The revolt against Flock surveillance cameras is being taken to the next level.
Americans have been taking saws and baseball bats to the controversial license plate readers for months. Others have blocked the cameras, pressured local governments to cancel contracts, or simply demanded to know why a private surveillance network is keeping tabs on where millions of Americans drive.
Now, lawmakers are getting involved.
A story out of New Mexico that perfectly captures just how intense the backlash has become.
A 44-year-old man named Jevon Martinez apparently decided the government wasn't taking down Flock cameras fast enough. So he did it himself.
"Not in my city, not in my state."
— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 12, 2026
A New Mexico man was arrested after defiantly taking down Flock cameras, and recording himself doing so.
Jevon Martinez recorded the removals after the Bernalillo County sheriff moved to end the department's contracts with Flock Safety, citing… pic.twitter.com/ev1jgYUbOc
Martinez filmed himself driving around Bernalillo County on September 2 and removing automated license plate reader systems, then piled the equipment into the back of his pickup truck.
“We got a bunch of these bad boys,” Martinez said while displaying his haul.
Then he turned it into a challenge.
“Let's see how much I can get in one day. That's gonna be the challenge for everyone out there.”
Martinez had another name for the cameras: “tyranny trees.”
“Not in my city, not in my state,” he declared.
There was at least some logic behind what Martinez claimed he was doing.
Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen had already moved to end his department's three contracts with Flock Safety over concerns involving privacy, data sharing, and confidence in the company. Allen still supports automated license plate reader technology generally, but had decided his department was finished with Flock.
Martinez apparently figured he would help with the cleanup.
“Since BCSO is busy, I know BCSO is busy, everyone who works for BCSO, I know you guys are busy, so I went ahead and helped you out,” Martinez said.
Authorities were not amused. Martinez was arrested after allegedly removing 10 camera systems worth an estimated $16,500. Deputies surrounded his pickup outside the sheriff's office with their weapons drawn before taking him into custody. Martinez was unarmed.
There was another problem. Authorities say only two of the cameras Martinez removed were associated with the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office. The other eight were managed by neighborhood associations.
Martinez is facing charges stemming from the incident, and the allegations against him have not been resolved in court.
But the larger backlash he represents is very real. As I reported earlier on RedState, there is something about the idea of a nationwide network of cameras quietly tracking Americans' movements that people find deeply unsettling.
And it isn't difficult to understand why. Flock cameras photograph vehicles traveling on public roads and record information including license plates, time, location, make, model and color. Police can search the resulting information to locate vehicles and develop investigative leads.
The scale is the part that changes the equation. Flock said its network had grown to more than 120,000 cameras across 49 states, with thousands of law enforcement agencies and communities using its products.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the cameras were recording approximately 20 billion license plates every month. That is not a traffic camera sitting at an intersection. That is the infrastructure for something much more extensive.
Flock CEO Garrett Langley tried to address the privacy concerns during a Fox News interview last month.
“I value my privacy… but what we're talking about is safety as well,” Langley said. “And so I think when people talk about just one of these things, privacy or safety, they're prioritizing the wrong thing. What we have to prioritize as a country is compromise: how do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”
That word — “compromise” — did not exactly calm everyone down. Sen. Rand Paul blasted the remark, accusing Langley of asking Americans to “compromise” their Fourth Amendment rights. Langley pushed back, saying Flock believes in the Constitution and arguing that Americans also deserve to be safe.
There are legitimate public-safety arguments for the cameras. Police have used automated license plate readers to locate stolen vehicles, identify cars connected to violent crimes, find missing people and develop leads in investigations. The International Association of Chiefs of Police supports what it calls the lawful and accountable use of ALPR technology for legitimate public-safety purposes.
Those benefits are real. But so is the surveillance capability. And Americans increasingly appear unwilling to simply trust that a system capable of tracking their movements will never be abused.
The pushback is now reaching state capitols. Pennsylvania is rapidly becoming one of the biggest battlegrounds. Lawmakers there have introduced a wave of bills addressing automated license plate readers, ranging from restrictions and warrant requirements to proposed bans.
Republican state Sen. Doug Mastriano announced legislation aimed at prohibiting what he calls the “mass, suspicionless collection and retention” of people's movements through ALPR networks. His proposal would preserve targeted law-enforcement uses involving such things as stolen vehicles, abducted children, fugitives and vehicles tied to specific investigations.
Other Pennsylvania Republicans have proposed additional guardrails, while Democrats have introduced their own legislation governing access, accountability and personal data.
Even Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has said Flock cameras are “not something in the public interest.”
And Pennsylvania is hardly alone. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has blocked state agencies from spending state money on additional Flock equipment, while Florida has moved against new installations on state highways. The developments come amid a broader national debate over the technology.
Local governments are also backing away. According to a cancellation database cited by the Daily Caller News Foundation, more than 200 communities have canceled or declined to renew ALPR contracts since the beginning of 2025. Knox County, Tennessee, recently voted unanimously to remove its cameras.
Now the backlash has reached Congress. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) introduced the appropriately named “Flock-Off Act” this month. The bill would prohibit the use of federal money to purchase, install, maintain or operate covered automated license plate readers and biometric surveillance cameras.
“The federal government shouldn’t provide ‘security’ grants to cities and police departments that have gone beyond the pale and turned their communities into a version of 1984,” Massie said.
That gets to the core of the argument. One camera that alerts police to a stolen car is one thing.
A nationwide web of cameras capable of recording where ordinary Americans' vehicles appear — and making those observations searchable across jurisdictions — is something else entirely.
Flock insists that its technology is an important public-safety tool and says it supports bipartisan legislation creating privacy, transparency and accountability safeguards while preserving legitimate law-enforcement uses.
Maybe lawmakers can build guardrails strong enough to satisfy the public. But there is a fundamental problem that no corporate privacy policy can make disappear.
If you construct a surveillance system capable of tracking millions of Americans, you are eventually asking Americans to trust every government official, police officer, agency and future administration that might gain access to it.
As I wrote previously, this isn't merely theoretical anymore. The question isn't whether surveillance technology can be abused. History tells us that powerful surveillance tools eventually will be abused if meaningful restraints aren't placed on them.
That helps explain why the backlash has crossed traditional partisan lines.
Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, privacy advocates, governors, members of Congress and local officials are all beginning to ask variations of the same question:
How much surveillance should Americans tolerate in exchange for public safety?
Jevon Martinez decided to answer that question with his own two hands. That landed him in handcuffs.
But lawmakers around the country see the public anger and it looks like they are paying attention
And judging by the legislation bubbling up in statehouses and Congress, Americans want to hit the brakes on this Orwellian technology.
