Grafton's Flock Cameras Track Every Vehicle — Without Warrants
Grafton, Wisconsin operates seven Flock Safety automated license plate readers (ALPRs). They photograph every passing vehicle, store the data for 30 days, and make it searchable by 591 law enforcement agencies across 32+ states. This site documents the facts.
Sources: Village of Grafton records and public records responses (see documents); EFF analysis of California ALPR data (details).
Why This Matters to You
These cameras aren't just watching criminals. They're watching everyone. Every trip you make through Grafton may be photographed, logged, and stored in a database accessible to agencies 1,800 miles away.
Your driving patterns can reveal your place of worship, medical visits, political activity, and personal relationships. While Grafton deletes its data after 30 days, any of the 591 agencies with access can download and permanently store your location history — and Grafton residents have no way to know who accessed their data or why.
This is not just a Grafton issue: Flock operates more than 80,000 cameras in approximately 5,000 communities across 49 states, performing over 20 billion license plate scans nationwide every month.
A Flock Safety automated license plate reader camera. These solar-powered cameras photograph passing vehicles' license plates, with the data stored for 30 days and shared with nearly 600 agencies across the US.
The Scale: Studies show 99.95% of ALPR scans are of innocent people going about their daily lives. This isn't targeted law enforcement. It's mass surveillance.
New Hampshire law requires ALPRs to delete records of vehicles that don't match a "hot list" (stolen vehicles, AMBER Alerts, wanted suspects) within 3 minutes. Grafton keeps records of every vehicle for 30 days.
30 daysHow long Grafton keeps data on innocent drivers
3 minutesHow long New Hampshire keeps data on innocent drivers
Grafton retains innocent drivers' data 14,400 times longer than New Hampshire's flag-and-discard model — which still finds stolen cars and alerts police to wanted suspects.
The map below shows crowdsourced ALPR camera locations from DeFlock, an open-source project mapping surveillance cameras worldwide. Data is community-verified and updated daily via OpenStreetMap.
About the Data: DeFlock is a crowdsourced database of over 16,000 ALPR cameras nationwide, protected by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) after Flock Safety attempted to shut it down with a cease-and-desist. All data comes from community contributions to OpenStreetMap and is regularly verified. Grafton operates 6-7 village-owned cameras, plus private entities (The Commons retail area) own additional cameras that Grafton Police can access.
Communities Are Reversing Course
In 2025, more than 15 U.S. cities — led by both conservatives and progressives — removed, suspended, or rejected Flock cameras after discovering unauthorized federal access, constitutional concerns, and minimal crime-reduction benefits. Evanston removed 19 cameras; Eugene disabled 57; Denver's council unanimously rejected an extension.
Having nothing to hide doesn't mean you have no need for privacy. You probably close the door when using the bathroom, close curtains at night, and password-protect your phone, not because you're doing something wrong, but because privacy is a basic human need.
The Fourth Amendment protects this principle: government shouldn't track your movements without individualized suspicion. It's not about hiding criminal activity. It's about maintaining freedom from constant government surveillance.
"Don't we need these cameras to catch criminals?"
The question isn't whether ALPRs can help investigations. It's whether we need to track EVERYONE to catch the few who commit crimes. New Hampshire's model shows you can have real-time alerts for stolen vehicles and wanted suspects while deleting data on innocent people within 3 minutes.
You can have effective law enforcement AND constitutional protections. Multiple independent studies show ALPRs have minimal impact on crime reduction, while creating massive privacy costs.
"If this violates the Fourth Amendment, wouldn't courts have stopped it?"
Constitutional challenges are expensive and time-consuming. Many ALPR cases are still working through the courts. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States that comprehensive location tracking requires warrants, but lower courts haven't yet definitively applied this to ALPRs.
Just because something is currently legal doesn't mean it's constitutional. Segregation was legal until courts ruled otherwise. No Wisconsin court has addressed this issue.
"The police say they only use it for legitimate investigations. What's the problem?"
Grafton's policy prohibits misuse, but enforcement relies entirely on police self-auditing. There's no independent oversight, no public reporting, and the department doesn't track how external agencies use Grafton's data.
We've seen documented abuses in other communities (officers stalking ex-partners, unauthorized searches) even where policies prohibited such use. Good policies aren't enough without independent oversight and accountability.
"Isn't this just like security cameras in stores?"
Store cameras are:
Limited to private property
Controlled by the business owner
Not networked with 591 other stores
Not searchable by government without a warrant
Not tracking your movements across an entire town for 30 days
ALPR systems create comprehensive, government-controlled surveillance networks that track everyone's movements across public spaces. The scale and scope are fundamentally different.
"What about people who support these cameras? Are they wrong?"
Supporters make valid points about investigative benefits:
ALPRs can help solve property crimes and locate stolen vehicles
They provide objective evidence for investigations
The cost is relatively modest ($2,500/camera/year)
These are legitimate considerations. Our position is that these benefits don't require tracking EVERY person's movements. New Hampshire's flag-and-discard model achieves the same law enforcement goals while better protecting civil liberties. It's not law enforcement vs. privacy. It's finding the right balance.
Ready to Take Action?
Seven practical accountability measures the Village could adopt today, plus how to contact officials and make your voice heard.
