A response to Charles Fain Lehman’s “In Defense of Flock” article. *
Vittorio Nastasi
"The warrant requirements it imposes would not meaningfully inhibit investigations either, as similar standards already apply to searches of homes and cellphones."
"Automated license plate readers (ALPRs) have spread to thousands of American communities faster than almost any policing technology in memory. Flock Safety, one among many ALPR vendors, now operates approximately 120,000 cameras nationwide."Stories of misuse and abuse abound, including warrantless searches of movement histories, informal ICE access to camera networks despite state laws forbidding it, a Kansas police chief who used the system to stalk his ex-girlfriend, and a driver held at gunpoint because a reader misread her plate. Such stories would make any libertarian squeamish, though public backlash against the technology extends well beyond libertarian circles.
"But what is the argument in favor of ALPRs? Writing in The Atlantic, the Manhattan Institute’s Charles Fain Lehman makes an ostensibly measured case in defense of Flock. He argues that ALPRs will help solve more crimes and thereby reduce crime by incapacitating and deterring criminals. Indeed, Lehman himself has compiled an impressive database of cases where ALPRs were used to help solve crimes.
"Lehman doesn’t deny the privacy costs, though. He acknowledges documented abuses, and he appears to take privacy concerns seriously, conceding that a database of billions of vehicle images might be considered a major privacy intrusion (Flock’s ALPRs are currently generating about 20 billion license plate scans per month). His conclusion is that ALPRs are “likely a valuable tool” and that these concerns are real but manageable through “smart regulation, not bans.”
"He’s right that an outright ban on ALPRs would be both unworkable and unnecessary. And solving more crimes is indeed a good way to increase deterrence. But his argument relies on evidence that is considerably weaker than he presents. More importantly, though, his proposal for “smart regulation” stops short of the one thing that would actually address the privacy concerns he concedes are legitimate: treating ALPR database queries like any other police search and requiring a warrant.
The research is more mixed than Lehman lets on
"He’s right that an outright ban on ALPRs would be both unworkable and unnecessary. And solving more crimes is indeed a good way to increase deterrence. But his argument relies on evidence that is considerably weaker than he presents. More importantly, though, his proposal for “smart regulation” stops short of the one thing that would actually address the privacy concerns he concedes are legitimate: treating ALPR database queries like any other police search and requiring a warrant.
Lehman’s case that ALPRs are “probably” a valuable tool rests on evidence that he concedes is thin. Here’s how he characterizes the current state of research on ALPRs: . . . More.
is the director of criminal justice policy at Reason Foundation.
*Charles Fain Lehman, a legal policy fellow and director of Cities at the Manhattan Institute, published “In Defense of Flock” in The Atlantic on August 10, 2026, arguing that automated license plate readers (ALPRs) — particularly those deployed by Flock Safety — can make the criminal justice system fairer and less punitive if properly used
*Charles Fain Lehman’s “In Defense of Flock” article." - Outline Core Argument
Lehman contends that ALPRs, which photograph and identify license plates in real time, can:
Solve more crimes by enabling rapid identification of suspects and tracking of vehicles.
Deter criminal activity by making it harder for offenders to move undetected.
Reduce reliance on punitive measures by helping law enforcement target crimes more efficiently.
