Lawmakers pushing for constraints — such as limits on data sharing, retention and use — argue that companies such as Flock expanded their networks too quickly without adequately considering the privacy implications.

U.S. Rep. Keith Self, a McKinney Republican and former Collin County judge, introduced a bill earlier this month that would generally require federal law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant from a judge before searching license plate-reader data and other surveillance records collected by state and local law enforcement agencies.

The bill's sponsor and two cosponsors are Republicans, though Self said he expects others to sign on later. Among their concerns is whether the tools violate the Fourth Amendment right that protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not decided whether police generally need a warrant to search Flock or other license plate-reader databases, though a Virginia appellate court and federal courts have rejected some Fourth Amendment challenges.

"We believe public safety, privacy and Fourth Amendment rights can and must coexist," Lewbel said in an email highlighting the court findings.

State Rep. Mitch Little, a Lewisville Republican and attorney, said he was concerned about the amount of data being collected after reviewing a local police department contract with Flock. He said city councils were not scrutinizing the agreements enough.

"I'm totally fascinated by the complete lack of curiosity on the part of city councils and mayors on this topic," he said in an interview.

Lewbel did not directly comment on the lawmakers' characterization of the camera network's quick growth, but said the company has recently added stronger search controls, audit tools and transparency features.

State Rep. John Bucy, D- Austin, said his office is working on a bill for next year's legislative session after a proposal he brought last session — which would have limited data retention to 48 hours, among other restrictions — failed to advance out of committee.

"When you see widespread opposition to something from the public, it means there is a problem that politicians need to address," Bucy said in an email. "The fact that it is coming up now and spans the political spectrum means people were not aware of the cameras or didn't understand how they can be abused."

He said lawmakers must act to "not let our constituents' rights be given away under these unregulated contracts."

Calls for guardrails cross political lines

One of the largest police groups in the state is calling for limits that ensure public trust in law enforcement.

Robert Leonard, executive director of the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, called the technology "a very effective tool" for quickly solving crimes, finding missing persons and recovering children during Amber Alerts.

In May, a weekend shooting rampage and string of vehicle thefts reportedly carried out by three teenagers in Austin stretched across the city before driving into the suburb of Manor, where police were aided by Flock cameras in locating and arresting the trio. The summer before, Austin City Manager T.C. Broadnax withdrew a proposed continuation before a council vote, allowing the city's Flock contract to expire.

Flock in social media posts said the city's decision was made after a "public pressure campaign built on misinformation." It added, "This weekend showed what that tradeoff can look like."

Leonard, who criticized Austin's decision, said in an interview the technology is here to stay, saying an outright ban without a thorough discussion was a red line. He said clear rules are needed for how the data is stored and shared and how misuse is addressed.

In recent weeks, prominent voices on the right have criticized Flock, including former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, R- Ky. An associate vice president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, published a commentary piece titled "Flock Cameras Are An Assault On Your Constitutional Freedoms."

The Democratic Socialists of America North Texas chapter shares some concerns with Republican critics about privacy and police overreach. Nora Soto, a chapter spokesperson, said they were also wary of cost and reports the cameras have aided immigration enforcement.

Dallas is spending grant money and nearly $4 million for a three-year contract for the cameras while confronting a roughly $30 million budget gap that has prompted employee furloughs and temporary closures of libraries, cultural centers and other city facilities.

Soto said she was not surprised that conservatives had also grown wary of the technology.

"Republicans are big on 'no big government,'" she said in an interview, "and what's bigger government than having Big Brother watching over you all the time?"

The backlash has also turned destructive. Dallas police have reported a "surge in intentional damage" targeting Flock cameras since March.

Though he urged opponents to seek change through elections instead, Self, the McKinney congressman, compared the protest to one of the country's most famous.

"This is kind of like throwing the tea in [Boston] Harbor back in the 1700s. Because they're tired of it," he said. "Now, they need to go vote people out of office that are not doing what they want. That's the way to handle it."

Groups forming across Dallas-Fort Worth, including the one Foust helped organize in Carrollton, say they do not condone the vandalism because it does not align with their goals.

A report of stolen Flock cameras in Carrollton led to the arrests of two teens, both of whom now face felony theft charges.

Brandon Rottinghaus, a University of Houston political science professor, said the vandalism marks a shift from political opposition to direct action.

"That definitely suggests a peak moment for concern about the privacy rights that are evoked with the use of these cameras," he said.

___________

© 2026 The Dallas Morning News.

Visit www.dallasnews.com.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.