Auburn and Ithaca have voted to end their Flock Safety contracts, but the questions behind those decisions now reach across New York: How long should police retain records of drivers’ movements, who should have access and what should the public know about searches?
A Pew Research Center analysis released Nov. 9 documents substantial gaps in information about the company’s nationwide license plate camera network. Those gaps help explain why New York lawmakers are considering requirements that would go beyond agencies’ voluntary disclosures.
The research examines camera locations, retention policies, data sharing and search records. It does not determine whether Flock reduces crime or whether a particular New York agency has misused the technology.
Automated license plate readers photograph passing vehicles and convert their plates into searchable information. Records containing a plate number, location and time can help investigators reconstruct a vehicle’s movements.
That collection includes vehicles whose occupants are not suspected of wrongdoing. A recorded plate establishes where a vehicle was photographed, rather than who was driving or whether a crime occurred.
Police have defended the technology’s investigative value. During Ithaca’s debate over Flock, officials cited its usefulness in missing-person, stolen-vehicle and burglary investigations.
The dispute concerns how to preserve those benefits while limiting the collection and use of information about everyone else.
Pew’s published state table lists 2,033 Flock cameras mapped in New York, roughly 10 per 100,000 residents. Its national analysis used 109,577 camera locations recorded on OpenStreetMap as of Sept. 17.
Those figures are not an official inventory of operating equipment. OpenStreetMap relies on volunteer contributions, and Flock does not publish a complete list of camera locations. National estimates from different sources vary substantially.
A mapped location also cannot, on its own, establish whether equipment remains active following a cancellation vote.
That distinction matters in the Finger Lakes.
Auburn City Council voted 5-0 Aug. 20 to terminate its Flock agreement. The resolution addressed ending access, coordinating equipment removal and handling existing records. Officials also acknowledged that the original agreement had not received formal council authorization.
Auburn did not permanently prohibit all license plate reader technology. It required policies addressing access, sharing, security, retention and oversight before another agreement.
Ithaca voted March 4 to end its own contract, citing privacy, civil liberties and governance concerns.
Neither city’s action establishes what other government agencies or private operators may collect nearby.
Pew found that public transparency portals provide only a partial view of the wider network. Its analysis included 1,517 agencies with portals, accounting for 39,465 cameras — approximately 36% of the cameras in its OpenStreetMap dataset.
Participation is optional, and agencies choose which information to disclose.
Among agencies with portals, 96% disclosed retention periods and 90% disclosed search totals. Only half disclosed information about individual searches.
About two-thirds disclosed whether they shared information with other organizations. Among those reporting their sharing arrangements, the median number of partner organizations was 217.
That is a national finding for a subset of agencies, not a finding about Auburn or Ithaca. It illustrates why the debate extends beyond the location of a roadside camera to the network of organizations potentially able to use its records.
Retention policies also differ. Pew found a median retention period of 30 days among agencies with portals, even though Flock lowered its platform default to seven days in August. A company default does not establish what every customer retains.
New York lawmakers are considering a substantially shorter baseline.
Senate bill S9890A, sponsored by Sen. Michelle Hinchey, would generally require government-held plate records to be deleted within 48 hours. Exceptions would permit longer retention for evidence obligations, court orders and certain other purposes.
The proposal would limit government use to specified activities, including certain criminal and missing-person investigations, traffic enforcement, parking, toll collection and secured-area access. Government access to privately collected plate records would require a probable-cause warrant.
It also would restrict sharing outside New York and require public annual reports identifying camera locations, scans, erroneous hot-list matches and matches followed by arrests or prosecutions. Agencies would have to maintain search-access logs.
The bill remains in the Senate Consumer Protection Committee. Its provisions are proposals, rather than an enacted statewide 48-hour rule.
The retention question produced disagreement at a Nov. 9 Assembly hearing on license plate readers. Law enforcement officials argued that short retention periods could erase useful records before investigators receive leads. Civil liberties advocates emphasized the risks of preserving extensive movement histories.
The broader technology also faces a constitutional challenge in New York.
In Umemoto v. Westchester County, drivers and civil liberties organizations challenged the county police department’s vehicle surveillance system. The plaintiffs argue that collecting and storing detailed travel information violates state constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and exceeds the department’s authority.
Those are allegations for a court to resolve. The case concerns the legality of a vehicle surveillance program, while Pew examines deployment and public disclosure.
Neither answers the question of how much crime Flock prevents. The company’s estimate that its cameras assisted more than 1 million investigations in 2025 does not establish that they solved that many crimes or that those cases depended on the cameras.
For New York, the decisions ahead concern both police authority and public accountability: which searches are permitted, how long records remain available, who can obtain them and what evidence agencies must provide to demonstrate that their systems work.
FingerLakes1.com is the region’s leading all-digital news publication. The company was founded in 1998 and has been keeping residents informed for more than two decades. Have a lead? Send it to news@fingerlakes1.com.