Are Police in Your Community Laundering License Plate Data Through Federal Drug Programs Into a Secretive Central Database?
If your community is using Flock, Axon, Motorola, or another automatic license plate reader (ALPR) provider, or considering doing so, there’s a new question you need to ask those pushing the tech: Will the data your police department collects on innocent people’s locations be funneled to ICE and other federal agencies through a war-on-drugs era program called the “High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area” (HIDTA)?
According to documents obtained and recently reported upon by the creator of and the tech news outlet , the government is the HIDTA program “to obtain data from local cops’ Flock, Axon, and other ALPR cameras and aggregate it on federal government servers, where it is then accessible to other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.”
HIDTA is under the jurisdiction of the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, a.k.a. the “Drug Czar,” and includes 33 regional programs that cover all 50 states. 404Media reports:
Over the last several years, the White House and several states have taken steps to ensure local ALPR systems are fed into HIDTA; for example, cities in Georgia are not allowed to operate ALPR systems on state rights of way without signing a “” (MOU) in which they promise to send their data to a HIDTA….
Because there are dozens of HIDTAs across the country, it is not clear how many jurisdictions across the country are actively funneling data into HIDTA’s databases.
This story is a reminder of the difficulty of bottling up intimate and personal information about how people are living their lives once it is created by license plate reader system. Collect it and they will come for it. And they'll have many paths to getting it.
It’s also a reminder of how slippery government law enforcement agencies can be when pursuing access to our personal data and in dodging oversight when doing so. The HIDTA data-aggregation program is, as 404Media puts it, “complex” and “convoluted” and subject to “confusion about who is actually in charge of the data that any HIDTA collects.” Attempts to access HIDTA data via open records requests have been met with evasion, with the DEA arguing in court that HIDTA records are not subject to open records laws, for example, and a North Carolina sheriff’s office arguing that HIDTA records are not shareable with the public via FOIA because “all data is kept on the Federal Houston-HIDTA database.”
News that ICE and other immigration agencies are able to access local vehicle surveillance systems was central in first sparking questions about Flock and other ALPR companies within many local communities, especially as the Trump administration supercharged its cruel mass deportation campaign. These reports contributed to a wave of state laws against the sharing of data with the federal government, and prompted Flock to cancel its direct contract with ICE. (Meanwhile other companies, such as Motorola/Vigilant, continue to share their data directly with the feds.) And yet now we have learned that there is a whole new channel by which such access is occurring, virtually automatically.
Along with questions for local government authorities like “how many ALPR cameras are in our city,” and “how long is the data retained,” this new question must be added: “Is our local police department funneling license data to this drug program?”
In the end, though, the lesson this program provides is just how slippery the government can be and how hard it can be to limit the sharing is a reminder that the real solution to protecting against privacy invasions and abuses in a community is to get rid of ALPR and other mass surveillance programs altogether.
Related Issues
Related Content
-
NevadaSep 2026
Privacy & Technology
National Security
Killinger V. Jager. Explore Case.Killinger v. Jager
On September 21, 2026, the ACLU, ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed an amicus brief in the District of Nevada in support of Jason Killinger, a man wrongfully arrested after police relied on an incorrect result from facial recognition technology. -
Press ReleaseSep 2026
Privacy & Technology
Aclu Privacy Expert To Testify At Bipartisan Senate Hearing On Flock And Other Automatic License Plate Readers. Explore Press Release.ACLU Privacy Expert to Testify at Bipartisan Senate Hearing on Flock and Other Automatic License Plate Readers
WHAT: The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism will hold a hearing on Wednesday entitled, “Always Watching: Flock’s Nationwide AI Surveillance Network.” Testifying at this hearing will be privacy and surveillance expert Chad Marlow, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. Marlow will detail how automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) like Flock are used to violate our rights, discuss the growing bipartisan movement against these creepy cameras, and underscore that the best privacy protection is to ban ALPRs altogether. Marlow’s testimony comes as people across the country come together to oppose these cameras and urge their elected officials to get rid of them. The Institute for Justice has cataloged more than 200 incidents of ALPR abuse, including stalking, wrongful stops and detentions, non-law enforcement use, and other types of misconduct. Since the beginning of 2026, over 200 cities have terminated their contracts with Flock and other ALPR companies and that number keeps growing. In August, cities terminated their contracts at a rate of more than three per day. WHEN: Wednesday, September 23, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. ET WHO: Chad Marlow, Senior Policy Counsel, ACLU Benn Jordan, Cybersecurity Engineer Lindsey Isaacs, Wrongfully Accused Driver Alasdair Whitney, Legislative Counsel, Institute for Justice The Honorable Ross Teeple, Sheriff for Pinal County WHERE: Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 562 *Livestream can be found here. Chad will be available for questions and interviews following the hearing. Please reach out to Allegra Harpootlian with any requests. -
Oregon Supreme CourtAug 2026
Privacy & Technology
State V. Lane. Explore Case.State v. Lane
Oregon law enforcement, without a warrant, installed surveillance cameras on two telephone poles near Petitioner’s home and recorded activity there for a month. The State argues that police can continuously surveil our most private spaces—our homes—without judicial oversight. The ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon and the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, filed an amicus brief arguing that police were required to obtain a warrant before conducting the extensive pole-camera surveillance at issue this case. -
Press ReleaseSep 2026
Privacy & Technology
Aclu Urges Senate To Block Ai Experimentation Provision In Crypto Bill. Explore Press Release.ACLU Urges Senate to Block AI Experimentation Provision in Crypto Bill
WASHINGTON — The Senate will take a procedural vote on the Clarity Act today, which includes a provision that would give companies a free pass to experiment on “AI test projects” without transparency or oversight. The American Civil Liberties Union argues that this is unneeded both because of how fast artificial intelligence is already growing, and also because of the harm it could cause to individuals’ rights. “Companies have plenty of freedom to do basic research on AI. But they shouldn’t have the freedom to use the American people as guinea pigs by subjecting them to harmful experiments that violate existing laws meant to protect people,” said Jina John, senior policy counsel on AI at the ACLU. “At the very moment that AI leaders are warning of catastrophic risks and urging Congress to regulate AI, Congress must not pass any law that would endanger people’s rights and liberties for the sake of AI experimentation.” Section 509 of the bill would establish a scheme for companies to seek waivers from any regulation from a financial regulator, including those related to privacy, security, consumer protection, and civil rights. That means companies could conduct AI experiments that risk exposing consumers’ financial data or be used to develop products that make decisions about lending, housing, and other important areas without providing notice about adverse actions or considering the potential for discrimination, all without oversight. The ACLU and a coalition of other rights groups recently sent a letter to Congress outlining the dangers of this provision for privacy rights and the right to be free from discrimination in key economic transactions.