ch. 607)
Yellow Springs, OH · Effective 2022-04-04 · Ord. 2022-09 (2022-04-04)
CCOPS ordinance requiring council approval, cost-benefit + civil-liberties findings before adoption of any surveillance technology.
-
In effect
Bellingham Initiative 2
Bellingham, WA · Effective 2021-11-02 · Bellingham Initiative 2 (2021) (2021-11-02)
Voter-approved (57%) ban on city acquisition or use of face-recognition and predictive-policing technologies.
-
In effect
Palo Alto Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Palo Alto, CA · Effective 2021-04-26 · Ord. 5485 (2021-04-26)
CCOPS-model ordinance requiring council approval and annual reports for police/city surveillance technology.
-
In effect
MA Police Reform FR Restriction (Worcester)
Worcester, MA · Effective 2020-12-31 · Mass. Gen. Laws c. 6, secs. 219-220 (Ch. 253 of 2020)
Massachusetts police-reform law (Ch. 253 of 2020) limits municipal police departments — including Worcester — to facial recognition queries run only by RMV, MSP, or FBI via written request and supervisory approval.
-
In effect
Syracuse Surveillance Policy
Syracuse, NY · Effective 2020-12-15 · Syracuse Surveillance Technology Policy (Dec. 2020)
Mayor Walsh executive order created a citywide Surveillance Technology Policy and a 9-employee/6-community Working Group that biweekly reviews each department's proposed surveillance technologies.
-
In effect
Pittsburgh Regulation of Facial Recognition and Predictive Policing Technologies
Pittsburgh, PA · Effective 2020-09-22 · Pittsburgh File 2020-0647 (2020-09-22)
Requires council approval before city or police use of face-recognition or predictive-policing tools (state JNET excluded).
-
In effect
Eugene Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Eugene, OR · Effective 2020-09-14 · Ord. 20618 (2020-09-14)
Requires council approval and impact reports for any city surveillance acquisition or use.
-
In effect
Portland City-Government FR Ban
Portland, OR · Effective 2020-09-09 · Portland, Or., city-bureau face recognition ban ordinance (Sept. 9, 2020)
Portland bans all city bureaus, including the Portland Police Bureau, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology. Adopted the same day as the separate private-sector ban; remains in effect as of June 2026.
-
In effect
Boston Face Surveillance Ban
Boston, MA · Effective 2020-06-24 · Boston, Mass., Code of Ordinances 16-62 (2020)
Boston bans all city departments, including police, from obtaining or using face surveillance systems. City officials also may not ask third parties or other agencies to run facial recognition searches on their behalf.
-
In effect
Santa Cruz Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance
Santa Cruz, CA · Effective 2020-06-23 · Ord. 2020-09 (2020-06-23)
First U.S. city to ban predictive policing; also bans city use of facial recognition.
-
In effect
Alameda Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance
Alameda, CA · Effective 2019-12-17 · Ord. 3247 (2019-12-17)
Council adopted a surveillance-oversight ordinance with an explicit prohibition on city use of face-recognition technology.
-
In effect
Orlando Ends Rekognition Pilot
Orlando, FL · Effective 2019-07-18 · City of Orlando memo to City Council, July 18, 2019
City of Orlando and Orlando Police Department formally ended their pilot of Amazon Rekognition real-time facial recognition in 2018 after public backlash; OPD has not redeployed live FR since.
-
In effect
Lawrence Surveillance Oversight Ordinance (CCOPS)
Lawrence, MA · Effective 2018-09-04 · Lawrence Ord. (Sept. 2018) (2018-09-04)
First MA CCOPS ordinance; requires council approval and use policies for any city surveillance technology.
-
In effect
Davis Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Art. 26.07)
Davis, CA · Effective 2018-03-20 · Ord. 2510 (2018-03-20)
Requires council approval, impact reports, and use policies before any city acquisition or use of surveillance tech (early CCOPS).
-
In effect
Tacoma Surveillance Ordinance
Tacoma, WA · Effective 2017-09-12 · Tacoma Mun. Code ch. 1.42 (Ord. 28427) (2017)
Tacoma ordinance requiring City Council approval and a public use policy before any city department acquires or uses surveillance equipment.
-
In effect
Seattle Surveillance Ordinance
Seattle, WA · Effective 2017-09-01 · Seattle Ordinance 125376 (2017), SMC ch. 14.18, as amended 2018
Seattle requires city departments to get City Council approval before acquiring or using surveillance technologies, supported by public Surveillance Impact Reports and review by a community working group. One of the earliest and most comprehensive municipal surveillance-oversight laws in the country.
-
In effect
Seattle Surveillance Ordinance (SMC 14.18)
Seattle, WA · Effective 2017-08-02 · Ord. 125376 (2017-08-02)
Requires council review and approval of all city surveillance technologies, with public process and use policies.
-
In effect
Nashville Surveillance Equipment Council-Approval Ordinance (Metro Code 13.08.080)
Nashville, TN · Effective 2017-05-16 · Ord. BL2017-646 (2017-05-16)
Requires Metro Council approval before any law-enforcement deployment or contracting of surveillance technology on public rights-of-way.
-
In effect
Cambridge Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban
Cambridge, MA · Cambridge, Mass., Mun. Code ch. 2.128, FR ban amendment (Jan. 13, 2020)
Cambridge requires City Council approval and impact reports before city departments use surveillance technology, and a unanimous January 2020 amendment banned city use of face surveillance. Surveillance impact reports were still being filed with the council in 2024–2025.
-
In effect
Brookline Face Surveillance Ban
Brookline, MA · Town of Brookline, Mass., General By-Laws (Warrant Art. 25, 2019)
Brookline's Town Meeting voted 179–8 in December 2019 to ban town government use of face surveillance, making it the fifth US municipality to do so. The by-law bars town departments, including police, from obtaining or using face surveillance systems.
-
In effect
Minneapolis FR Ban
Minneapolis, MN · Minneapolis, Minn., FR Ban Ordinance (Feb. 12, 2021)
Minneapolis bans city departments, including the police department, from procuring facial recognition technology or using data derived from it, with a council-approved exceptions process and annual reporting. No repeal or weakening amendment was found — the ordinance appears to remain in effect as of June 2026.
-
In effect
Madison Face Surveillance Ban
Madison, WI · Madison, Wis., Gen. Ordinances §§ 23.63–23.64
Madison bans city agencies, including police, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology, with narrow exceptions for identifying victims of human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, and missing children. Works alongside the city's surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual compliance reports.
-
In effect
Cleveland OH Flock 6-month renewal w/ data-sharing restrictions (Jul. 15, 2026)
Cleveland, OH · Effective 2026-07-15 · Cleveland, OH City Council 9-6 vote, July 15, 2026, six-month Flock Safety renewal with no-data-sharing and no-fusion-center conditions
Cleveland City Council voted 9-6 on July 15, 2026 to keep the city's Flock Safety license plate reader cameras for another six months — but attached new restrictions the prior contract lacked. Under the renewal, Flock data may not be shared with other governments or third parties, and access by the regional fusion center is cut off. The short six-month term functions as a probationary period. This entry indexes a surveillance deployment renewal; the new data-sharing restrictions are the operative oversight conditions.
-
In effect
Huntington WV Flock contract approved 6-4 (Jul. 14, 2026)
Huntington, WV · Effective 2026-07-14 · Huntington, WV City Council 6-4 vote, July 14, 2026, approving $2.1M Flock Safety surveillance contract
The Huntington, West Virginia City Council voted 6-4 on July 14, 2026 to approve a $2.1 million contract with Flock Safety for a citywide surveillance package: 40 automated license plate readers, 17 cameras, 2 drones, 2 gunshot detectors, and audio detection capability. The vote came after a council meeting that ran more than 8 hours, at which more than 50 residents spoke in opposition. This entry indexes a government AI surveillance deployment, not a protection; available coverage describes no independent oversight, audit requirement, or data-sharing restrictions attached to the approval. Two days later the ACLU of West Virginia filed a mandamus petition challenging the contract (see litig-aclu-wv-v-huntington-flock-2026).
-
In effect
Warren MI Flock renewal 4-3 ($132k/2yr, Jul. 14, 2026)
Warren, MI · Effective 2026-07-14 · Warren, MI City Council 4-3 vote, July 14, 2026, renewing Flock Safety contract (~$132,000 / 2 years) after reconsideration
The Warren, Michigan City Council renewed the city's Flock Safety license plate reader contract by a narrow 4-3 vote on July 14, 2026, after a reconsideration of an earlier vote. The renewal is worth about $132,000 over two years. Councilwoman Magee, who had previously supported the contract, flipped her vote to no on reconsideration — leaving the renewal to pass by a single vote. This entry indexes a surveillance deployment renewal; no new oversight conditions were reported with the renewal.
-
In effect
Cypress CA police drone purchase (~$138k/3yr, Jul. 2026)
Cypress, CA · Effective 2026-07-14 · Cypress, CA City Council unanimous vote (Jul. 2026) authorizing ~$138,000/3-year police drone purchase with $70,000 foundation donation
The Cypress, California City Council voted unanimously to buy drones for its police department — a roughly $138,000 commitment over three years, with $70,000 of the cost covered by a foundation donation. Cypress is one of two Orange County cities (with Stanton) that moved on police drones the same week. This entry indexes a government drone deployment; coverage reports no specific oversight, retention, or privacy conditions attached to the purchase.
-
In effect
Fredericksburg VA Axon AI package w/ Draft One carve-out (Jul. 14, 2026)
Fredericksburg, VA · Effective 2026-07-14 · Fredericksburg, VA City Council authorization, July 14, 2026, of $1.9M/5-year Axon AI package (Draft One with critical-incident bar, translation, transcription, in-car cameras, mobile ALPR)
The Fredericksburg, Virginia City Council authorized a $1.9 million, five-year package with Axon on July 14, 2026 that adds AI capabilities across the police department: Draft One (Axon's generative AI police-report drafting tool), AI translation, transcription, in-car cameras, and mobile license plate readers. The package carries one notable guardrail: Draft One is optional for officers and is barred from use in critical incidents — meaning reports on the most serious events must be written by humans. Otherwise this entry indexes a government AI deployment.
-
In effect
Stanton CA authorizes OC Sheriff DFR 3-0-2 (Jul. 13, 2026)
Stanton, CA · Effective 2026-07-13 · Stanton, CA City Council 3-0-2 vote, July 13, 2026, authorizing OC Sheriff drone-as-first-responder program
The Stanton, California City Council voted 3-0 (with two abstentions) on July 13, 2026 to authorize the Orange County Sheriff's Department — which provides Stanton's police services — to run a drone-as-first-responder program in the city. Councilmember Torres abstained, citing surveillance and data-sharing concerns. Stanton and Cypress advanced police drone programs the same week. This entry indexes a government drone deployment; coverage reports no oversight or data-handling conditions attached to the authorization.
-
In effect
Rochester MN $467,290 Axon DFR contract (Jul. 2026)
Rochester, MN · Effective 2026-07-06 · Rochester, MN City Council unanimous vote (Jul. 2026) authorizing $467,290 five-year Axon drone-as-first-responder contract (2 drones, 2 docking stations; Mayo grant funded)
The Rochester, Minnesota City Council unanimously authorized a $467,290 contract with Axon for a police drone-as-first-responder program — two drones and two docking stations over a five-year term, funded by a Mayo grant rather than city general funds. This entry indexes a government drone deployment; coverage reports no specific oversight, retention, or privacy conditions attached to the contract.
-
In effect
Bristol VA PD facial recognition program (first VA local agency)
Bristol, VA · Effective 2026-06-01 · Bristol VA PD General Order 9-09, Facial Recognition Technology (eff. June 1, 2026); Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (eff. July 1, 2026); Clearview AI via LexisNexis
The Bristol, Virginia Police Department launched a facial recognition technology (FRT) program on June 1, 2026, governed by a 27-page General Order 9-09. Bristol PD is the first known local law-enforcement agency in Virginia to adopt FRT following the state's shift from an effective ban to an authorization-with-safeguards regime under Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2. The program uses Clearview AI, accessed through LexisNexis. Bristol PD publicly posts its facial recognition activity record at bristolva.gov as required by state law. Under Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2, local agencies that use FR must publish a policy, publish an annual report by April 1 each year, maintain confidentiality of FR data, and restrict access to warrant-authorized queries. The DCJS reported that NO Virginia local law-enforcement agencies used FR in 2023 or 2024 (prior to the July 1, 2026 authorization change).
-
In effect
Metro Nashville Police Drones as First Responder Trial Progr
Nashville, TN (Metro Nashville Police Department) · Effective 2026-05-22 · Metro Nashville Police Drones as First Responder Trial Program
Metro Nashville Police runs a DFR trial using three Skydio drones dispatched only to specific emergency calls, with no facial recognition or routine patrol and non-evidentiary footage deleted after 7 days.
-
In effect
Board of Aldermen cancels Flock automated license-plate read
Weston, MO · Effective 2026-05-01 · Board of Aldermen cancels Flock automated license-plate reader (ALPR) camera contract after resident opposition
The Weston Board of Aldermen canceled a $45,000 contract for two Flock ALPR cameras roughly five months after approving it, following sustained resident privacy opposition, with no money paid.
-
In effect
Austin Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Techn
Austin, TX · Effective 2026-04-23 · Austin Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology (TRUST) Act
After letting its Flock ALPR contract expire in 2025, the Austin City Council passed the TRUST Act requiring council approval and public review before departments can acquire, use, or share data from surveillance technology like license plate readers and drones.
-
In effect
Tampa Police Department Drone as First Responder Program
Tampa, FL · Effective 2026-03-01 · Tampa Police Department Drone as First Responder Program
Tampa PD operates a Skydio-based DFR pilot in the Ybor and Downtown areas governed by Florida Statute 934.50, prohibiting facial recognition, weaponization, and warrantless surveillance of private areas.
-
In effect
Orlando Police Department Drone as First Responder Program (
Orlando, FL · Effective 2026-02-24 · Orlando Police Department Drone as First Responder Program (Axon contract approved by City Council)
Orlando City Council approved a $6.83M Axon DFR program on February 24, 2026, deploying 11 drones across 9 rooftop docking stations for automated 911-call response, governed by state law and limited to specific calls rather than mass surveillance.
-
In effect
Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facia
Milwaukee, WI · Effective 2026-02-06 · Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facial recognition technology
After sustained public opposition, the Milwaukee Police Department announced it would not use or acquire facial recognition technology pending a formal policy, a moratorium the Common Council can modify or reject.
-
In effect
Police surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual pu
Columbia, MO · Effective 2025-12-31 · Police surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual public surveillance reports (Code Sec. 21-61)
Columbia's surveillance technology ordinance (Code of Ordinances Article IV, Sec. 21-61) requires the police department to document and publicly report its use of surveillance technology to the City Council each year, including data-sharing, complaints, and audit results.
-
In effect
Cambridge terminates Flock Safety ALPR contract for 'materia
Cambridge, MA · Effective 2025-12-09 · Cambridge terminates Flock Safety ALPR contract for 'material breach of trust'
After suspending its Flock cameras in October 2025 over fears data could reach ICE in violation of the city's sanctuary ordinance, Cambridge terminated the contract when Flock installed cameras without authorization.
-
In effect
San Marcos City Council votes to discontinue Flock Safety AL
San Marcos, TX · Effective 2025-12-02 · San Marcos City Council votes to discontinue Flock Safety ALPR contract
The City Council voted on December 2, 2025 to discontinue its Flock Safety contract, and all city-contracted Flock cameras were deactivated and removed as of February 1, 2026.
-
In effect
Evanston deactivates 19 ALPR cameras and terminates Flock Sa
Evanston, IL · Effective 2025-08-26 · Evanston deactivates 19 ALPR cameras and terminates Flock Safety contract
Evanston deactivated all 19 of its Flock cameras and issued a termination notice effective September 26, 2025 after a state audit found Flock illegally shared Illinois data with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
-
In effect
CTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Contract Expansion (250 to 1,5
Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) · Effective 2025-07-24 · CTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Contract Expansion (250 to 1,500 cameras)
The CTA board approved a $1.2M contract to expand ZeroEyes AI gun-detection software from 250 to 1,500 platform cameras by mid-2026, over civil-liberties objections about public input and effectiveness.
-
In effect
Oklahoma City Council approves police facial-recognition con
Oklahoma City, OK · Effective 2025-07-15 · Oklahoma City Council approves police facial-recognition contract
The Oklahoma City Council voted 7-2 on July 15, 2025 to approve integrating facial-recognition technology into the police department despite privacy objections.
-
In effect
Resolution to expand surveillance cameras in public parks (o
City and County of Honolulu, HI · Effective 2025-06-04 · Resolution to expand surveillance cameras in public parks (one-year pilot)
The Honolulu City Council approved Resolution 3332 on June 4, 2025 launching a one-year pilot to expand public-park surveillance cameras from about 16 to roughly 45 parks, with 30-day footage retention and a required HPD effectiveness report to the Council.
-
In effect
Honolulu Police Department Automated License Plate Reader (A
City and County of Honolulu (Honolulu Police Department), HI · Effective 2025-06-01 · Honolulu Police Department Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Policy
The Honolulu Police Department maintains an official ALPR policy limiting use to law enforcement purposes, requiring a 90-day data purge, FBI-certified offsite storage, logged access, and Chief-of-Police approval for any non-law-enforcement sharing.
-
In effect
Real-Time Crime Center Surveillance Impact Report and Crime
Seattle, WA · Effective 2024-10-01 · Real-Time Crime Center Surveillance Impact Report and Crime Prevention Technology Pilot legislation
Seattle's Real-Time Crime Center was authorized under the city's surveillance ordinance through a Council-approved Surveillance Impact Report, requiring Council sign-off for material changes and an independent Office of Inspector General evaluation of its analytics.
-
In effect
Detroit FR Policy Directive 307.5
Detroit, MI · Effective 2024-07-15 · Detroit Police Dep't Directive 307.5 (rev. June 28, 2024)
After three wrongful arrests of Black men from faulty facial recognition matches, Detroit settled a lawsuit and updated its policy: police cannot make an arrest based solely on a facial recognition match and must corroborate with independent evidence.
-
In effect
Richmond VA PD FR Policy
Richmond, VA · Effective 2024-07-01 · Richmond PD Gen. Order, Facial Recognition (2024); Va. Code 15.2-1723.2
Richmond Police Department general order on facial recognition technology required under Virginia state law (Va. Code 15.2-1723.2), restricting use to authorized purposes and case-tied queries.
-
In effect
Miami PD FR Policy
Miami, FL · Effective 2024-06-01 · Miami PD Departmental Order 16, Chapter 4, Facial Recognition Technology (effective 08/21/2020)
Miami Police Department written policy (Departmental Order 16, Ch. 4, effective 2020) on facial recognition technology: prohibits a facial recognition result alone from constituting probable cause for arrest; limits use to authorized Real Time Crime Center personnel; permits use for criminal investigations, internal affairs investigations, identifying incapacitated or unidentified deceased persons, and lawfully detained persons unable to identify themselves; prohibits real-time monitoring and use for surveillance based on protected characteristics.
-
In effect
Virginia Beach PD FR Policy
Virginia Beach, VA · Effective 2024-06-01 · Virginia Beach PD Gen. Order, Facial Recognition (2024); Va. Code 15.2-1723.2
Virginia Beach Police Department general order on facial recognition operationalizing Virginia Code 15.2-1723.2 limits.
-
In effect
MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09)
Washington, DC (Metropolitan Police Department) · Effective 2024-06-01 · MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09)
The DC Metropolitan Police Department launched its UAS program in June 2024 under General Order 803.09, prohibiting facial recognition and weaponization and barring targeting based on protected characteristics.
-
In effect
SFPD Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Program authorized und
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2024-05-16 · SFPD Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Program authorized under Proposition E (SF Admin Code 96I.2)
After voters passed Proposition E in March 2024, SFPD began operating drones for criminal investigations, vehicle pursuits, and critical incidents, with publicly available flight logs starting May 16, 2024.
-
In effect
Las Vegas Metro PD FR Policy
Las Vegas, NV · Effective 2024-05-01 · LVMPD Department Manual, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department policy on facial recognition technology requiring case predicate, supervisory approval, and treating matches as investigative leads only.
-
In effect
Norfolk Flock ALPR Policy
Norfolk, VA · Effective 2024-05-01 · Norfolk PD Directive, Flock Safety ALPR (2024)
Norfolk Police Department directive governing use of Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras, including retention, sharing, and audit requirements.
-
In effect
Buffalo PD FR Policy
Buffalo, NY · Effective 2024-04-01 · Buffalo PD Manual, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)
Buffalo Police Department policy on facial recognition use, requiring case predicate and supervisory approval, treating matches as investigative leads.
-
In effect
Boise PD FR Policy
Boise, ID · Effective 2024-04-01 · Boise PD Policy Manual, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)
Boise Police Department written policy on facial recognition technology with supervisory approval, case predicate, and investigative-lead-only rules.
-
In effect
Fresno PD FR Policy
Fresno, CA · Effective 2024-04-01 · Fresno PD Policy Manual, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)
Fresno Police Department policy on facial recognition technology requiring supervisory approval and treating matches as investigative leads only.
-
In effect
New Haven PD FR Policy
New Haven, CT · Effective 2024-04-01 · New Haven PD Gen. Order, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)
New Haven Police Department general order on facial recognition technology requiring case predicate and supervisory approval, treating matches as investigative leads only.
-
In effect
Dallas RTCC / Fusus Policy
Dallas, TX · Effective 2024-03-01 · Dallas PD General Order, Real-Time Crime Center (2024)
Dallas Police Department directive governing operation of the Real-Time Crime Center, including third-party Fusus camera integration and ALPR feeds, with retention and audit requirements.
-
In effect
Providence Police Department General Order 460.01 - Unmanned
Providence, RI · Effective 2024-03-01 · Providence Police Department General Order 460.01 - Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operations
The Providence Police Department issued General Order 460.01 governing its UAS operations, a formal written policy setting the rules for drone deployment by the department.
-
In effect
Memphis SkyCop Surveillance Program
Memphis, TN · Effective 2024-01-01 · Memphis PD, SkyCop / RTCC Operational Policy (2023)
Memphis Police Department SkyCop and Real Time Crime Center policy governing operation of city-wide surveillance cameras, integrations, and retention.
-
In effect
Twin Falls Police Department Automated License Plate Reader
City of Twin Falls (Twin Falls Police Department), ID · Effective 2023-12-01 · Twin Falls Police Department Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) program and policy
Since December 2023 the Twin Falls Police Department has operated 40 ALPR cameras under a published policy that captures only rear plates, purges data after 30 days unless tied to an investigation, restricts and logs access, and limits use to misdemeanor and felony cases.
-
In effect
SPD FR Policy
Seattle, WA · Effective 2023-07-01 · Seattle Police Manual §12.045 (2023)
Seattle Police Department Manual policy generally prohibiting SPD officers from using facial recognition technology, with no department-issued FR tools and a ban on requesting third-party FR queries.
-
In effect
Ordinance Restricting Municipal Use of Facial Recognition Te
Anchorage, AK · Effective 2023-04-19 · Ordinance Restricting Municipal Use of Facial Recognition Technology (AO 2023-35)
The Anchorage Assembly voted 10-1 to bar the municipality from acquiring or using facial recognition technology for surveillance, with limited exceptions requiring Assembly approval.
-
In effect
Portland Police Bureau Small UAS (Drone) Program authorized
Portland, OR · Effective 2023-04-05 · Portland Police Bureau Small UAS (Drone) Program authorized by City Council (Ordinance 191882)
Portland City Council authorized the Police Bureau to operate drones on April 5, 2023, expanded them citywide in September 2024, and launched a Drone as First Responder pilot in September 2025, with policy explicitly barring mass surveillance and facial recognition.
-
In effect
Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy govern
Chula Vista, CA · Effective 2022-11-01 · Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy governing the Real-Time Operations Center
Chula Vista's City Council adopted a privacy and technology-transparency policy and oversight commission governing how the police department's Real-Time Operations Center acquires surveillance tools and stores, shares, and profits from data such as drone and license-plate-reader feeds.
-
In effect
City of Warwick ordinance regulating ALPR technology systems
Warwick, RI · Effective 2022-10-01 · City of Warwick ordinance regulating ALPR technology systems (Chapter 52)
Warwick adopted an ordinance restricting automated license plate reader use to official law enforcement purposes, capping data retention at 30 days and barring sale or sharing of ALPR data with non-law-enforcement third parties.
-
In effect
Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera
Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, CO · Effective 2022-08-01 · Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera Surveillance System
Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 (Colorado Springs) deployed nearly 400 Verkada AI-enabled cameras with facial recognition to identify 'persons of interest,' installed before Colorado's 2022 statewide facial-recognition moratorium and allowed to continue under the grandfather provision.
-
In effect
Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing
Boston, MA · Effective 2021-10-21 · Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing
Boston bars police from acquiring, deploying, or newly repurposing surveillance technology without City Council approval and restricts sharing student information with police, complementing its earlier facial-recognition ban.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning city and police department use of facial r
Minneapolis, MN · Effective 2021-02-12 · Ordinance banning city and police department use of facial recognition technology
Minneapolis' City Council voted 13-0 to bar all city agencies, including the police department, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology or data derived from it.
-
In effect
LAPD Facial Recognition Policy
Los Angeles, CA · Effective 2021-01-12 · L.A. Board of Police Commissioners facial recognition use policy (Jan. 2021)
After officers were caught using Clearview AI, the LA Police Commission adopted a policy in early 2021 restricting LAPD facial recognition to the county's official mugshot database (LACRIS) for criminal investigations. Commercial face-scraping services like Clearview AI are prohibited.
-
In effect
New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halti
Lockport City School District, NY · Effective 2020-12-22 · New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halting Lockport CSD facial recognition system)
A first-in-the-nation state moratorium signed December 2020 halted the $2.7 million facial-recognition surveillance system that the Lockport City School District had activated in January 2020, pending a state privacy and demographic-accuracy review.
-
In effect
Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance bannin
New Orleans, LA · Effective 2020-12-17 · Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance banning NOPD facial recognition and predictive policing
New Orleans' City Council banned NOPD use of facial recognition, stingrays, and predictive policing in 2020, but the council rolled back the facial recognition ban to permit limited use in 2022.
-
In effect
Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometri
Oakland, CA · Effective 2020-12-16 · Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometric-surveillance and predictive-policing bans (amended Surveillance Transparency Ordinance)
On December 16, 2020, the Oakland City Council approved a drone use policy requiring annual reporting and, via revisions to its surveillance transparency ordinance, expanded its facial-recognition ban to other biometric surveillance and barred predictive-policing software.
-
In effect
Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS)
Oakland, CA · Effective 2020-12-15 · Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS) Ordinance prohibiting predictive policing analytics
Oakland amended its Community Control of Police Surveillance ordinance to expressly prohibit city use of predictive policing analytics (and biometric surveillance) while requiring City Council approval, with resident input, for any other surveillance technology.
-
In effect
Ordinance ORD-20-00056 prohibiting city-agency use of facial
Madison, WI · Effective 2020-12-01 · Ordinance ORD-20-00056 prohibiting city-agency use of facial recognition technology
Madison's Common Council voted 17-2 to bar city agencies from acquiring or using facial recognition technology or facial-surveillance-derived information, with narrow exceptions for human-trafficking and missing/exploited-children cases.
-
In effect
Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use
Pittsburgh, PA · Effective 2020-09-22 · Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use of facial recognition and predictive policing technology
Pittsburgh's City Council barred the police bureau from obtaining or using facial recognition or predictive policing technology without prior City Council approval, functioning as a moratorium on new use.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning use of face recognition technologies by Ci
Portland, OR · Effective 2020-09-09 · Ordinance banning use of face recognition technologies by City of Portland bureaus
Portland's City Council unanimously banned all city bureaus, including police, from using or acquiring face recognition technology, with narrow device-unlock and redaction exceptions.
-
In effect
Portland Municipal Facial Recognition Ban (implicating the P
Portland, ME · Effective 2020-08-04 · Portland Municipal Facial Recognition Ban (implicating the Portland Jetport and ocean port)
Portland barred city use of facial recognition after debate over the city-run Jetport and ocean port, though the ban does not reach federal CBP use required for international-flight processing.
-
In effect
NYPD POST Act
New York City, NY · Effective 2020-07-15 · NYC Local Law 65 of 2020, as amended 2025
The POST Act requires the NYPD to publicly disclose what surveillance technologies it uses and publish impact and use policies for each one. 2025 amendments added facial recognition audits, itemized technology inventories, and disclosure of outside entities that receive NYPD surveillance data.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning face surveillance technology in Boston
Boston, MA · Effective 2020-06-24 · Ordinance banning face surveillance technology in Boston
Boston's City Council voted unanimously to ban city government, including police, from using face surveillance technology and from asking third parties to use it on their behalf.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and f
Santa Cruz, CA · Effective 2020-06-23 · Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and facial recognition technology
Santa Cruz became the first U.S. city to bar its police department from using predictive policing (and facial recognition) technology unless the City Council finds by resolution that it is peer-reviewed, unbiased, and protective of civil rights.
-
In effect
Five-year moratorium on police and municipal use of face sur
Springfield, MA · Effective 2020-02-24 · Five-year moratorium on police and municipal use of face surveillance technology
Springfield's City Council voted 11-2 to impose a five-year moratorium barring the police department and other municipal agencies from using facial surveillance technology.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning municipal use of face surveillance technol
Cambridge, MA · Effective 2020-01-13 · Ordinance banning municipal use of face surveillance technology
Cambridge's City Council banned all city departments, including police, from using face surveillance technology, joining a wave of Massachusetts municipal bans.
-
In effect
Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Ordinance 59300; M
Madison, WI · Effective 2020-01-01 · Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Ordinance 59300; MGO 23.63)
Madison requires city agencies to notify the Mayor and Common Council and route surveillance-technology acquisitions through Council approval, plus annual public reporting on surveillance technology use.
-
In effect
Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Mu
Oakland, CA · Effective 2019-07-16 · Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Municipal Code Ch. 9.64) banning city/police face recognition
Oakland's City Council amended its surveillance ordinance to bar all city agencies, including police, from acquiring, using, or accessing facial recognition technology.
-
In effect
Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance
Somerville, MA · Effective 2019-06-27 · Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance
Somerville, as part of the CCOPS movement, unanimously banned any city department from using face-surveillance technology and barred use of face-recognition-derived data in municipal proceedings.
-
In effect
Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance prohibiting municipal u
Somerville, MA · Effective 2019-06-27 · Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance prohibiting municipal use of face recognition
Somerville's City Council unanimously banned any city department or agency, including police, from using face surveillance technology, making it the first East Coast city to do so.
-
In effect
San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinan
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA/Muni) · Effective 2019-05-14 · San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (facial-recognition ban covering Muni/SFMTA)
San Francisco's Surveillance Technology Ordinance bans city departments including the SFMTA/Muni from using facial recognition and requires surveillance-impact reports and annual use reports for surveillance tech.
-
In effect
Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Cambridge, MA · Effective 2018-12-10 · Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Cambridge bars city departments from funding, acquiring, or using surveillance technology without express City Council approval, requiring public impact reports, a use policy, and ongoing use reporting.
-
In effect
First U.S. Biometric Terminal (Maynard H. Jackson Internatio
City of Atlanta / Delta / CBP (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Terminal F) · Effective 2018-12-01 · First U.S. Biometric Terminal (Maynard H. Jackson International Terminal)
Delta, CBP, TSA and Hartsfield-Jackson opened the first end-to-end biometric terminal in the U.S., using facial recognition for check-in, bag drop, TSA screening, boarding, and CBP arrival.
-
In effect
Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance
Yellow Springs, OH · Effective 2018-11-19 · Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance
Yellow Springs requires the police or municipal agencies to present new surveillance technology to Village Council for a public-hearing cost-benefit review and a use policy before adoption, with annual reporting.
-
In effect
Chula Vista Police Department Drone as First Responder (DFR)
Chula Vista, CA · Effective 2018-10-01 · Chula Vista Police Department Drone as First Responder (DFR) Program and UAS Policy
Chula Vista PD launched the nation's first Drone as First Responder program in 2018, deploying drones to 911 calls under a policy that bars recording where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy absent a warrant or emergency.
-
In effect
Denison TX free 1-yr BRINC drone trial (Jul. 2026)
Denison, TX · Denison, TX free one-year BRINC first-responder drone trial with emergency-only use policy (reported July 15, 2026)
First responders in Denison, Texas were approved for a free one-year trial of BRINC drones, reported July 15, 2026. The trial operates under an emergency-only policy — drones respond to emergency calls rather than conducting routine patrols — and involves multiple agencies. The emergency-only restriction is the operative use limit; the trial is otherwise a no-cost vendor deployment. The exact approval meeting date was not stated in coverage.
-
In effect
New Orleans Surveillance/FR Rules
New Orleans, LA · New Orleans, La., Code ch. 147, as amended July 21, 2022
New Orleans banned facial recognition, predictive policing, and cell-site simulators in December 2020, but the council partially repealed the ban in July 2022, letting police use facial recognition (with human review and reporting) for serious violent crimes. In 2025 it emerged NOPD had received real-time facial recognition alerts from a private camera network in violation of these rules; alerts were paused in April 2025 and a proposal to authorize real-time FR was withdrawn, leaving the 2022 rules in place.
-
Proposed / pending
Milwaukee PD Facial Recognition Halt
Milwaukee, WI · Milwaukee Police Department facial-recognition use halt (Feb 2026); SOP under development
After public pushback, the Milwaukee Police Department halted its use of facial recognition technology in February 2026. A city oversight body had found that MPD was using the technology without any formal standard operating procedure, and a proposed deal with vendor Biometrica (trading 2.5 million booking photos for free access) drew strong community and council opposition. No binding facial-recognition policy has been adopted; MPD says an operating procedure is still being developed.
-
Expired
Oak Park Village Board votes 4-3 to terminate Flock Safety A
Oak Park, IL · Oak Park Village Board votes 4-3 to terminate Flock Safety ALPR contract
The Oak Park Village Board voted 4-3 on August 5, 2025 to cancel its Flock contract and deactivate eight ALPR cameras, citing privacy concerns and misuse of data for immigration enforcement in violation of state law and the village's sanctuary ordinance.
-
Expired
Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety
Santa Cruz, CA · Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety ALPR contract
The Santa Cruz City Council voted 6-1 to terminate its Flock contract with 30 days' notice after reports that plate data had been searched by out-of-state agencies on behalf of federal law enforcement including ICE in violation of state law.
-
Expired
Flagstaff City Council votes unanimously to end Flock Safety
Flagstaff, AZ · Flagstaff City Council votes unanimously to end Flock Safety ALPR program
The Flagstaff City Council voted unanimously on December 16, 2025 to terminate its Flock contract and immediately deactivate all 32 cameras, citing privacy, cybersecurity, public-records, and data-sharing concerns.
-
Expired
Eugene ends Flock Safety ALPR contract after council-ordered
Eugene, OR · Eugene ends Flock Safety ALPR contract after council-ordered pause
After the City Council voted 8-0 in October 2025 to pause the cameras over federal-misuse fears, Eugene Police ended the Flock contract on December 5, 2025 citing data-security and community-expectation concerns.
-
Expired
Denver ends Flock Safety ALPR contract and replaces vendor a
Denver, CO · Denver ends Flock Safety ALPR contract and replaces vendor amid data-sharing concerns
After Denver ended its Flock contract over privacy and federal data-sharing concerns, the City Council voted on March 31, 2026 to approve a smaller replacement ALPR contract with Axon, with several members demanding an ALPR-regulating ordinance first.
-
Expired
Hillsborough ends its relationship with Flock Safety ALPR ca
Hillsborough, NC · Hillsborough ends its relationship with Flock Safety ALPR cameras
Town leaders in Hillsborough, North Carolina ended the town's relationship with Flock Safety in October 2025 amid the wave of local governments dropping ALPR contracts over surveillance and immigration data-sharing concerns.
-
Proposed / pending
City Council delays AI-capable park security camera purchase
Missoula, MT · City Council delays AI-capable park security camera purchase pending a surveillance policy
The Missoula City Council delayed a $366,390 park security camera upgrade contract over resident concerns about AI features like facial recognition, directing the administration to draft a surveillance policy before any purchase.
-
Proposed / pending
Oklahoma City Council to vote on renewing Flock Safety ALPR
Oklahoma City, OK · Oklahoma City Council to vote on renewing Flock Safety ALPR contract
The Oklahoma City Council is set to vote around July 7, 2026 on a third renewal of its Flock Safety automated license-plate-reader contract amid criticism that the department lacks a published ALPR policy.
-
Proposed / pending
Harrisonburg VA Flock termination pledge (vote Jul. 28, 2026)
Harrisonburg, VA · Harrisonburg, VA City Council pledge to end Flock Safety contract; formal vote scheduled July 28, 2026
Harrisonburg, Virginia City Council members, including Mayor Deanna Reed, have pledged to end the city's contract with Flock Safety, whose license plate reader cameras operate in the city. The contract expires in late July 2026, and the council scheduled a formal vote for July 28, 2026. If the council follows through, Harrisonburg joins the 2026 wave of cities dropping Flock. Indexed as proposed until the formal vote occurs.
-
Proposed / pending
Binghamton NY Flock termination legislation (in committee, Jul. 2026)
Binghamton, NY · Binghamton, NY City Council legislation to terminate Flock Safety contract, referred to committee July 13, 2026 (Cnclw. Rathmell)
A Binghamton, New York city councilwoman has introduced legislation to terminate the city's contract with Flock Safety, whose license plate reader cameras operate in the city. The measure, sponsored by Councilwoman Rathmell, was referred to committee on July 13, 2026 and awaits further action. If enacted, Binghamton would join the growing list of cities ending Flock contracts in 2026.
-
Proposed / pending
Providence CPRA Amendments
Providence, RI · Providence CPRA amendments (introduced Oct. 6, 2025)
Providence Council Committee advanced amendments to the Community-Police Relations Act that would bar RTCC/ALPR use to assist federal immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant, prohibit demographic data collection via city surveillance, and require written agreements with data-accessing partner agencies.
-
Proposed / pending
Hartford Surveillance Oversight (proposed)
Hartford, CT · Hartford proposed surveillance oversight ordinance (2024)
Hartford's proposed surveillance-oversight ordinance would ban weaponization of police drones, require HPD public reporting on drone use, and require Council approval of all future police surveillance technology acquisitions.
-
Expired
Baltimore FR Ban (Expired)
Baltimore, MD · Effective 2021-09-08 · Baltimore, Md., Council Bill 21-0001 (2021) (expired Dec. 31, 2022)
Baltimore's 2021 ordinance banned private entities and individuals (and most city agencies) from using face surveillance systems, with criminal penalties. It contained a sunset clause and EXPIRED on December 31, 2022 when the City Council did not extend it. As of June 2026 the ban is no longer in effect; 2023 successor bills were not confirmed as enacted.