,
ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project
July 23, 2025
Subscribe to the Free Future Newsletter
The police surveillance company Flock has built an enormous nationwide license plate tracking system, which streams records of Americans’ comings and goings into a private national database that it makes available to police officers around the country. The system allows police to search the nationwide movement records of any vehicle that comes to their attention. That’s bad enough on its own, but the company is also now apparently analyzing our driving patterns to determine if we’re “suspicious.” That means if your police start using Flock, they could target you just because some algorithm has decided your movement patterns suggest criminality.
There has been a lot of reporting lately about Flock but I haven’t seen anyone focus on this feature. It’s a significant expansion in the use of the company’s surveillance infrastructure — from allowing police to find out more about specific vehicles of interest, to using the system to generate suspicion in the first place. The company’s cameras are no longer just recording our comings and goings — now, using AI in ways we have long warned against, the system is actively evaluating each of us to make a decision about whether we should be reported to law enforcement as potential participants in organized crime.
In a February 13 press release touting an “Expansive AI and Data Analysis Toolset for Law Enforcement,” the company announced several new capabilities, including something called “Multi-State Insights”:
Many large-scale criminal activities—such as human and narcotics trafficking and Organized Retail Crime (ORC)—involve movement across state lines. With our new Multi-State Insights feature, law enforcement is alerted when suspect vehicles have been detected in multiple states, helping investigators uncover networks and trends linked to major crime organizations.
Flock appears to offer this capability through a larger “Investigations Manager,” which urges police departments to “Maximize your LPR data to detect patterns of suspicious activity across cities and states.” The company also offers a “Linked Vehicles” or “Convoy Search” allowing police to “uncover vehicles frequently seen together,” putting it squarely in the business of tracking people’s associations, and a “Multiple locations search,” which promises to “Uncover vehicles seen in multiple locations.” All these are variants on the same theme: using the camera network not just to investigate based on suspicion, but to generate suspicion itself.
In a democracy, the government shouldn’t be watching its citizens all the time just in case we do something wrong. It’s one thing if a police officer out on a street sees something suspicious in public and reacts. But this is an entirely different matter.
First, the police should not be collecting and storing data on people’s movements and travel across space and time in the first place, or contracting to use a private company’s technology to accomplish the same thing. Second, they shouldn’t be taking that data and running it through AI algorithms to potentially swing the government’s eye of suspicion toward random, innocent civilians whose travel patterns just happen to fit what that algorithm thinks is worth bringing to the attention of the police.
And of course because Flock is a private company not subject to checks and balances such as open records laws and oversight by elected officials, we know nothing about the nature of the algorithm or algorithms that it uses— what logic it may be based upon, the data upon which it was trained, or the frequency and nature of its error rates. Does anyone actually know whether there are movement patterns characteristic of criminal behavior that won’t sweep in vastly larger numbers of innocent people?
We also don’t know what kind of biases the company’s algorithms might exhibit; it’s very easy to imagine an algorithm trained on past criminal histories in which low-income neighborhoods and communities of color are highly over-represented because of the well-established, top-to-bottom biases in our criminal justice system. That could mean that just living in such a neighborhood could make you inherently suspicious in the eyes of this system in a way that someone living in a wealthier place would never be. Among other problems, that’s just plain unfair.
The bottom line is that Flock, having built its giant surveillance infrastructure, is now expanding its uses — validating all our warnings about how such systems inevitably undergo mission creep, and providing all the more reason why communities should refuse to allow the police departments that serve them to participate in this mass surveillance system.
Selected ACLU coverage of license plate scanners
Last updated 5/20/26
Municipalities: Beware of Changes in Flock’s Legal Terms if You’re Using or Considering License Plate Readers (April 2026)
License Plate Readings Shouldn’t Be Public Data (February 2026)
Kansas Town Uses License Plate Readers to Go After Man Who Wrote Op-Ed (February 2026)
Flock CEO Goes Ballistic on Critics as More Americans Question Mass Driver Surveillance (January 2026)
Surveillance Supporters Tout Police Audit Logs But They’re Not an Effective Check and Balance (October 2025)
Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments (October 2025)
Surveillance Businesses Have Human Rights Responsibilities (September 2025)
Flock’s Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance (August 2025)
Communities Should Reject Surveillance Products Whose Makers Won't Allow Them to be Independently Evaluated (March 2024)
Californians Fought Hard for Driver Privacy Protections. Why Are the Police Refusing to Follow Them? (February 2024)
How to Pump the Brakes on Your Police Department’s Use of Flock’s Mass Surveillance License Plate Readers (February 2023)
White paper: Fast-Growing Company Flock is Building a New AI-Driven Mass-Surveillance System (March 2022)
Report: You Are Being Tracked (July 2013)
-
National Security
Free Speech
Florida Officials Pause Designation of Prominent Civil Rights Groups as “Terrorist Organizations”
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Last night, Florida officials paused their plan to designate the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a “domestic terrorist organization,” under new laws that went into effect on July 1. This development comes in a lawsuit that the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and their partners filed on behalf of the civil rights nonprofit and its Florida chapter after Gov. DeSantis and other state officials announced they would quickly move to designate CAIR. According to a court filing, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement now intends to issue regulations to implement the laws, and “no designation will be made before the regulations are finalized.” Lawyers for Gov. DeSantis and other defendants in the lawsuit stated they could not yet provide a timeline on when these regulations would be finalized, and the parties will report again to the court by July 22. “From day 1, Florida officials’ use of this dangerous new designation regime has violated the Constitution. Gov. DeSantis has simply no legitimate basis to brand our clients with one of society’s most reviled labels let alone to force them to shut their doors under threat of crippling criminal penalties, and leave the Floridians they serve without a crucial civil rights voice,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “In the United States, CAIR and all nonprofits have the right to criticize the government, protect religious freedom, and advocate for the causes they believe in.” In April 2026, Gov. DeSantis signed into law HB 1471 and HB 1473 despite public outcry. These laws establish an unprecedented state designation regime and dramatically expand Florida’s authority to both label and punish groups — including nonprofits engaged in First Amendment-protected advocacy — that officials unilaterally decide are security threats. Under the regime, officials can brand nonprofit corporations with debilitating stigma and then use an array of state authorities to immediately silence and incapacitate the organization, its employees, and a wide range of others associated with the group through extraordinarily broad and severe criminal, civil, and administrative penalties. On July 2, the nonprofits’ legal team filed an emergency motion asking the federal court to prevent the designation from going into effect and to allow the groups to litigate the challenge without fear of prosecution under the broad designation laws. The court denied the emergency filings, stating it required further briefing and evidence that Florida officials were following through on their threats. “The fact that Florida officials announced their intent to designate CAIR at their July 1 press conference, before regulations they now plan to issue have come into effect, shows their calculated and cruel plan to designate CAIR is not because it is in any way a threat to public safety, but because doing so suits their political agenda,” said Scott McCoy, deputy legal director, Southern Poverty Law Center. “The State’s decision to negatively brand CAIR has already violated its constitutional rights and inflicted immediate and ongoing harm to it.” CAIR and CAIR-FL are represented in the suit by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Akeel & Valentine, PLC, and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP.
-
National Security
+2 Issues
CAIR-Foundation, Inc and CAIR Florida, Inc. v. DeSantis et al.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and their partners represent CAIR and CAIR-Florida in two federal lawsuits challenging Governor DeSantis’s unconstitutional and baseless designation of the nonprofits as “terrorist.” The lawsuits allege violations of CAIR and CAIR-Florida’s rights under the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Cair-foundation, Inc And Cair Florida, Inc. V. Desantis Et Al.. Explore Case.
-
National Security
Free Speech
Muslim Civil Rights Nonprofits Sue Florida Officials to Prevent Unconstitutional Designation that Threatens the Organizations’ Existence in the State
TALLAHASSE, Fla. — The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, Southern Poverty Law Center, Akeel & Valentine, PLC, and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP today filed a federal lawsuit challenging Florida officials' imminent and baseless designation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a “domestic terrorist organization” under laws that went into effect today. The challenge comes hours after Gov. Ron DeSantis announced his intent to use the new laws against CAIR, one of America’s leading civil rights organizations. Although the governor did not mention CAIR-Florida, he has previously indicated that he also considers it a “terrorist organization.” If the nonprofits are designated, they face immediate and irreparable harm, including the shuttering of all their operations and advocacy in the state. In April 2026, Gov. DeSantis signed into law HB 1471 and HB 1473 despite outcry. These laws establish an unprecedented state designation regime and dramatically expand Florida’s authority to both label and punish groups — including nonprofits engaged in First Amendment-protected advocacy — that officials unilaterally decide are security threats. Under the regime, officials can brand nonprofit corporations with debilitating stigma and then use an array of state authorities to immediately silence and incapacitate the organization, its employees, its members, and a wide range of others associated with the group through extraordinarily broad and severe criminal, civil, and administrative penalties. “We thank the ACLU, SPLC, Akeel & Valentine, and Bondurant for standing up against Gov. DeSantis’ latest attack on the rule of law,” said CAIR’s national headquarters. “Throughout CAIR’s long history, our civil rights organization has worked to protect the Constitution’s guarantees of free speech, religious freedom and equality under the law. We have also pursued justice for all people, including American Muslims impacted by hate. This is exactly why Gov. DeSantis has repeatedly targeted our organization. We see through Gov. DeSantis’ latest biased attempt to punish us for our views and our values. We look forward to fighting these baseless attacks in court and proving once again that the Constitution is stronger than any politician’s bigotry.” Targeted organizations can receive no meaningful notice and have no meaningful opportunity to challenge the designation before a neutral decisionmaker — and before the designation and harsh penalties take effect. “Under Florida’s dangerous new regime, the governor and a few officials can play judge, jury, and nonprofit executioner. But the Constitution does not allow elected officials to punish American nonprofits and deny them the fundamentals of due process because of disagreement with their views,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “Florida’s imminent designation of our clients is both dire and unmoored from reality. CAIR and CAIR-Florida’s speech and advocacy are protected by the First Amendment, which includes their right to criticize the governor, other officials, and their policies. We’re asking the court to protect our clients’ cardinal freedoms.” As the lawsuit explains, CAIR and CAIR-Florida are nonprofits organized under the laws of the District of Columbia and Florida. They do not engage in “terrorist activity.” Their shared mission, rooted in faith, is to enhance the public’s understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims. Like other prominent nonprofits, they hold community events, post educational materials on social media, speak about elected leaders, and represent clients in advocacy and civil rights lawsuits. They have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. “Like any other faith-driven nonprofit, we host community events to promote religious tolerance and understanding, provide cultural education, and our work seeks to advance public policy that protects the equal treatment of Muslim Americans,” said CAIR-Florida. “Our work is critical to combatting prejudice, false stereotypes, and ensuring the promises of the Constitution cover us all — yet the governor has unfairly labeled us something we are not and threatens our very ability to continue this crucial work. We all share the same rights, and no group should be targeted simply because the governor disagrees with their constitutionally protected speech.” If the designation goes into effect, its impact will be instant and incapacitating for CAIR and CAIR-Florida’s work in the state. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that they would be caught in a kaleidoscope of criminal prohibitions that would stop them from carrying out even their most basic functions in Florida. Put bluntly, designation will completely shut down their speech, force them to shutter their offices in the state, and brand them with one of the most stigmatizing, infamous labels in our country. On top of the reputational and operational harm, the designation would also violate their right to counsel. That’s because, once designation becomes effective, any lawyer or legal organization that provides or attempts to provide legal services or representation to CAIR or CAIR-Florida faces a credible threat of criminal prosecution under this regime. “Florida’s attack on the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the country is dangerous and wrong,” said Daniel Tilley, legal director of the ACLU of Florida. “If we allow this undisguised attempt to restrict constitutionally protected speech and association to go unchallenged, it only ensures that the increasingly normalized censorship and discrimination at the hands of our state government will expand ever further.” The groups are suing under the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “Gov. DeSantis does not have the power to unilaterally brand an organization with this vilifying designation and punish those who support it without due process or judicial review,” said Scott McCoy, deputy legal director, SPLC. “Denying due process and suppressing and punishing constitutionally protected speech and advocacy are clear violations of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. SPLC will not stand idly by while civil rights groups like CAIR and CAIR-Florida have their rights trampled based on unfounded fear and prejudice by politicians trying to score political points.” CAIR and CAIR-Florida are also separately suing Florida officials over a related executive order that Gov. DeSantis was trying to use to target the nonprofit. In early March 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted CAIR's request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of his “blatantly unconstitutional” executive order, which unilaterally branded CAIR a “terrorist organization,” and would have stripped CAIR — and those associated with the group — of state and local contacts, employment opportunities, funding and other public benefits. Gov. DeSantis has since appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The complaint in the lawsuit can be viewed here.