Attorney General Blanche Says License Plate Readers Don’t Affect Privacy. Congress Is Less Sure

U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche used a Justice Department grant announcement in Jacksonville, Florida, on November 6, 2026, to wave off privacy worries about automated license plate readers, including the camera network sold by Flock Safety. Asked whether he supported police use of the technology, Blanche said it “does not affect the privacy of American citizens,” called much of the criticism of Flock “misinformation,” and allowed only that future advances might one day justify pulling it back. His comments land while at least three bills in Congress would restrict or defund the same cameras, and while the debate over license plate data has become one of the few privacy fights that splits both parties.

What Blanche said, and where he said it

Blanche was in Jacksonville to announce that the city had been chosen for the Justice Department’s Model Cities Initiative. According to the Justice Department’s press release, Jacksonville will receive more than $73 million to support hiring, forensic capacity, investigative resources and “innovative crime-fighting technology,” as part of an initiative worth nearly $300 million that also covers Baton Rouge, Jackson, Mississippi, and St. Louis.

The license plate reader exchange came during questions, and Politico first reported it. As quoted in that reporting and in subsequent coverage, Blanche said: “If you’re asking whether I support law enforcement reading license plates, yes, as every single citizen in this country should.” He continued: “So there’s a lot of misinformation around about Flock.” And then the line that drew the most reaction: “I’m not suggesting that privacy doesn’t matter, to the contrary. But what I am suggesting is that the technology around license plate readers does not affect the privacy of American citizens. It may someday, and if the technology advances to where we need to take a look at it and figure out a way to address and draw it back, we should do that.”

A note on titles, since early summaries varied. Blanche is the confirmed Attorney General, not an acting official. Congress.gov records that the Senate confirmed his nomination “to be Attorney General, vice Pamela Bondi” on August 8, 2026, by a 50 to 49 vote, after he had served in an acting capacity earlier in the year.

The pushback in Congress

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., responded in a statement quoted in coverage of Politico’s story: “The only misinformation about Flock is Todd Blanche’s claim that AI-powered surveillance cameras don’t impact Americans’ privacy.” Wyden pointed to cases in which plate readers were linked to stalking and wrongful arrests. Politico’s reporting also noted that Sens. Katie Britt, R-Ala., and Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., wrote to Blanche in September urging safeguards against misuse.

The legislative record shows how unusual the coalition is. Here are the bills and proposals that could be confirmed from congressional sources:

1. Flock-Off Act, H.R. 10221. Introduced September 2, 2026, by Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Its official title is to prohibit the use of federal funds for covered camera systems and associated components. Congress.gov lists eight cosponsors, including Republicans Eric Burlison and Chip Roy and Democrat Ro Khanna.
2. Ban Flock Act, H.R. 10691. Sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., with a matching proposal from Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., unveiled October 2. The official title would prohibit federal use of automatic license plate readers without explicit statutory authorization, withhold certain grants from state and local governments that use them, and bar federal funds for buying them. The senators’ release adds a private right of action against the federal government.
3. Stop Flock Abuse Act. Announced September 30 by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., after a Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Flock. Hawley’s office describes rules rather than a ban: no sale or sharing of vehicle location data with non-governmental third parties, written approval and audit logs for every search, encryption with data kept in the United States, deletion of driver data after ten days except for active criminal investigations, no foreign-adversary hardware or software, and no facial recognition in plate reader networks.

All three remain at the introduction stage. None has received a committee vote, and the Justice Department’s stance suggests the administration would not champion them.

Why the privacy argument does not go away

Blanche’s position rests on a familiar intuition: a license plate is displayed in public, so photographing it is not a search. That intuition is weaker for networked systems that log every passing vehicle with a time, place and image, keep it for weeks, and let agencies query data across jurisdictions. The Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States held that collecting historical cell-site location records generally requires a warrant because of what long-term location data reveals; our explainer on Carpenter and the Stored Communications Act walks through that reasoning. Courts have not settled how far it reaches plate reader databases, which is precisely why legislatures are stepping in.

Flock’s own scale fuels the concern. The senators backing the Ban Flock Act say the company has more than 120,000 cameras that record about 20 billion vehicle scans a month, figures they attribute to Flock. Earlier problems with federal access to local data, documented in coverage of Flock’s license plate data controversy, pushed several states and cities to impose their own limits, and a number of municipalities have paused or cancelled Flock contracts.

What state law already requires

For organizations that buy, host or share plate reader data, state law matters more than Washington today.

• California. The state’s ALPR statute limits sharing by public agencies and requires usage policies; it has also generated private litigation, as covered in our analysis of California’s ALPR law and class action exposure and the El Cajon lawsuit over out-of-state sharing.
• Retention limits. Several states cap how long plate data may be stored; Hawley’s ten-day proposal would be among the strictest if enacted.
• Audit and access logs. Logging who searched and why is becoming a baseline expectation in state rules and procurement.
• Immigration-related sharing. Disputes over federal access to local data overlap with broader worries about location trails reaching immigration agencies.

Businesses are not only bystanders here. Homeowner associations, shopping centers, parking operators and logistics firms install private plate reader cameras and sometimes share feeds with police. Those arrangements should be documented with a clear purpose, retention period and sharing policy, regardless of how the federal debate turns out.

Frequently asked questions

Did the Justice Department announce any new plate reader policy?

No. Blanche’s remarks were answers to questions at a grant event. The department’s written release on Jacksonville does not mention license plate readers or Flock.

Would the Ban Flock Act outlaw local police use of plate readers?

Not directly. As described by its sponsors, it would bar federal use and federal purchases and withhold certain grants from state and local governments that use the technology, creating a strong financial incentive rather than an outright local ban.

Is Hawley’s bill a ban?

No. His office describes guardrails such as audit logs, ten-day deletion and a ban on facial recognition, while allowing the technology to continue.

Has any of these bills passed a chamber?

No. As of this writing, each remains at the introduction or announcement stage.

Blanche left himself one exit: privacy might matter “someday” if the technology advances. For the lawmakers who note that today’s cameras already read vehicle details, share data across state lines and feed searchable histories, someday has already arrived, and the question is which branch decides when to draw the line.