Sometimes, it feels hard to escape technology these days. That may feel particularly relevant to those concerned about cameras set up on the side of the road in different Hampshire County communities, constantly capturing drivers’ locations, license plates and vehicle details.
The AI-powered cameras known as automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), often operated by police as an investigative tool, have met a wave of backlash across the country. Scrutiny against the cameras has prompted 25 Massachusetts municipalities to cancel their contracts with Flock Safety, the ALPR manufacturer most notorious to critics, just in the past 18 months.
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts is pursuing legal challenges and state lawmakers are weighing new privacy legislation.
Critics have made it clear they don’t feel the constant surveillance is worth the benefits. Supporters of the technology, mainly law enforcement, say it has helped solve countless crimes in their communities and the region.
In this region, there is one camera each in Hadley and South Hadley — which plans to install another — multiple cameras in Holyoke and there used to be one in Easthampton. The cameras in Holyoke and the one that used to be in Easthampton stored information in a national database viewable by law enforcement across the country, while those in Hadley and South Hadley are restricted to Massachusetts and New England, respectively.
“These surveillance cameras are an unconsented-to, warrantless, dragnet search,” said Bill Newman, director of the Western legal office of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “These cameras record and save data on every car that passes, regardless if anyone in the car is suspected of doing anything wrong.”
While Flock is the main target, ALPRs are also manufactured by many companies like Motorola Solutions, Axon and Genetec. Anyone can contract with Flock, including universities, businesses and people, giving them the option to share their data with who they want, including law enforcement across the country. Flock emphasizes that it does not sell data gathered to any third party.
While the cameras gather general information like vehicle plate numbers, makes and models, other details are captured, such as bumper stickers, roof racks and more. Flock contract costs vary based on the number of cameras, but can be as little as a few thousand dollars annually for single cameras.
Each Flock ALPR stores an audit log detailing when a search is made, by whom, how many ALPRs were searched, and for what reason. The ACLU, which has spearheaded efforts to get Flock removed, said the company is “quietly trying to build a nationwide mass surveillance system,” with more than 120,000 ALPRs installed to date.
Flock did not respond to a media request form on its website for comment for this story.
While constant surveillance is one thing, the cameras also have become notorious to critics due to multiple recent reports of police officer misuse, including officers stalking people for personal reasons. The Washington Post reported there have been at least 50 law enforcement officers who have been charged or accused of using the technology for unauthorized purposes, however, there have been no such reports locally.
“Flock is different from some of the other ALPR companies because it has this searchable, real-time, nationwide database,” Newman said. “Will it be helpful to some law enforcement, sometimes in some way? They make the claim. But look at the way in which this technology is being routinely abused to stalk people.”
Hampshire, Franklin and Berkshire counties are less of a Flock hot spot compared to Hampden County, which has more populated communities such as Holyoke, Agawam and Springfield.
Newman said some lawsuits have been filed against Flock, but he has not heard of any in the area. As pushback continues, Newman said he is happy to see citizens, including those in the Pioneer Valley, take the fight to Flock.
The Gazette contacted the police chief of each community in this area that currently has or used to have a Flock ALPR. Chiefs from Hadley, South Hadley, Holyoke and Easthampton either did not respond to or declined an interview on the phone, sending written statements instead.
Mark Williams, president of the Western Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, who heads East Longmeadow’s force, referred the Gazette to a statement from the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association.
“Automated License Plate Reader technology remains an important and effective public safety tool for law enforcement agencies across Massachusetts,” the statement said. “When used appropriately, ALPR systems can help officers locate missing or endangered individuals, recover stolen vehicles, identify suspects and develop critical leads in serious criminal investigations.”
The statement includes multiple safeguards departments should follow and states any misuse by law enforcement should be taken seriously and addressed through an investigation.
“Public confidence depends on both operational effectiveness and responsible governance. Law enforcement agencies must be prepared to explain how this technology is used, what safeguards are in place, how long data is retained and how compliance is monitored and audited,” it states.
Massachusetts State Police operates approximately 80 to 100 ALPRs throughout the commonwealth, though none of them are issued by Flock, according to information gathered from a public records request. The response to the request did not disclose where these cameras are located or what outside agencies have access to their data, arguing that information is exempt, State Police said.
However, in a court ruling last week, a Suffolk Superior Court judge ruled that the State Police must disclose records related to its use of ALPRs, including camera locations and audit records. The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU of Massachusetts.
Easthampton and Holyoke
Easthampton Police previously operated its Flock ALPR until the City Council cut funding for it earlier this summer during a tight budget season. The city’s Flock was previously located at the base of Mount Tom on Holyoke Street, according to resident Michael Lynch, who conducted his own investigation into Easthampton’s ALPR use earlier this summer.
The camera shared its information nationally until last year, when it was limited to only in-state sharing before the camera was eventually removed entirely. Police Chief Chad Alexander said he turned off national sharing after meeting with city councilors who voiced the concerns of multiple residents.
Out-of-state law enforcement still accessed Easthampton’s ALPR data until December 2025, when the camera’s audit logs obtained by the Gazette show mainly Massachusetts and Connecticut law enforcement access, reducing further to only in-state use in January this year.
Alexander said the camera helped solve multiple cases, including breaking and entering, hit-and-runs and stolen vehicles. It also helped police fulfill arrest warrants, find missing persons and in one case prevent a suicide.
Easthampton’s national sharing gave access to thousands of law enforcement agencies as far as Texas, Florida and California. The camera’s audit logs show that as many as hundreds of thousands of searches from out-of-state entities were made in single months. Easthampton’s ALPR was on multiple occasions one of hundreds searched.
With surges in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during President Donald Trump’s second term, critics have become concerned with how Flock has been used for immigration enforcement. The Associated Press reported that Border Patrol had access to at least 1,600 license plate readers across 22 states at one time, including Flock, often using the technology to organize enforcement.
“Using this system to try and take people who are contributing members of their communities to throw them into warehouses — detention centers — is appalling,” Newman said.
In April 2025, there were more than 300 searches from outside law enforcement with the reasoning listed as “ICE” or “immigration.” Also during that month, Texas authorities used the system to track a woman suspected of having an abortion. That search made headlines last year.
While those were searches from outside entities, common searches from Easthampton Police include “invest,” short for investigation, “bolo,” or be on the lookout, stolen vehicles, narcotics investigations, and more. In some cases, searches were made to help neighboring police, such as Northampton.
Alexander addressed the topic of Flock during a City Council Public Safety subcommittee meeting on Aug. 11, saying that now that the ALPR has been removed, it is unclear what happens to its audit logs. Councilors asked if that data can be removed, and Alexander said he would check.
In Holyoke, July audit logs for its ALPR, obtained by the Gazette, show that national sharing was turned on giving law enforcement from around the country access to its ALPR network. Holyoke’s ALPR was searched multiple times with the reason listed as “I.C.E” and “ICE request,” and dozens listed as “immigration,” from outside law enforcement.
However, Police Chief Brian Keenan said in a statement to the Gazette this week that national sharing has since been turned off after hearing concerns from the community, and Holyoke’s Flock ALPRs were installed by a prior administration.
Keenan said his department uses the technology as an investigative tool that has helped solve a number of crimes, including homicides, felony assaults, car thefts and more.
“We are also cognizant of regional and national stories where officers abuse this technology. We have checks and balances in place to deter that activity, but if anyone does violate our policies, it can lead to termination and/or criminal charges,” Keenan wrote.
According to the organization DeFlock, a grassroots group attempting to map where every ALPR is in the country, Holyoke’s ALPRs are located around the Holyoke Mall.
South Hadley
South Hadley Police Chief Jennifer Gundersen wrote in an email that the department has operated one Flock ALPR since March 2024 and plans to install another soon.
The Gazette did not obtain records from South Hadley, but Gundersen said the department shares and can access data from other Flock ALPRs in New England and New York, but not nationally.
“The technology has proven to be a valuable investigative tool for the South Hadley Police Department,” Gundersen wrote. “It has assisted officers in investigations involving larcenies, missing or endangered persons, stolen motor vehicles, stolen license plates and hit-and-run crashes.”
Gundersen said the department maintains strict control over the system and access is limited to supervisors and investigators, and every search must be conducted for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
The chief would not disclose the location of South Hadley’s current and future ALPR for “operational and public safety reasons.” There have been multiple recent reports nationally of people destroying and tearing down ALPRs.
According to DeFlock, South Hadley’s current ALPR is located on Lamb Street, just before the Route 202 on-ramp.
UMass
DeFlock isn’t foolproof, however, and has made errors. The site previously showed an ALPR in North Amherst that it identified as being operated by Amherst police on Route 116, but Police Chief Gabriel Ting said the department doesn’t operate any ALPRs. He said the device on Route 116 belongs to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, which uses it to gather traffic data, and that Amherst police have no affiliation with it.
He also said that Amherst’s Surveillance Technology Bylaw prohibits the use of any ALPRs without approval from Town Council.
Meanwhile, the University of Massachusetts Amherst Parking Services operates three ALPRs, split between the parking garage and enforcement vehicles, though they are issued by ComSonics, not Flock.
Manager of Parking Operations Gregory Wheeler said that Parking Services collaborates with law enforcement when it comes to the ALPR information, but did not answer if law enforcement has access to the cameras.
Wheeler said the technology is “a step to modernize the campus parking standard and improve the customer experience,” noting it uses license plate numbers as parking credential scanners.
Hadley
Hadley Police Chief Michael Mason said the department only shares its Flock information with agencies in Massachusetts, which records confirm. They show that more than 20,000 searches were made by in-state departments in June of this year for its camera, which is located near the Hadley Village Barn Shops property just east of the Coolidge Bridge at 41 Russell St., according to Deflock.
“After a young boy was struck by a vehicle in a hit-and-run a few years ago, we decided to try a Flock camera,” Mason said in a statement. “Since then, we have found it invaluable to criminal investigations, missing persons’ reports and the like.”
According to DeFlock, there is also a Flock ALPR operated by Lowe’s in Hadley. It also shows the Lowe’s in Ware operates one, though Lowe’s did not respond to a request for comment.
Ware Police Chief Shawn Crevier said in a phone interview with the Gazette that there is a Flock ALPR owned by a private entity in that town, but declined to say who owns it. He said Ware Police does not operate any ALPRs itself, but would be open to owning one.
“I just think it’s a valuable tool that law enforcement has access to and has assisted us in solving crimes,” Crevier said.
Changes to Flock
Flock has made several changes to its ALPR system regulations in response to national criticism, including reducing how long data is stored from one month to seven days, allowing local law enforcement to restrict the reasons their ALPR can be searched, and implementing a detection system to spot misuse.
The ACLU is skeptical that the updates will make a change, outlining its concerns in a recent report. As for control from Beacon Hill, state Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, D-Northampton, said Massachusetts is behind on establishing ALPR legislation, as none currently exists.
“It’s something that I’ve heard a great deal about from constituents a number of times over the past two years at the very least,” Sabadosa said.
Sabadosa filed a bill with Rep. Steven Owens, D-Watertown, to establish driver privacy protections and increase protections on ALPRs, though it ultimately stalled in committee. She said they will look to refile the bill during the next legislative session, adding that more legislation tackling ALPRs is likely given recent public reaction.
“We’re behind the 8-ball on this,” Sabadosa said. “I think that we should make sure we put some protections in place and I think that it would be helpful to know what sort of data they are collecting and for how long.”
