At a busy Highland Park intersection, a camera goes missing; not usually a newsworthy occurrence, but the online reaction to the disappearance of this particular type of camera — an automated license plate reader — was unique.
Some cheered it on, assuming it was an act of protest against devices that have grown increasingly controversial. A few scolded the other commenters, arguing they help keep communities safe.
The online scuffle reflects a growing debate across the county and country, with opponents of ALPRs and surveillance technology company Flock Safety calling for the complete removal of the devices, considering them invasions of privacy and violations of the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement saying they’re valuable tools for solving crimes faster, and state legislators debating what regulations and guidelines to put on the expanding technology.
“Deflock”
ALPRs, like those operated by the private company Flock Safety, are a network of AI-enabled cameras that take pictures of passing vehicles, including the license plates and other identifying factors, often placed along high traffic roadways into and out of municipalities.
These images are stored in a database for varying amounts of time, depending on the local police department’s rules, and officers can then search these databases to track vehicles. ALPRs are also used to notify law enforcement about reportedly stolen vehicles, or those that have been used in previous crimes.
The cameras themselves are not owned by local municipalities or police departments, instead they contract with Flock — or another ALPR company — to have them installed, paying a subscription for the devices and database access.
While the exact number of such cameras across Lake County isn’t readily available, a 2024 Lake County Sheriff’s Office news release said there were more than 260 across the county, and Deputy Chief Christopher Covelli has previously said there’s likely hundreds more today. Although the Lake County Sheriff’s Office purchased 15 of such cameras in 2024, only a handful are installed and operating.
Vernon Hills was one of the first communities in Illinois to install such technology. Police Chief Patrick Kreis is something of an ALPR evangelist, calling them one of the “most effective uses of technology to support public safety since DNA.”
Aware of the technology for years, Kreis said initially the cost for a police department to install its own cameras was prohibitive. But when he learned of Flock in 2019, offering the service through a subscription model for far cheaper, he jumped for it. By October 2020, the cameras were operational.
Kreis is more than happy to list off the benefits, pointing to everything from murders to retail thefts where the devices have helped bring investigations to a speedy end.
“I’ve wanted to talk to anyone that’s willing to talk about this,” Kreis said. “I want our community to know what this technology is, what it isn’t and how we use it.”
That includes speaking at an upcoming community forum in Vernon Hills on ALPRs later this month, the third of a series of such discussions held by the AntMound Foundation to help educate the public on both the benefits and concerns with the technology.
But while Kreis and other law enforcement praise the devices, opponents don’t see the benefits outweighing the cost.
In Lake County, advocates already organizing against the T5 data center have also begun to organize against ALPRs. DeFlock Lake County, a newly created branch of a national campaign against one of the more well-known ALPR companies, has held informational and training events encouraging residents to push back against the technology.
Augusta Guffroy, president of the Northern Illinois Progressives and founder of DeFlock Lake County, called ALPRs a “pure violation of our Fourth Amendment” and called for their complete removal.
Criminal defense attorney Jacob Goldwater, a speaker at the ALPR forums, echoed her sentiment, calling them “mass data surveillance,” and a “subterfuge for the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.”
More Top Picks Sonos Five
While he acknowledged the devices can be used in helping solve crimes, it was too substantial a trade off, he argued, calling it a “slippery slope” and a significant invasion of privacy for innocent drivers. There were major implications of the technology that needed to be addressed, he warned.
“You can’t drive more than a mile or two on any major thoroughfare without being captured on one of these devices,” Goldwater said.
Opponents also point to instances of personal misuse by law enforcement, such as for stalking ex-partners or romantic interests. Earlier this week in neighboring Kenosha County, former Sheriff Deputy Frank McGrath was charged with misusing the Flock database in fall 2025 to track a coworker for “an unauthorized personal purpose,” a county release said.
Goldwater said oversight at police departments is still limited, lacking the “teeth they should have.”
“I don’t think we’re going to know the extent these have already been abused,” he said.
Local and state debate
It’s an issue that may have some bipartisan reach; two candidates vying for Lake County board seats — Democrat Vance Wyatt and Republican Joe Salvi — have both voiced concerns with Flock cameras.
Salvi questioned the county’s contract with Flock, and said he plans to put the Flock contract up for discussion in a similar manner as the data center moratorium. He described the cameras as a breach of the Fourth Amendment, and an invasion of privacy.
“Something of this nature requires a lot of responsibility, and I think there needs to be a real discussion about whether the potential good outweighs the potential bad,” Salvi said.
Wyatt, who is currently on the Foss Park District Board, posted online about a recent board vote against installing a Flock camera at Foss Park & Beach, voicing his support of the decision and pointing to cases of misuse by law enforcement.
“This isn’t about being against public safety,” Wyatt said. “It’s about recognizing that powerful surveillance technology can be misused.”
During an ALPR forum discussion in Waukegan, state Rep. Rita Mayfield, D-Gurnee, and state Sen. Adriane Johnson, D-Buffalo Grove, both discussed their stances on the devices. Mayfield was a staunch proponent, saying they keep communities safer and help catch criminals faster.
Speaking with the Pioneer Press, Johnson voiced general support for the technology, but noted concerns she’s heard. In her view, it was an issue of “safety or surveillance.” They’re tools to make communities safer, she said, allowing police to catch people committing crimes faster. But her constituents had concerns about being “overly surveilled.”
“My only concern, if you’re going to say it’s a concern, is just making sure that there are the necessary safeguards in place,” Johnson said.
She pointed to a pair of bills going through the Illinois House and Senate — SB3247 and HB5151 — that propose various standards and regulations for the technology, and would create consistency between different police departments for how long data is held, she said.
The last few weeks have seen a rise in media attention around Flock, including in Chicagoland, with some communities reconsidering their existing contracts or seeing resident pushback.
The spike in headlines may have pushed the company to go quiet; a request for comment to Flock Safety received an automated response saying the media team was “currently touching grass and taking a break.”
“Unlike our cameras, we can’t work 24/7, so we’ll get back to you when we’ve had a snack and regained the ability to form coherent sentences,” the response said.
Flock has begun adding new guardrails in response to public backlash, recently saying it will require case numbers for law enforcement searches by the end of the year, a requirement the Vernon Hills Police Department has had for years, Kreis said.
More Top Picks Plug
Goldwater, viewing the surveillance as essentially a dragnet search, called for more than just a case number for searches; he said it should require a warrant.
Kreis argued that would unnecessarily hinder the technology’s power, pointing to a case where one suspect was apprehended just over an hour after a crime was committed attempting to cross state lines.
“That would be just one of many examples of how this technology allows us to keep the community safe,” Kreis said.
Such cases have not convinced Goldwater and other opponents, however.
“From a principled constitutional law standpoint, the ends do not justify the means,” he said.