Police surveillance and AI laws by state
AI Laws USA tracks 230 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 (15)
-
In effect
FTC v. Evolv
FTC · Effective December 5, 2024 · 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 May 16, 2024 · 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 September 16, 2023 · 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
Lipps v. City of Fargo — facial recognition wrongful arrest (2026)
D.N.D. · Lipps v. City of Fargo, complaint filed Sept. 15, 2026 (D.N.D.)
Angela Lipps, of Elizabethton, Tennessee, filed a federal lawsuit on September 15, 2026 against the City of Fargo and Fargo Police Department Detective Lucas Heck, seeking $10 million. She alleges the detective relied on a flawed facial recognition match and ignored exculpatory evidence to bring bank fraud charges that cost her five months of her life. The sequence she alleges is worth setting out, because the technology failure is only the first link. In April and May 2025 a woman used stolen identities and false identification to defraud several Fargo-area banks. A West Fargo police analyst and North Dakota's state intelligence center ran facial recognition and flagged Lipps as a possible lead. According to the complaint, Heck pressed charges anyway despite knowing that Lipps LIVED IN TENNESSEE, HAD NEVER BEEN TO NORTH DAKOTA, DID NOT MATCH the physical description of the suspect on surveillance video, and had NO UNEXPLAINED FUNDS connecting her to the thefts. Two allegations go to the reliability of the match itself. First, the facial recognition result was not generated from the surveillance footage at all — it was generated from a PHOTO ON THE SUSPECT'S OWN FAKE ID. A match against a fraudulent document identifies whoever the fraudster's picture resembles, which is a fundamentally different thing from identifying the person in the footage, and the complaint says Heck failed to disclose this. Second, WEST FARGO POLICE THEMSELVES DID NOT BELIEVE the facial recognition results were strong enough on their own to bring charges. Facial recognition results, the complaint notes, are meant to be treated only as an investigative lead. North Dakota charged Lipps with eight felonies on June 30, 2025, the most serious carrying up to ten years. A nationwide warrant issued. On July 14, 2025 she was arrested at gunpoint by a U.S. Marshals fugitive task force at a neighbour's home in Tennessee, while she was babysitting the neighbour's children. She was jailed in Tennessee, extradited to North Dakota, and held at the Cass County Jail on a $100,000 bond she could not pay — through Thanksgiving and through her 50th birthday, with jail staff allegedly denying her access to her dentures and her medication for extended periods. Prosecutors dismissed the charges on December 24, 2025, after her attorney produced bank records showing she was in Tennessee when the thefts occurred. She was released that night with four cents and no winter coat, in temperatures near 10 degrees, and got home to Tennessee only with the help of a local nonprofit and a neighbour. The claim against the CITY rather than the detective rests on a policy gap: the suit alleges the Fargo Police Department had NO POLICY, NO TRAINING AND NO SUPERVISION governing officers' use of facial recognition at the time — UNLIKE the West Fargo Police Department, which restricts the tool to specially trained personnel. Two departments in the same metropolitan area, one with guardrails and one without, is about as clean a comparison as a municipal-liability claim ever gets.
-
Blocked / in litigation
NAACP v. xAI (Colossus 2 Air Pollution)
N.D. Miss. · Effective April 14, 2026 · 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 December 26, 2025 · 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 January 1, 2023 · 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 June 1, 2022 · 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 January 1, 2020 · 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.
-
Proposed / pending
Federal Facial Recognition & Biometric Technology Moratorium Act (2026)
United States · H.R. 10563, 119th Cong. (2026) — Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2026
Members of Congress reintroduced a bill that would ban federal agencies from using facial recognition and other biometric technologies such as voice and gait recognition; the ban could only be lifted by a new act of Congress. It would also cut off certain federal grants to state and local governments, including police, unless they adopt similar moratoria. People whose biometric data is used in violation of the law could sue, and state attorneys general could enforce it. The bill is a proposal and has not passed either chamber.
-
Proposed / pending
Stop Flock Abuse Act (Hawley, 2026)
United States · Stop Flock Abuse Act (Sen. Hawley, announced Sept. 30, 2026; bill number pending)
Sen. Josh Hawley announced a federal bill, the Stop Flock Abuse Act, to set safeguards for AI-powered cameras such as Flock automated license plate readers (ALPRs). It would bar local governments from selling or sharing vehicle location data with non-government third parties, require a written approval and audit log for every search, require deletion of driver data after ten days except for active criminal investigations, require encryption and keep data inside the United States, ban hardware or software from foreign adversaries, and prohibit ALPR networks from using facial recognition. It follows a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Flock that Hawley chaired.
-
Proposed / pending
H.R. 10502 AI use under FISA 702 report
United States · H.R. 10502, 119th Cong. (2026)
A House bill would require the Director of National Intelligence to tell Congress, within 180 days, how intelligence agencies use artificial intelligence to collect, search and share information gathered under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The report would have to name the AI models used and assess safeguards for compliance with FISA and the Fourth Amendment.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Gatlin v. St. Louis / AWS Rekognition false arrest suit (2026)
United States · Gatlin v. City of St. Louis et al. — wrongful arrest action; amended complaint adding Amazon Web Services (August 2026)
Christopher Gatlin, a St. Louis resident, spent SEVENTEEN MONTHS IN JAIL for an assault he did not commit. The sequence that put him there is the reason this case matters. Police investigating a December 2020 assault on a MetroLink security guard submitted a POOR-QUALITY IMAGE OF A MASKED SUSPECT to the St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology system. The system returned Gatlin as a possible match. He had not previously been a suspect — there was no other reason to look at him. On the strength of that match police put his photo in a lineup, where suggestive procedures influenced the victim's identification. He was arrested on August 14, 2021 and could not post a $75,000 bond. The criminal charges were dismissed in March 2024 after body camera footage revealed the improper lineup procedures. Two things make the civil case significant. In October 2025 a U.S. Magistrate Judge denied motions to dismiss most of Gatlin's claims, so the case is proceeding rather than being disposed of early. And in AUGUST 2026 an amended complaint ADDED AMAZON WEB SERVICES AS A DEFENDANT. Facial recognition wrongful-arrest suits have overwhelmingly been brought against police departments; naming the technology vendor puts the question of whether a provider bears responsibility for matches its system returns on poor-quality inputs directly before a federal court. No ruling on the merits has issued.
-
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 (43)
-
In effect
Connecticut PA 26-14 ALPR limits and 21-day retention (2026)
Connecticut · Effective October 1, 2026 · Conn. Public Act 26-14 (2026), Sec. 13-15 (ALPR); Sec. 1 (civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights)
Connecticut's Public Act 26-14, signed May 4, 2026, puts the state's first detailed limits on automated license plate readers. From October 1, 2026, public agencies and their vendors may run plate readers only for listed purposes (for police: checking plates against hotlists and crime databases, or searching for a plate tied to a specific criminal investigation, warrant, missing person or stolen car, with a logged reason). Plate data must be deleted after 21 days unless held under a warrant or as evidence. Police may not use plate data to enforce immigration law, to investigate people who seek or provide abortion or gender-affirming care that is legal in Connecticut, or to target people for First Amendment activity, and may share data out of state only with New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts agencies that sign a written promise to follow those rules. Vendor contracts must bar selling or freely sharing the data. The Attorney General can sue vendors (up to $2,500 per violation) and residents can sue agencies for injunctive relief. The same act also creates a state-law civil rights claim against federal or state officers who violate constitutional rights.
-
In effect
Florida FDOT statewide ALPR permit revocation (2026)
Florida · Effective August 31, 2026 · Florida Department of Transportation — statewide revocation of ALPR right-of-way permits (issued August 31, 2026; 30-day removal deadline)
On August 31, 2026 the Florida Department of Transportation revoked every active permit for an automated license plate reader on a state highway right-of-way, and gave agencies thirty days — until roughly September 30, 2026 — to physically remove the hardware. This covers Flock Safety cameras and any other ALPR installed on state roads. The FDOT memo gives the reasons plainly: an exponential increase in deployments, together with concerning reports of misuse, data privacy concerns and surveillance schemes. The misuse is not hypothetical. In the Tampa Bay area at least two police officers, one in Haines City and one in Sarasota, were fired and arrested for allegedly using the cameras to stalk romantic interests. Governor Ron DeSantis had already called the technology and its misuse by police out of control and said legislative action was needed to protect Floridians' privacy. What makes this measure powerful is the mechanism rather than the rhetoric: Florida did not pass a law restricting how police may use license plate data. It used its property rights as the owner of the state highway right-of-way to revoke the permits that let the cameras be there at all. A city that wants to keep its ALPR program has to find somewhere other than a state road to put it. Gainesville turned all of its cameras off on September 3, 2026.
-
In effect
Oregon SB 1516 — ALPR limits and vendor liability (2026)
Oregon · Effective March 31, 2026 · Or. Laws 2026, ch. 77 (SB 1516), §§ 3-9
Oregon's SB 1516, signed March 31, 2026 and effective at once, limits how police can use automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras. Police may use them only for listed purposes, such as finding vehicles linked to crimes, arrest warrants or missing people, uninsured or unregistered vehicles, parking or controlling secured areas. Plate data must be deleted after 30 days unless it relates to a criminal investigation or court case. ALPR vendors may not access, sell or share the data, and a person whose data a vendor misuses on purpose or through gross negligence can sue for damages. Lawmakers have said they may push for a full ban on Flock-style cameras in 2027.
-
In effect
Rhode Island ALPR installation pause and 60-day review (2026)
Rhode Island · Effective August 18, 2026 · Rhode Island — Governor's order pausing new ALPR installation and commissioning a 60-day statewide review (issued August 18, 2026)
Governor Dan McKee ordered a statewide pause on installing or activating any new automated license plate reader cameras on August 18, 2026, together with a sixty-day review to establish uniform standards governing the technology and the data it collects. The order binds the Rhode Island State Police directly: they may keep using the cameras they already have, but they may not install or activate any new ones. For cities and towns the order is a request rather than a command — McKee urged them to follow suit, which is the limit of what a governor can do to independent municipal police departments. He directed State Police Colonel Darnel Weaver to run the review in consultation with the Rhode Island Police Chiefs' Association, the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns and other stakeholders. The stated endpoint is legislation: McKee said that when the review is done he will work with lawmakers on a bill codifying the protections and establishing clear, consistent statewide standards for ALPR use. The order came as municipalities across Rhode Island were already resisting Flock cameras on their own, and it is one of four state-level actions in August 2026 — with Florida, Texas and Connecticut — that marked a national turn against license plate surveillance.
-
In effect
Kentucky HB 58 ALPR limits and 90-day retention (2026)
Kentucky · Effective July 15, 2026 · 2026 Ky. Acts Ch. 71 (HB 58)
Kentucky's new license plate reader law limits who can use plate-reader cameras and for what, restricts selling the data, and generally requires deleting captured plate data after 90 days unless it is needed for an investigation or a preservation request. Police agencies must adopt written policies and publish where their cameras are.
-
In effect
Virginia § 15.2-1723.2 (facial recognition by local law enforcement, eff. July 1, 2026)
Virginia · Effective July 1, 2026 · 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 June 11, 2026 · 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 September 27, 2025 · 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 October 1, 2021 · 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 July 1, 2021 · 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 October 7, 2020 · 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 August 1, 2020 · 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 May 9, 2017 · 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 July 1, 2014 · 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 January 1, 2014 · 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 September 1, 2013 · 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 July 29, 2013 · 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 July 1, 2013 · Fla. Stat. §§ 934.50, 330.41 (Ch. 2013-33; amended by Ch. 2021-165, CS/CS/SB 44)
Florida bars law enforcement from using drones for surveillance without a warrant or specific exception, and (after the 2015 amendment) prohibits anyone from using a drone to record private property or people on it with intent to conduct surveillance in violation of their reasonable expectation of privacy. SB 44 (2021) expanded the situations in which police and other agencies may use drones and required government agencies to use only drones from approved manufacturers that meet state security standards.
-
In effect
VA warrantless drone ban
Virginia · Effective April 3, 2013 · 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
Connecticut ALPR installation pause request and POST guidance (2026)
Connecticut · Effective August 7, 2026 · Connecticut — Governor's call for ALPR review and municipal installation pause; POST Council guidance directed within 30 days (August 7, 2026)
Governor Ned Lamont announced on August 7, 2026 that he was calling for a review of safety cameras and automated license plate reader technology in Connecticut, and urging every municipality in the state to immediately pause the installation of any new cameras and ALPRs until guidance is finalized. In a letter he asked the Connecticut Police Officer Standards and Training Council to develop that guidance within thirty days — outlining the privacy provisions in existing Connecticut statutes and recommending specific policies that police departments should have in place before implementing the technology. Lamont said residents are justifiably concerned about the privacy issues this public safety technology can create. He had signed Public Act 26-14 in May 2026, which includes provisions intended to clarify privacy concerns in state statutes, and said more still needs to be done. This is the weakest of the four August 2026 state ALPR actions and the entry records it as such: it is a REQUEST to municipalities, not an order, and the POST Council's product is guidance, not a rule. It matters because the POST Council sets training and accreditation standards for Connecticut police, so its guidance tends to become the practical baseline even without the force of a statute.
-
In effect
Shoshone-Bannock FHBC Opposition to Pocatello Data Center (2026)
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Fort Hall Reservation) · Effective July 1, 2026 · Fort Hall Business Council (FHBC) — Formal Opposition to Lex Developments Pocatello AI Data Center (July 2026)
The Fort Hall Business Council (FHBC), the governing body of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Fort Hall Reservation, Idaho), issued formal opposition to the proposed Lex Developments 100-megawatt AI data center in Pocatello, Idaho ahead of a July 16, 2026 City Council appeal hearing. The proposed site lies within Shoshone-Bannock ceded lands and historical homelands where members retain Treaty Rights. The FHBC cited the developer's failure to address concerns about electricity-rate increases, liquid-cooling water demand, on-site generation and potential chemical additives, and environmental impacts on Treaty resources. The Hearing Examiner had denied the conditional use permit on May 14; the developer appealed June 1.
-
In effect
VT AG Clark
VT · Effective March 24, 2026 · 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 January 15, 2026 · 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 January 1, 2026 · 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 January 1, 2026 · 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 August 1, 2025 · 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 July 1, 2025 · 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 May 7, 2025 · 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 February 27, 2025 · 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 February 6, 2024 · 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.
- 13 more
- VA EO 30 (2024) · VA · Repealed / replaced
- USVI Act 8797 (RTCC) · US Virgin Islands · In effect
- Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition · New York State Education Department · In effect
- SEPTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Pilot Program · Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) · In effect
- ACLU v. Clearview AI · IL · In effect
- Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of · Vermont · In effect
- BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance · Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) · In effect
- WI drone-surveillance ban · Wisconsin · In effect
- Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening · Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport) · Expired
- MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monito · New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) · Proposed / pending
- MTA/NYPD Evolv AI Weapons-Detection Scanner Pilot in NYC Sub · Metropolitan Transportation Authority / NYPD subway weapons scanners · Proposed / pending
- MI HB 6392 tort liability for AI misidentification · Michigan · Proposed / pending
- VA SB 1392 / HB 2031 (2021 FR moratorium, narrowed 2022) · VA · Repealed / replaced
County police and surveillance AI rules (27)
-
In effect
Knox County TN Flock camera ban and removal order (2026)
Knox County, TN · Effective August 31, 2026 · Knox County, Tenn. — emergency ordinance banning license plate readers and requiring removal of all 143 Flock cameras within 30 days (adopted August 31, 2026)
Knox County Commission unanimously passed an emergency ordinance on August 31, 2026 banning license plate readers in the county and ordering all 143 Flock cameras removed within thirty days. Because it was adopted as an emergency measure it required only a single vote and took effect immediately. Commissioner Adam Thompson brought the ordinance after sustained public opposition. Two details from the run-up are worth recording because they explain why the reaction was so complete. In late 2025 the Commission had approved a $1.5 million grant to the Knox County Sheriff's Office under the Tennessee Violent Crime Intervention Fund to advance crime-solving technology. And the Sheriff's Office had spent years buying Flock cameras in batches priced just ten dollars under the $25,000 threshold that would have required mayoral review — a procurement pattern that kept a 143-camera surveillance network out of the approval process that was supposed to catch it. Knox County is not simply declining to renew a contract, which is what most jurisdictions in this dataset have done. It banned the technology and ordered the existing hardware physically removed on a deadline.
-
In effect
Monroe County IN Flock contract termination (2026)
Monroe County, IN · Effective July 23, 2026 · Monroe County, Ind. Board of Commissioners — termination of Flock Safety ALPR contract (July 23, 2026)
Monroe County commissioners voted 2-0 on July 23, 2026 to end the county's contract with Flock Safety and take down its six automated license plate reader cameras. Sheriff Ruben Marté supported the move. The contract would otherwise have run until September 2027, and ending it early may cost the county up to about $3,000. Commissioners specifically chose to remove the cameras, not just cancel the contract, because other agencies could keep using the data if the cameras stayed up. Monroe County, home to Bloomington, was among the first Indiana counties to drop Flock.
-
In effect
Riverside County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy & Retention
Riverside County, CA · Effective July 22, 2025 · 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
Orange County CA Sheriff ALPR Use & Retention Policy
Orange County, CA · Effective April 15, 2025 · 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 March 24, 2025 · 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 October 1, 2024 · 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
Arlington County VA ACPD Automated License Plate Reader
Arlington County, VA · Effective April 1, 2024 · 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
Marshall County IN Flock ALPR defund + cameras bagged (2026)
Marshall County, IN · Effective October 6, 2026 · Marshall County, Indiana: Council 4-3 2027 budget vote (Sept. 14, 2026); Commissioners 2-1 vote to bag Flock cameras (Oct. 6, 2026)
Marshall County, Indiana moved to shut off its Flock license-plate-reader cameras. The county council voted 4-3 to cut Flock funding from the 2027 budget, and commissioners voted 2-1 to cover the cameras. The prosecutor's office, which signed the Flock contract running through 2028, objects and may go to court, so the outcome is not final.
-
In effect
Monongalia County Commission approves Flock Safety automated
Monongalia County, WV · Effective December 10, 2025 · 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 October 20, 2025 · 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 May 9, 2025 · 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 June 19, 2024 · 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 November 20, 2023 · 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 April 1, 2023 · 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 June 1, 2021 · 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 June 1, 2021 · 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 March 1, 2021 · 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 March 23, 2020 · 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 April 1, 2019 · 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).
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
LA County ALPR immigration-data safeguards motion (Sept. 2025)
Los Angeles County, CA · LA County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Sept. 16, 2025, item 25-5022 (4-1); LASD Report Back, Dec. 11, 2025
On September 16, 2025, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to ask the Sheriff's Department to tighten its rules on license plate reader data. The board asked that the data never be shared for civil immigration enforcement unless state or county law requires it or a judge issues a warrant. It also asked for written sign-off on any disclosure, reports twice a year on who accessed the data, yearly privacy training, and annual compliance reviews by the Inspector General. The Sheriff runs independently, so the motion is a request. In December 2025 the Sheriff reported that a revised policy had been drafted, but it was not yet in force.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Starke County IN Flock non-renewal (2026)
Starke County, IN · Starke County, Ind. Sheriff's Office — non-renewal of Flock ALPR contract (announced Sept. 8, 2026)
The Starke County Sheriff's Office announced on September 8, 2026 that it will not renew its contract for Flock license plate reader cameras. Sheriff Rosa cited community trust, transparency and open communication, and said the office had followed its policies while using the cameras. This was a sheriff's decision, not a county ordinance, so the technology is not banned. When the contract ends was not reported.
-
Proposed / pending
Oconee County SC Protection from Mass Surveillance ordinance (pending)
Oconee County, SC · Oconee County, S.C. — proposed 'Protection from Mass Surveillance' ordinance (first reading August 18, 2026; second reading September 1, 2026; third and final reading scheduled September 15, 2026)
Oconee County Council is one vote away from becoming the first county in South Carolina to ban Flock cameras and mass surveillance. The ordinance is titled 'Protection from Mass Surveillance' and it works by cutting off county resources: it bars tax dollars, property, equipment and personnel from supporting what councilmembers describe as mass surveillance, and may also require existing Flock cameras in the county to be disabled. Because it limits county funding to cities that use the system it reaches deployments in Seneca, West Union and Westminster even though those are municipal decisions. South Carolina county ordinances need three readings. The first passed on August 18, 2026 with one council member opposed — the vote that made Oconee the first county in the Upstate to push back on Flock — and the second passed on September 1, 2026. The chairman said the third and final reading, with a public hearing, would be held September 15, 2026, which is this entry's verification date. So the ordinance is NOT yet law. One procedural step in between is worth noting: on August 27, 2026 the council moved to preserve existing Flock camera data ahead of a possible ban — a deliberate decision to retain rather than destroy the record before shutting the system down.
-
Proposed / pending
Cook County personal-info disclosure ban (proposed 2026)
Cook County, IL · Cook County, IL, File 26-2426 (proposed ordinance amendment, 2026)
A proposed change to the Cook County Code would bar county staff and county vendors from handing over residents' personal information, including biometric data and license plate data, to immigration agents without a criminal warrant or court order, from selling it to data brokers, and from using it for commercial or risk-assessment purposes. It has been held in committee and is not law.
City / local police and surveillance AI rules (145)
-
In effect
Urbana IL surveillance technology oversight ordinance (2026)
Urbana, IL · Effective July 3, 2026 · City of Urbana, Ill. — Surveillance Technology Oversight Ordinance (July 3, 2026)
Urbana adopted a surveillance technology oversight ordinance on July 3, 2026 by a 6-1 vote, after nearly 19 months of discussion and an earlier tabling. It governs how city departments may buy and use surveillance technology and databases that monitor, track or identify individuals or groups. The provision that gives it real force is that council approval is required not only for new surveillance technologies but for those already in use — most ordinances of this type grandfather existing deployments, which is how a city ends up with oversight that never reaches the tools it actually operates. Before any technology can be adopted, the department must publicly explain what it is, why it is needed, how much it will cost, and how it could affect residents' privacy and civil liberties. The scope is broad: police drones, facial recognition software, gunshot detection systems, social media monitoring software, and privately owned security cameras such as Ring doorbells where the city can access them remotely. Vehicle and body cameras are exempt. Ward 3 Alderwoman Shirese Hursey cast the lone no vote. Urbana sits beside Champaign in central Illinois and is home to the University of Illinois.
-
In effect
Portland OR Twin FR Bans (2020, broadest-in-nation)
Portland, OR · Effective January 1, 2021 · 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 January 27, 2020 · 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 November 14, 2019 · 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 August 15, 2019 · 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 July 15, 2019 · 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 June 27, 2019 · 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.
-
In effect
South Windsor CT ends Flock ALPR contract (2026)
South Windsor, CT · Effective October 5, 2026 · South Windsor Town Council resolution on Flock ALPRs (October 5, 2026)
On October 5, 2026, South Windsor's Town Council voted 6-3 to stop using its Flock automated license plate readers. The resolution tells the town manager to end the Flock contract, have the readers removed within 60 days and purge the data collected. Bringing the technology back would require another public hearing and a public vote.
-
In effect
Sanibel FL ALPR data-sharing ban and search restrictions (2026)
Sanibel, FL · Effective September 14, 2026 · Sanibel, Fla. — city council decision ending interagency ALPR data sharing and tightening database search requirements, September 14, 2026
The Sanibel Police Department can no longer SHARE data collected by automated license plate readers with other agencies, and can no longer RECEIVE information from cameras in other jurisdictions. City leaders made the decision at a council meeting on Monday, September 14, 2026, after an hour-long discussion in which members raised concerns about the use and sharing of camera data. Both halves of that matter. Most ALPR controversy concerns collection, but the practical privacy harm usually comes from AGGREGATION — a three-camera island system is a narrow net, while a three-camera system plugged into a statewide or national network is a query interface to everyone else's cameras. Sanibel cut both directions at once. The city has used automated license plate readers since 2008 and currently operates THREE FLOCK FALCON cameras. Residents had previously raised questions about who can access the data, how it is retained, and whether it can be shared. Councilmember Holly Smith framed the proportionality question directly: with three cameras here but multiple cameras everywhere else throughout the state, is this something the city really needs right now? Alongside the sharing decision, Sanibel police UPDATED THEIR OWN POLICIES for accessing and using license plate reader information. Officers are NOW REQUIRED to provide an OFFENSE TYPE, a CASE NUMBER and a WRITTEN EXPLANATION before searching the database. PREVIOUSLY ONLY AN OFFENSE TYPE WAS REQUIRED. And TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS HAVE BEEN REMOVED from the list of offense types eligible for searches. A case number ties a query to an actual investigation and a written explanation creates an auditable record, which together convert an essentially unlogged capability into one that can be reviewed after the fact. Police Chief William Dalton defended the technology's value: around 80% of the people arrested each year are from somewhere other than Sanibel, so people come onto the island, commit crimes and leave. Separately, a PROPOSED ORDINANCE would require council involvement in future surveillance technology decisions — a city representative said that if a new technology is going to be adopted by the city, that would be brought before the council. THAT ORDINANCE IS NOT YET ADOPTED. The council was not being asked to approve a new surveillance system, but to decide whether these rules should apply before any future systems or capabilities are added.
-
In effect
Elma WA temporary ALPR moratorium (2026)
Elma, WA · Effective September 8, 2026 · City of Elma, Wash. — temporary moratorium on Automated License Plate Reader systems (approved September 8, 2026)
The City of Elma placed a temporary moratorium on automated license plate reader systems at its council meeting on September 8, 2026. A city official summed it up plainly: this is basically the city saying that in the meantime it will not be using automated license plate readers in Elma until it can gather more information and develop a policy at a later date. The moratorium defers to state law on law enforcement's use of ALPRs — specifically RCW 10.130, which the Washington Legislature enacted in 2026 to establish a framework for ALPR systems and the data they collect, and under which the Washington Attorney General must develop and publish statewide model policies no later than July 1, 2027. Elma is a small city in Grays Harbor County and this is a modest measure, but it is a useful example of a pattern: rather than write its own rules from scratch, a small municipality paused deployment and tied its own timeline to the state's, so its eventual policy can be built on the Attorney General's model rather than guessed at. The moratorium was one of six public hearings Elma scheduled for September 2026.
-
In effect
Grass Valley CA ends Flock ALPR contract (Aug. 11, 2026)
Grass Valley, CA · Effective August 11, 2026 · Grass Valley City Council meeting, Aug. 11, 2026: Flock ALPR use indefinitely suspended and contract ended
At its August 11, 2026 meeting, the Grass Valley City Council ended the city's use of Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras. The council voted to 'indefinitely suspend' them, and the police department ended its Flock contract. City staff began taking the cameras down that night. The police department pointed to concerns about warrantless data collection, privacy protections, data retention, and how the information could be shared with government and non-government entities. In early September, Flock crews reinstalled some cameras without permission. Police removed them right away, and Flock later confirmed in writing that the contract had ended.
-
Blocked / in litigation
ACLU-WV v. Huntington (Flock contract mandamus)
Huntington, WV · Effective July 16, 2026 · 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 July 16, 2026 · 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 July 11, 2026 · 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 July 8, 2026 · 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
Windsor CT ends Flock ALPR contract (2026)
Windsor, CT · Effective July 6, 2026 · Windsor Town Council vote on Flock ALPR cameras (July 6, 2026)
Windsor was the first Connecticut town to drop Flock. After switching its 16 license plate cameras off in February 2026 for a review, the Town Council voted 5-4 on July 6 not to turn them back on, ending the town's Flock contract. The council found the contract did not fit the data-use policy the town had adopted in January. The mayor said the tool matters but 'the vendor is not what we want.'
-
In effect
South Portland ME ends Flock ALPR program (2026)
South Portland, ME · Effective June 11, 2026 · City of South Portland, Me. — Council direction of June 11, 2026 (ALPR program termination)
South Portland ended its automated license plate reader program. Acting on City Council direction given at a June 11, 2026 workshop, the city stopped using Flock ALPR cameras and stopped sharing plate-reader data with other agencies, effective immediately after that meeting. By June 22, 2026 Flock had confirmed that every camera was removed and that South Portland no longer had an active account. The city published the decision and maintains a page on its prior ALPR use and the community discussion that led to the reversal. The action matters beyond South Portland because it is one of the few completed municipal shutdowns of a Flock deployment in Maine, at a moment when local and state efforts to restrict the technology were multiplying: state representatives launched a citizen initiative in Auburn to put a local Flock ban on the November 2026 ballot, and separate legislation was filed to prohibit ALPRs statewide except for Maine Turnpike toll collection. Maine already bars private companies from using ALPRs and bans law-enforcement use of facial recognition.
-
In effect
San Jose ALPR 30-day retention safeguards (2026)
San Jose, CA · Effective March 10, 2026 · 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
Mountain View CA cancels Flock ALPR contract (Feb. 24, 2026)
Mountain View, CA · Effective February 24, 2026 · Mountain View City Council vote, Feb. 24, 2026 (unanimous), cancelling the Flock Safety ALPR contract
Mountain View's police chief switched off all 30 of the city's Flock license plate cameras on February 2, 2026, after learning that more than 250 California agencies, and for a few months in 2024 federal agencies, had been able to search the city's data without permission. On February 24, the City Council voted unanimously to cancel the Flock contract. State law bars sharing this data with out-of-state or federal agencies.
-
In effect
DPD FR Policy (2023 update)
Detroit, MI · Effective May 30, 2024 · 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
Indianapolis Metro PD FR Prohibition
Indianapolis, IN · Effective April 1, 2023 · 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 August 23, 2022 · 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 April 29, 2022 · 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 April 4, 2022 · 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 November 2, 2021 · 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 April 26, 2021 · 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 December 31, 2020 · 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 December 15, 2020 · 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.
- 115 more
- Pittsburgh Regulation of Facial Recognition and Predictive Policing Technologies · Pittsburgh, PA · In effect
- Eugene Surveillance Technology Ordinance · Eugene, OR · In effect
- Portland City-Government FR Ban · Portland, OR · In effect
- Boston Face Surveillance Ban · Boston, MA · In effect
- Santa Cruz Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance · Santa Cruz, CA · In effect
- Alameda Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance · Alameda, CA · In effect
- Orlando Ends Rekognition Pilot · Orlando, FL · In effect
- Lawrence Surveillance Oversight Ordinance (CCOPS) · Lawrence, MA · In effect
- Davis Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Art. 26.07) · Davis, CA · In effect
- Seattle Surveillance Ordinance · Seattle, WA · In effect
- Seattle Surveillance Ordinance (SMC 14.18) · Seattle, WA · In effect
- Nashville Surveillance Equipment Council-Approval Ordinance (Metro Code 13.08.080) · Nashville, TN · In effect
- Grand Rapids MI ALPR under surveillance policy (2026) · Grand Rapids, MI · In effect
- Cambridge Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban · Cambridge, MA · In effect
- Brookline Face Surveillance Ban · Brookline, MA · In effect
- Minneapolis FR Ban · Minneapolis, MN · In effect
- Madison Face Surveillance Ban · Madison, WI · In effect
- Chesterton IN ends Flock ALPR contract (Sept. 2026) · Chesterton, IN · Enacted (not yet in effect)
- Milford CT Flock camera moratorium (2026) · Milford, CT · In effect
- Ledyard CT ends Flock ALPR use (2026) · Ledyard, CT · In effect
- Fort Wayne IN rejects Flock ALPR contract (Aug. 25, 2026) · Fort Wayne, IN · In effect
- Newtown CT ALPR pause (2026) · Newtown, CT · In effect
- Indianola IA police suspend Flock ALPR cameras (Aug. 2026) · Indianola, IA · In effect
- Cleveland OH Flock 6-month renewal w/ data-sharing restrictions (Jul. 15, 2026) · Cleveland, OH · In effect
- Killingworth CT ends Flock ALPR contract (2026) · Killingworth, CT · In effect
- Huntington WV Flock contract approved 6-4 (Jul. 14, 2026) · Huntington, WV · In effect
- Warren MI Flock renewal 4-3 ($132k/2yr, Jul. 14, 2026) · Warren, MI · In effect
- Cypress CA police drone purchase (~$138k/3yr, Jul. 2026) · Cypress, CA · In effect
- Fredericksburg VA Axon AI package w/ Draft One carve-out (Jul. 14, 2026) · Fredericksburg, VA · In effect
- Stanton CA authorizes OC Sheriff DFR 3-0-2 (Jul. 13, 2026) · Stanton, CA · In effect
- Springfield IL Flock ALPR renewal w/ safeguards (Jul. 7, 2026) · Springfield, IL · In effect
- Rochester MN $467,290 Axon DFR contract (Jul. 2026) · Rochester, MN · In effect
- El Cerrito CA Flock non-renewal (May 5, 2026) · El Cerrito, CA · In effect
- Bristol VA PD facial recognition program (first VA local agency) · Bristol, VA · In effect
- Metro Nashville Police Drones as First Responder Trial Progr · Nashville, TN (Metro Nashville Police Department) · In effect
- Board of Aldermen cancels Flock automated license-plate read · Weston, MO · In effect
- Austin Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Techn · Austin, TX · In effect
- Tampa Police Department Drone as First Responder Program · Tampa, FL · In effect
- Orlando Police Department Drone as First Responder Program ( · Orlando, FL · In effect
- Coralville IA Flock ALPR contract terminated (Feb. 24, 2026) · Coralville, IA · In effect
- Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facia · Milwaukee, WI · In effect
- Police surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual pu · Columbia, MO · In effect
- Cambridge terminates Flock Safety ALPR contract for 'materia · Cambridge, MA · In effect
- San Marcos City Council votes to discontinue Flock Safety AL · San Marcos, TX · In effect
- Evanston deactivates 19 ALPR cameras and terminates Flock Sa · Evanston, IL · In effect
- CTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Contract Expansion (250 to 1,5 · Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) · In effect
- Oklahoma City Council approves police facial-recognition con · Oklahoma City, OK · In effect
- Resolution to expand surveillance cameras in public parks (o · City and County of Honolulu, HI · In effect
- Honolulu Police Department Automated License Plate Reader (A · City and County of Honolulu (Honolulu Police Department), HI · In effect
- Eureka CA rejects Flock ALPR contract (Feb. 2025) · Eureka, CA · In effect
- Dallas PD Clearview AI facial recognition policy · Dallas, TX · In effect
- Real-Time Crime Center Surveillance Impact Report and Crime · Seattle, WA · In effect
- Detroit FR Policy Directive 307.5 · Detroit, MI · In effect
- Miami PD FR Policy · Miami, FL · In effect
- MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09) · Washington, DC (Metropolitan Police Department) · In effect
- SFPD Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Program authorized und · San Francisco, CA · In effect
- Fresno PD FR Policy · Fresno, CA · In effect
- Providence Police Department General Order 460.01 - Unmanned · Providence, RI · In effect
- Twin Falls Police Department Automated License Plate Reader · City of Twin Falls (Twin Falls Police Department), ID · In effect
- SPD FR Policy · Seattle, WA · In effect
- Ordinance Restricting Municipal Use of Facial Recognition Te · Anchorage, AK · In effect
- Portland Police Bureau Small UAS (Drone) Program authorized · Portland, OR · In effect
- Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy govern · Chula Vista, CA · In effect
- City of Warwick ordinance regulating ALPR technology systems · Warwick, RI · In effect
- Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera · Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, CO · In effect
- Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing · Boston, MA · In effect
- Ordinance banning city and police department use of facial r · Minneapolis, MN · In effect
- LAPD Facial Recognition Policy · Los Angeles, CA · In effect
- New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halti · Lockport City School District, NY · In effect
- Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance bannin · New Orleans, LA · In effect
- Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometri · Oakland, CA · In effect
- Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS) · Oakland, CA · In effect
- Ordinance ORD-20-00056 prohibiting city-agency use of facial · Madison, WI · In effect
- Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use · Pittsburgh, PA · In effect
- Ordinance banning use of face recognition technologies by Ci · Portland, OR · In effect
- Portland Municipal Facial Recognition Ban (implicating the P · Portland, ME · In effect
- NYPD POST Act · New York City, NY · In effect
- Ordinance banning face surveillance technology in Boston · Boston, MA · In effect
- Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and f · Santa Cruz, CA · In effect
- Five-year moratorium on police and municipal use of face sur · Springfield, MA · In effect
- Ordinance banning municipal use of face surveillance technol · Cambridge, MA · In effect
- Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Ordinance 59300; M · Madison, WI · In effect
- Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Mu · Oakland, CA · In effect
- Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance · Somerville, MA · In effect
- Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance prohibiting municipal u · Somerville, MA · In effect
- San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinan · San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA/Muni) · In effect
- Surveillance Technology Ordinance · Cambridge, MA · In effect
- First U.S. Biometric Terminal (Maynard H. Jackson Internatio · City of Atlanta / Delta / CBP (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Terminal F) · In effect
- Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance · Yellow Springs, OH · In effect
- Chula Vista Police Department Drone as First Responder (DFR) · Chula Vista, CA · In effect
- Denison TX free 1-yr BRINC drone trial (Jul. 2026) · Denison, TX · In effect
- San Francisco ALPR privacy protections (Sept 2026) · San Francisco, CA · Enacted (not yet in effect)
- Killinger v. Jager / Reno facial recognition arrest suit · Reno, NV · Blocked / in litigation
- New Orleans Surveillance/FR Rules · New Orleans, LA · In effect
- Milwaukee PD Facial Recognition Halt · Milwaukee, WI · Proposed / pending
- Oak Park Village Board votes 4-3 to terminate Flock Safety A · Oak Park, IL · Expired
- Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety · Santa Cruz, CA · Expired
- Flagstaff City Council votes unanimously to end Flock Safety · Flagstaff, AZ · Expired
- Eugene ends Flock Safety ALPR contract after council-ordered · Eugene, OR · Expired
- Denver ends Flock Safety ALPR contract and replaces vendor a · Denver, CO · Expired
- Hillsborough ends its relationship with Flock Safety ALPR ca · Hillsborough, NC · Expired
- City Council delays AI-capable park security camera purchase · Missoula, MT · Proposed / pending
- Oklahoma City Council to vote on renewing Flock Safety ALPR · Oklahoma City, OK · Proposed / pending
- Harrisonburg VA Flock termination pledge (vote Jul. 28, 2026) · Harrisonburg, VA · Proposed / pending
- Binghamton NY Flock termination legislation (in committee, Jul. 2026) · Binghamton, NY · Proposed / pending
- SFPD proposed DGO 10.12 drone policy (2026) · San Francisco, CA · Proposed / pending
- Atlanta proposed surveillance technology ordinance (2026) · Atlanta, GA · Proposed / pending
- Boston surveillance ordinance amendment proposal (2026) · Boston, MA · Proposed / pending
- Lead SD proposed ALPR / mass surveillance ban (2026) · Lead, SD · Proposed / pending
- Anchorage AO 2026-108 surveillance technology / ALPR ordinance · Anchorage, AK · Proposed / pending
- Providence CPRA Amendments · Providence, RI · Proposed / pending
- LA Council holds LAPD/Axon streetlight ALPR pilot (Oct. 2026) · Los Angeles, CA · Proposed / pending
- Chicago AI police report ban (proposed, O2026-0024089) · Chicago, IL · Proposed / pending
- Grimmett v. Wichita (Flock ALPR suit) · Wichita, KS · Blocked / in litigation
- Baltimore FR Ban (Expired) · Baltimore, MD · Expired