Lawmakers received a briefing on Flock cameras Sunday afternoon during August interim meetings at the state Capitol.
The Government Organization Committee heard a presentation on the controversial cameras that capture images including license plate numbers, color, make, model and distinctive features like bumper stickers or temporary tags to create a searchable digital database of vehicle movements.
Presenters were Alasdair Whitney, legislative counsel for the Institute for Justice that has challenged the technology’s use on constitutional grounds, and Kevin Kane, director of government affairs for Flock Safety.
Proponents of the cameras contend the technology provides law enforcement with searchable vehicle and license plate data to help solve and prevent crimes in a quicker and more precise manner than traditional police work.
Lawmakers and citizens alike have expressed Fourth amendment concerns with the cameras and their creation of a massive, passive surveillance network that tracks and logs the movements of ordinary citizens, including people not suspected of any crime, without a warrant.
Civil rights groups and civil libertarian groups, including the ACLU and the Institute for Justice, have raised concerns about the use of these cameras and other AI-assisted surveillance for mass tracking of citizens, the possible misuse of data and lack of transparency and public accountability.
During a roughly two-hour discussion, lawmakers asked a series of detailed questions about how the technology works, what safeguards are in place and what further safeguards governments should be considering.
Kane told committee members Sunday that data collected through its technology is “100% owned by our customers,” such as law enforcement, homeowners associations and businesses.
“By the numbers, today we’re looking at about 2,800 crimes solved every single day with Flock, and about 12,000 customers protected, Kane said. “And this reflects communities in just about every single state in the country. “We’re talking about precision policing that can provide law enforcement with that critical first clue.”
Kane said Flock’s cameras do not use facial recognition programming, focusing on objective information that can be seen through the cameras themselves, such as clothing color. The data collected is not sold, and data sharing agreements are between law enforcement agencies themselves and must be opted into.
Whitney countered with recent federal lawsuits contending the Flock and similar camera systems capture far more innocent people than criminals, violating their Fourth Amendment rights protecting them from unreasonable searches and seizures.
“We are, are pro-constitution and pro-accountability.” Whitney said. “The cameras in many ways is like calling an iPhone a telephone. These are networked, highly powered AI systems … that read far more than a (license) plate.”
Whitney emphasized his core concern is that these cameras show “a way of life,” not just a day in the life, allowing government agents to infer religious affiliation, political associations, Second Amendment activities and medical visits.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that you do not surrender your privacy rights when you simply back out of your driveway or walk out of your front door every day,” Whitney said.
Lawmakers also questioned how the national database search works, what percentage of agencies opt in, whether one agency can export another’s data.
Lawmakers also considered whether West Virginia should institute a warrant requirement. They anticipate working on legislation to regulate the use of these cameras during the 2027 Regular Session.
