Scottsdale PD’s massive use of AI license plate tracking cameras raises privacy concerns

Nearly
one-in-four searches of an automated license plate reader database made
by an Arizona police agency came from the Scottsdale Police Department  —
nearly as many queries as the statewide Arizona Department of Public
Safety, which patrols every highway in the Grand Canyon State. 

The Scottsdale Police Department utilizes the Flock Safety network, a system that links automated license plate readers, commonly referred to as ALPR, from across the country into a system that allows law enforcement to search thousands of images of vehicles.

The Arizona Mirror analyzed records released by the Yakima Police Department
in Washington that included Arizona police agencies that share the
system which included searches by law enforcement agencies from December
2024 to mid-May 2025. 

Those records are likely incomplete,
but provide a critical look at how Arizona police agencies use ALPR data
and tap into a nationwide network of cameras to solve crimes.

According to the available data,
Scottsdale Police Department conducted 12,527 searches of the database —
roughly 22% of the total searches conducted by Arizona agencies found
in the data. The Arizona Department of Public Safety, which oversees the
state’s freeways and highways, conducted 16,481. The two agencies
combined to perform half of all Arizona searches of Flock’s system
during that time period. 

Flock Safety has been a source of controversy, both for its wide-ranging network of cameras — the company claims to have more than 80,000 AI-powered cameras
in over 5,000 communities across 49 U.S. states — and how law
enforcement uses them. In one instance, police in Texas used the system
to search for a woman who had received an abortion in a state where it was legal. 

The Glendale Police Department used an anti-Romani slur last year when conducting a search of the same data. 

And there are other concerns. In one instance, cybersecurity researchers found its cameras were exposed to the internet without a login, allowing anyone to track their own or any one else’s movements. The company has called the claims “misunderstandings” and “theoretical.” It has also contended that it does not share data with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, though reporting has shown otherwise. 

Scottsdale PD said it is “aware of allegations regarding a potential compromise of the Flock Safety system.” 

“Upon learning of these claims, the
Department immediately contacted Flock Safety to obtain additional
information and to verify the security of data associated with
Scottsdale’s license plate reader cameras,” Scottsdale Police Department
spokesman Ofc. Aaron Bolin told the Mirror. 

Bolin added that there is “no
indication” that their system has been breached or any data has been
compromised and that they take “all reports or allegations of this
nature” seriously. 

When asked why they have more
searches than other agencies such as the Phoenix Police Department,
Tempe Police Department and other similar agencies, Bolin said he
“cannot speak to how other agencies utilize Flock-derived information in
the scope of their operations.” 

He told the Mirror that the
department “utilizes available technology,” including Flock, “to support
active investigations and respond to in-progress calls to service.” 

“The system provides timely and
critical information that assists in identifying suspects, locating
vehicles involved in crimes, and solving cases more efficiently,” Bolin
said about how the agency uses the technology. “It is important to note,
Scottsdale PD operates a Real Time Crime Center (RTCC) and Drone as a
First Responder (DFR) that both utilize Flock systems when providing
information to officers responding to calls for service.”

Bolin said the drones are not
equipped with ALPR technology but “can respond to the last known Flock
plate notification location, but we do not use the drones for that since
the vehicles are usually mobile and we have other cameras through the
city that may help locating the vehicle, such as the case with Raad Almonsoori.” 

Scottsdale said it prioritizes using
ALPR for “crimes against persons and property, including but not limited
to thefts, burglaries, assaults, and other serious offenses,” adding
that the agency intends to use the tech in a way that “enhances public
safety while respecting privacy and civil liberties.” 

The department said it also requires a
valid case or incident number to make queries, and access is restricted
to sworn officers and “designated Operational Support personnel.” 

“Supervisors oversee usage to ensure compliance with department policy and investigative standards,” Bolin said. 

While Bolin assured the Mirror that Scottsdale is using the technology in a way to ensure privacy, others are not so sure. 

ALPR devices have been used in Arizona for years.
However, Flock is a newer player in the game, positioning itself as a
higher-end Silicon Valley-style startup that integrates artificial
intelligence into its technology. It also sells its cameras to private
companies like Lowes and Home Depot, and even homeowner associations. 

Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel at
the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Mirror that what makes
Flock so different is its “aggressive nationwide data sharing model”
that is actually “worldwide.” 

“That really is the special risk that
is created by Flock,” Marlow told the Mirror. When police agencies
enter into agreements with the company, they agree to large-scale data
sharing policies. 

“In doing so, you expose the very sensitive private vehicle driving data to the entire country,” Marlow said.

The concerns raised by Flock are that
the precise location information can reveal a lot about a person’s
day-to-day life, such as political affiliations, religious beliefs and
more, he explained.

“You can learn a lot about a person
by tracking their location and movement through the course of a day.
That creates an inherent danger, but Flock puts that danger on
steroids,” Marlow said. That’s because any customer of Flock can have
access to that data. 

Marlow said this could allow for law
enforcement to look for “groups of people who may be of interest” by
searching Flock data at specific locations, such as a reproductive
health facility or an immigrant services center. 

Some are moving to challenge the use
of the cameras, with some localities in Arizona, such as Flagstaff and
Sedona, cancelling their contracts and plaintiffs in other states challenging the constitutionality of its use, saying that police need a warrant for the technology. 

“There are so few non-partisan topics
in 2026, but opposition to mass unrestricted government surveillance
and Flock is absolutely a non-partisan issue right now,” Marlow noted,
adding that he has given presentations to both prominent Republicans and
Democrats. “I think it is actually great and refreshing to see people
from across the political spectrum saying, ‘We agree,’ and passing
better state laws that really kind of protect people where protections
kind of don’t exist.” 

Arizona currently has its own
legislation making its way through the process, though the police-backed
proposal would limit public access to ALPR data and does little to rein in its use, according to privacy advocates. 

Marlow said that those concerned
about Flock and ALPR data being misused should look to states like New
Hampshire and Virginia, which have put strict data retention and
collection policies in place. For example, in New Hampshire, ALPR data
is retained for three minutes, cross-referenced against known databases
and, if the plate is not tagged for an alert, deleted. 

“If there is ALPR data that is
relevant to an investigation, you can keep it as long as you want. No
one is arguing against that,” Marlow said of critics who argue that it
is a necessary crime fighting tool.