Abbott Freezes New Flock Camera Installations on State Roads

Estimated Time to Read: 13 minutes

Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has taken another step to restrict the expansion of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) in Texas, directing the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to stop approving new Flock cameras and other ALPRs along state-owned roadways.

The action expands on Abbott's August directive halting state funding for additional Flock cameras after questions emerged about the use of Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority (MVCPA) funds to finance thousands of cameras across Texas.

The latest directive does not amount to a statewide ban on Flock cameras or ALPRs. Existing cameras are not being ordered removed, and local governments can continue operating ALPR systems where the new TxDOT restriction does not apply. Instead, Abbott has blocked another avenue through which the surveillance network could continue expanding.

The development comes as cities and counties across Texas are independently reconsidering the technology amid concerns about privacy, data sharing and government surveillance.

Abbott Expands Texas Flock Camera Restrictions

Abbott's latest action is distinct from the funding restriction he imposed in August.

At Abbott's direction, TxDOT has stopped issuing permits allowing Flock cameras and other ALPRs to be installed along state roads. The suspension also applies to agreements that had already received approval when the cameras have not yet been installed.

Existing cameras along state rights-of-way are unaffected, including more than 900 operated by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). TxDOT says its role is limited to reviewing installations within state rights-of-way and that the agency neither installs the cameras nor accesses the information they collect.

That difference is important. Abbott has not prohibited ALPRs statewide. His actions have instead restricted state funding for additional Flock cameras and now new ALPR installations requiring TxDOT approval along state roads. Local governments can still operate existing systems and potentially deploy cameras where TxDOT approval is not required, subject to applicable law.

Texas Flock Camera Funding Drew Scrutiny

The TxDOT directive follows growing scrutiny over how Texas's existing Flock camera network was financed.

As Texas Policy Research (TPR) previously analyzed, the MVCPA used money derived in part from assessments on Texas automobile insurance policies to help finance ALPR deployments across the state. A Texas Tribune investigation found that at least $30 million had been directed toward more than 3,200 Flock cameras through MVCPA funding, including cameras operated by local law enforcement and DPS.

Following that reporting, Abbott directed state agencies to stop using state funds for additional Flock cameras.

The extent of DPS's own deployment became clearer in early September when State Rep. Brian Harrison (R-Midlothian) published correspondence from the department. DPS said it had committed to 1,236 cameras, approximately 940 of which were already installed and operational, and had paid $11,023,417 toward the cameras using MVCPA grant funds.

Stopping future expenditures did not shut down that existing network.

A Texas Tribune analysis of approximately 615,000 searches of the DPS network during June found that 48 percent came from outside Texas and that 3,075 agencies searched the system. DPS subsequently announced restrictions on access to its network.

The TxDOT directive now restricts another means of expanding the network, even when an installation might otherwise have a funding source.

Executive actions by Gov. Greg Abbott, August–September 2026

License plate readers: what changed, and what didn't

Two directives have slowed the growth of Texas's automated license plate reader (ALPR) network. Neither removes existing cameras or sets statewide rules for their use.

1. 1

   Late August

   State funding halted

   State agencies may no longer spend state funds on additional Flock cameras, after reporting that a state grant agency helped pay for thousands of them.

2. •

   Early September

   DPS limits outside searches

   After Tribune questions, DPS said only agencies with signed agreements may search its network.

3. 2

   September

   New state-road permits frozen

   TxDOT stopped approving Flock cameras and other ALPRs on state rights-of-way, including approved agreements not yet installed.

The network the directives left standing

$30M+

in MVCPA grant funds directed to Flock cameras

3,200+

cameras funded in part through MVCPA

~940

DPS cameras installed, of 1,236 committed

48%

of ~615,000 June 2026 searches of the DPS network came from outside Texas

MVCPA: Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority, funded in part by fees on Texas auto insurance policies.

Texas Communities Reconsider ALPR Surveillance

The statewide actions are occurring alongside a growing reassessment of ALPR surveillance by Texas local governments.

By mid-September, roughly two dozen Texas cities and counties had taken steps involving the removal of cameras, termination of contracts, or reconsideration of their Flock systems. The responses vary considerably, demonstrating that Texas currently has a patchwork of local approaches rather than a uniform statewide policy.

Bastrop voted to terminate its Flock contract and prohibit future contracts involving ALPR technology. Liberty Hill similarly terminated its agreement, ordered cameras under city jurisdiction removed, and directed that the city not use technology for mass-surveillance purposes in the future. Leander discontinued its Flock contract and said its police department was no longer using Flock cameras or data. Kendall County declined to renew its contract, with approximately 50 cameras expected to be removed as the agreement concludes.

Other governments have chosen restrictions rather than removal. Amarillo reduced its ALPR data-retention period to seven days, limited data sharing, and strengthened auditing requirements following allegations that a former police officer improperly used the system.

Those different approaches illustrate a larger question Texas has yet to answer: what statewide rules, if any, should govern the government's use of ALPR technology?

ALPR Privacy Concerns Extend Beyond Flock

For TPR, the underlying concern is broader than Flock Safety or any particular vendor. ALPRs can serve legitimate law-enforcement purposes, including identifying stolen vehicles, locating missing people, and developing investigative leads. Those applications should be part of the policy discussion. But the privacy implications change as individual cameras become interconnected surveillance networks.

There is a meaningful difference between a police officer observing a license plate visible on a public roadway and a technological system systematically recording vehicles across hundreds or thousands of locations, associating those observations with a time and place, retaining them, and making the resulting information searchable after the fact.

That capability raises questions about data retention, permissible searches, interagency sharing, access by agencies outside Texas, auditing, warrants, and consequences for misuse.

Recent events have demonstrated that those concerns are not entirely hypothetical. In Amarillo, a former police officer was charged with 78 counts of tampering with a government record after authorities alleged he used the city's Flock system dozens of times to track an individual for personal reasons. The allegations subsequently prompted additional restrictions on the department's use of the technology.

Misuse by an individual does not establish that every use of ALPR technology is improper. It does demonstrate why safeguards, accountability and limits on government access deserve serious consideration.

Texas ALPR Policy Requires Legislative Action

Abbott's actions have slowed the continued expansion of ALPR infrastructure, but executive directives should not substitute for the legislative process in determining long-term statewide surveillance policy.

The funding restriction has stopped state money from financing additional Flock cameras, while the TxDOT directive has frozen new ALPR installations requiring approval along state roads. Existing cameras, however, remain operational, and Texas still lacks a comprehensive statewide framework governing the broader use of ALPR technology.

The Legislature already had an opportunity to begin that debate during the 89th Legislative Session (2025).

State Rep. Brian Harrison filed House Bill 961 (HB 961), which would have generally required a warrant or court order for law enforcement use of an ALPR, restricted the resulting information to investigations of violent offenses, and required most unrelated data to be promptly destroyed. The legislation also included public reporting requirements for law enforcement agencies using the technology.

State Rep. John Bucy III (D-Austin) proposed a different framework in House Bill 2083 (HB 2083). His legislation would have permitted government use of ALPRs for specified purposes, including felony investigations, missing-person cases, stolen vehicles, toll and parking enforcement, while generally requiring captured data to be destroyed within 48 hours and imposing restrictions on data sharing.

Neither proposal received a hearing. As TPR previously noted, both were referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security, Public Safety & Veterans' Affairs, and the 89th Legislature adjourned without publicly debating either proposal.

That history is particularly relevant now. Texas has spent millions of dollars supporting ALPR deployments and built a substantial network while legislation specifically addressing how government may use the technology failed to advance.

The 90th Texas Legislature will have another opportunity to address these questions through the legislative process. That debate should not begin with the assumption that government use of ALPR technology must continue. Lawmakers should consider the full range of policy options, including whether government use of networked ALPR systems should be prohibited outright. If lawmakers instead determine that some government use should remain permissible, they should establish clear statutory limits addressing permissible searches, data retention, interagency sharing, access by agencies outside Texas, auditing requirements, warrants, and penalties for misuse.

Any legislative response should also focus on the capabilities of the technology rather than Flock alone. Prohibiting or restricting one vendor while allowing another company to provide substantially the same surveillance infrastructure would leave the underlying privacy concerns unresolved.

The central question for lawmakers is therefore not simply how ALPR surveillance should be regulated. It is whether government should possess this capability in the first place and, if so, under what narrowly defined circumstances.

Texas Should Define ALPR Surveillance Limits

Texas Policy Research has repeatedly raised concerns about allowing surveillance technology to become entrenched before policymakers establish clear constitutional and statutory boundaries around its use. The current controversy illustrates that problem. Thousands of cameras were funded or deployed before Texas settled fundamental questions about how vehicle-location information should be collected, retained, searched, and shared.

Abbott's latest directive places another restraint on the continued expansion of that infrastructure, but the Legislature should ultimately determine the statewide rules governing government use of ALPR surveillance.

Public safety and privacy need not be mutually exclusive. Texas can recognize legitimate law-enforcement needs while requiring government surveillance to remain subject to meaningful limits, accountability and constitutional protections.

The question facing Texas policymakers is therefore larger than whether another Flock camera should be installed along a state highway. It is what boundaries Texas should establish around government's ability to create searchable records of where people travel. Technology can make government more capable. That does not necessarily mean government should exercise every capability technology makes possible.

---

---