NO FLOCK Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill leverages federal highway funding to compel states to adopt stricter privacy protections regarding the use of automated license plate reader technology by law enforcement.
What it actually does
This bill proposes to amend federal law to require states to restrict the use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) to specific, limited purposes, such as toll enforcement or investigating felony offenses. States that fail to enact such prohibitions would face a 10 percent withholding of their federal surface transportation funding.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this legislation is essential to protect the privacy and civil liberties of individuals from pervasive government surveillance. They contend that unchecked ALPR use allows for the mass tracking of innocent citizens, and that federal funds should not incentivize or support such broad data collection without specific cause.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that this bill represents federal overreach into state and local law enforcement matters, potentially hindering effective crime-fighting and public safety efforts. They might assert that ALPRs are a valuable tool for identifying stolen vehicles, finding missing persons, and apprehending dangerous criminals, and that restricting their use could compromise public safety.
The bill text is exceptionally short and clear, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(a), adding Section 180 to Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code
Withholding of Federal Surface Transportation Funding for Non-Compliance with ALPR Restrictions
This provision mandates that states must enact laws restricting the use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) to only specific, enumerated purposes, such as enforcing toll systems or identifying stolen vehicles and felony suspects. If a state fails to implement such a law by the specified deadline, the Secretary of Transportation will withhold 10 percent of the federal surface transportation funds apportioned to that state under section 104(b).
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is a necessary step to safeguard civil liberties and privacy from pervasive government surveillance. They contend that ALPRs, while useful for specific law enforcement tasks, can be easily misused to track innocent citizens without probable cause, and that federal funding should not support such unchecked data collection.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision represents federal overreach into state law enforcement matters and could impede legitimate police investigations. They may contend that ALPRs are a valuable tool for public safety, and restricting their use could make it harder to catch criminals or find missing persons, potentially leading to increased crime rates.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the federal government's interest in promoting civil liberties and privacy against states' autonomy in managing their law enforcement practices and the perceived effectiveness of ALPR technology for public safety. It also creates a tension between a state's desire for federal transportation funding and its willingness to restrict certain law enforcement tools.