Attorney General Watch

Review of Flock cameras and other automated license plate reader systems

Announced scope: The Attorney General announced a review of how Arizona law enforcement uses automated license plate readers, the technology's effect on privacy rights, and potential Fourth Amendment concerns.

What to watch next: Watch for the promised report to the Legislature and Governor. No completed findings or final statewide rules were located in the October 2 review; proposed safeguards remain distinct from adopted requirements.

Checked October 2, 2026

Mayes urges Congress to regulate advanced AI and preserve state enforcement authority

Announced scope: Mayes joined a bipartisan coalition asking Congress for federal AI safety standards, transparent incident response, international coordination, preservation of state laws and state authority to enforce federal protections. This is broader AI policy advocacy. It does not announce findings, completion or a new phase of Arizona's separate August 27 ALPR review.

What to watch next: Track congressional proposals and the coalition's requested state enforcement provisions; follow the ALPR review on its separate record.

Checked October 2, 2026

California challenges El Cajon's nationwide sharing of license plate reader data

Announced scope: The Attorney General filed a motion in California v. City of El Cajon seeking declaratory and court-ordered relief after alleging that the city continued sharing ALPR data with more than 100 out-of-state law enforcement agencies in violation of California law.

What to watch next: Watch the San Diego County Superior Court for rulings on the requested relief and changes to sharing practices. The January 21 filing announcement was rechecked October 2; a complete current court docket and later disposition were not obtained.

Checked October 2, 2026

California issues agency-data safeguards and audit guidance for immigration-enforcement access

Announced scope: The Attorney General published model policies for state and local agency interactions with immigration authorities, plus database guidance, audit criteria and training recommendations covering agency-operated and vendor-maintained systems. The guide expressly discusses ALPR privacy requirements. Covered agencies must adopt the model policies or their equivalent by January 1, 2027; adoption of the separate database recommendations is encouraged.

What to watch next: Track local policy adoption, access logging, recurring audits and vendor controls. Keep this guidance separate from the El Cajon enforcement lawsuit and the 2023 ALPR bulletins.

Supporting records: Record 1

Checked October 2, 2026

Milford violated FOIA by withholding its list of outside Flock network agencies

Announced scope: Attorney General Opinion 26-IB32 concluded that Milford failed to justify withholding a record identifying outside agencies granted access to its Flock system or data-sharing network. The opinion rejected the city's reliance on investigatory and intelligence-file exemptions for a general access list.

What to watch next: Watch whether Milford produces the agency-access list with only legally supportable redactions and whether other requesters use the opinion to seek surveillance-sharing records.

Checked October 2, 2026

Dover must justify camera-location secrecy; network audit report remains exempt on this record

Announced scope: Opinion 26-IB53 found Dover failed to justify withholding locations of cameras in plain view under the intelligence-file exemption. It upheld withholding the Network Audit Report under the investigatory-file exemption based on sworn representations that each search included an investigative purpose, case number and reason. The opinion does not create a blanket rule for all ALPR audit records.

What to watch next: Watch for production of camera-location records and any judicial review; assess future audit-log requests against the specific records and agency evidence.

Checked October 2, 2026

Vendor-held Flock records remain subject to Clayton's FOIA duties

Announced scope: Opinion 26-IB26 rejected Clayton's arguments that town-owned Flock data was outside FOIA merely because it was stored with a vendor or restricted by internal protocols. The office found the town failed to justify withholding requested plate data, but upheld withholding police-vehicle GPS records on public-safety grounds. The policy-record dispute became moot after production.

What to watch next: Watch for Clayton's supplemental search and response, and distinguish disclosure of town-owned Flock records from the opinion's separate protection of police GPS deployment data.

Checked October 2, 2026

Attorney General calls for limits on retention, dissemination, and commercial use

Announced scope: Uthmeier told reporters he plans to work with the Governor and Legislature on protections for automated license plate readers while preserving limited law-enforcement uses. His comments identified long-term storage, broad dissemination, and private monetization as concerns; they did not announce a filed bill or completed investigation.

What to watch next: Watch for bill text, sponsors, proposed retention and sharing limits, enforcement authority, and whether the Attorney General issues formal guidance or opens an inquiry.

Checked October 2, 2026

Nineteen attorneys general defend Marco Island's ALPR system

Announced scope: A Georgia-led coalition filed an amicus brief in Schemel v. City of Marco Island, Eleventh Circuit No. 25-13913, supporting the city and affirmance. The attorneys general argue that the city's ALPR use does not violate the Fourth Amendment and emphasize law-enforcement benefits. This is the coalition's litigation position, not an appellate holding.

What to watch next: Track the Eleventh Circuit docket and distinguish the amici's arguments from the court's decision and any later mandate.

Checked October 2, 2026

Kentucky ruling divides short Flock footage from a multi-day plate movement history

Announced scope: Open Records Decision 26-ORD-051 found that Lexington improperly withheld one minute of footage from a specified location, but could withhold ten days of images tied to one plate because the broader request could comprehensively document a private person's movements.

What to watch next: Watch for a court appeal and for agencies or requesters citing the decision when balancing public oversight against disclosure of identifiable movement histories.

Checked October 2, 2026

Louisville may withhold Flock camera-location records under burden exemption

Announced scope: Decision 26-ORD-034 upheld withholding records identifying Louisville's Flock camera locations under KRS 61.872(6). The office accepted the city's specific evidence that disclosure would undermine the system and require costly relocation. This is a records-access determination based on the presented facts, not a ruling on ALPR constitutionality.

What to watch next: Track any circuit-court challenge and whether later requests present different facts concerning visibility, relocation or claimed burden.

Checked October 2, 2026

Bowling Green and Elizabethtown may withhold Flock camera-location records

Announced scope: Decisions 26-ORD-067 and 26-ORD-068 upheld withholding Flock camera-location records under the law-enforcement exemption in KRS 61.878(1)(h). The office treated ongoing use to detect crime as prospective law-enforcement activity and accepted the agencies' stated risk that disclosed locations could help wanted persons or criminals avoid cameras.

What to watch next: Watch for circuit-court review and distinguish these location-record decisions from rulings about plate images, movement histories or general sharing lists.

Supporting records: Record 1

Checked October 2, 2026

Lexington failed to justify withholding 90 minutes of traffic-camera video

Announced scope: Decision 26-ORD-076 found Lexington improperly denied a request for video from two specified intersections during a 90-minute period. Applying its earlier 26-ORD-051 reasoning, the office said the department had not identified a specific privacy interest sufficient to outweigh disclosure. These were traffic-camera records; the decision should not be mislabeled as another Flock-specific case.

What to watch next: Track any appeal and future applications distinguishing location-and-time-limited footage from comprehensive histories tied to one person's plate.

Checked October 2, 2026

Lexington could not demand additional residency proof before processing a Flock audit request

Announced scope: Decision 26-ORD-110 found Lexington violated the Open Records Act by denying a request for organizational and network Flock audits after the requester supplied the required Kentucky-residency statement. The department could not demand an address or phone number as further proof. The ruling addressed the residency denial, not a blanket entitlement to disclosure of all audit contents.

What to watch next: Watch how Lexington processes the renewed request and distinguishes any record-specific exemptions from the rejected residency requirement.

Checked October 2, 2026

Seventeen attorneys general seek limits on data-broker surveillance and federal AI use

Announced scope: A 17-state coalition urged Congress to restrict federal purchases of sensitive personal and location data, require judicial safeguards for access and AI identification, and strengthen data-broker transparency and consumer controls while preserving stronger state protections. The letter addresses government surveillance through commercial datasets; it is a legislative request, not a new law, court holding or completed enforcement finding.

What to watch next: Track congressional legislation and agency responses without treating the coalition's requested safeguards as current nationwide requirements.

Supporting records: Record 1

Checked October 2, 2026

Wilson calls for misuse penalties as Ohio lawmakers consider ALPR bills

Announced scope: Wilson endorsed police use of plate readers while urging the General Assembly to criminalize misuse, citing OHLEG's fifth-degree felony and badge surrender as a baseline. Related ALPR measures had already been introduced: SB 469 and HB 1009, HB 1010 and HB 1011. SB 469 was referred to a Senate committee September 30. These bills are legislative proposals; this review did not establish that Wilson authored or endorsed their specific text.

What to watch next: Follow bill amendments, hearings and votes, including SB 469's committee action. Keep the Attorney General's statement distinct from pending bill language and enacted law.

Supporting records: Record 1 · Record 2 · Record 3 · Record 4

Checked October 2, 2026

Wilson asks Flock about artificial intelligence, access limits and retention

Announced scope: The Attorney General announced that he sent Flock a letter seeking answers about the company's use of artificial intelligence, restrictions on data access and data-retention policies. The office framed the action as protecting privacy while considering the company's public representations. The announcement does not identify a subpoena, allege a proven violation or announce a completed investigation, enforcement complaint or binding rule.

What to watch next: Track Flock's response, any stated deadline, additional compulsory process, consumer-protection theory, findings, settlement or legislation. Do not infer that the questions establish misconduct.

Supporting records: Record 1

Checked October 6, 2026

Jackley proposes criminal-investigation limits, deletion requirements and misuse safeguards

Announced scope: Jackley's official August 12 announcement proposed limiting LPR collection, access and use to legitimate criminal investigations and deleting data after an unspecified period unless directly relevant to an ongoing investigation. On September 1, his office confirmed work with legislators, police and prosecutors on standards, oversight and consequences for misuse. No filed bill text was located in this review.

What to watch next: Watch for filed text specifying retention periods, access rules, oversight, remedies and penalties. The announcements do not themselves impose binding limits.

Supporting records: Record 1

Checked October 2, 2026

Washington Attorney General publishes ALPR registrations and agency policies

Announced scope: The Attorney General now publishes an ALPR registration form and a list of registered agencies and their policies under RCW 10.130. Agency heads certify compliance, policies and training. The office expressly says it has not independently verified those certifications. Its current guidance says agencies may not operate an unregistered system.

What to watch next: Track registration updates and compliance separately from certification; model policies are due July 1, 2027, agency policy submissions December 1, 2027, and the Attorney General's report December 31, 2027. After December 1, 2026, agency policy changes must be reported within 60 days.

Supporting records: Record 1 · Record 2

Checked October 2, 2026