Flock cameras stop crime. That’s according to a new website from Charles Fain Lehman of The Manhattan Institute and City Journal. Some, however, are worried that the cameras are part of an ever-increasing surveillance state. Recently, Drew welcomed Lehman on The Drew Mariani Show to discuss the cameras.

What are Flock Cameras?

Lehman told Drew Mariani that Flock cameras, a type of automatic license plate readers (ALPR), have been around since the 1980s. Since the early 2000s, police departments began using the technology, and by 2016 “two-thirds of big police departments had ALPRs,” Lehman said.

Flock cameras operate on a suscription model and can cost a police department between $2,000-3,000 per camera, per year.

According to Lehman, Flock cameras have a sophisticated “computer vision technology” that allows them to track elements of a vehicle like make, model, and color; it’s a particularly helpful feature because car thieves will often swap license plates, Lehman said.

Many of the cameras are networked, too. “Flock gives you the option to opt in to sharing your data with the broader network of Flock subscribers, so that you can view cars that are in other states,” Lehman explained.

As to the total number of cameras in the U.S., Lehman estimates there are about 120,000 – 130,000 in different parts of the country.

Benefits of the Technology

Lehman’s website Flock Stops Crime, documents 1,818 cases of Flock cameras helping prevent or solve crime. According to his data, Flock has helped solve 208 shooting cases, 140 robbery cases, and 418 vehicle theft cases.

Just last week, “A stolen vehicle was detected by a Flock camera, leading to an arrest in Southern California,” according to the website.

Lehman also published a recent piece detailing the ways ALPRs have helped rescue dozens of children.

Risks to Privacy

Critics of the camera note they are a threat to privacy. Drew noted police officers who have used the technology to track someone in their personal life.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul thinks Flock cameras are unconstitutional. “Mass, unconstitutional surveillance is not ‘safety.’ In fact, if our right to privacy is not safe, we are not safe,” he wrote on X.

Lehman argued against abuses of ALPRs and called for sensible regulation. “We would like to see the investigative uses of the technology restricted to serious crimes,” he said.