Police utilizing Flock Safety’s AI tools can now monitor vehicles by analyzing their locations and movements.
Flock’s OS Investigate, which was previously called Nightshift, is an AI system that recognizes vehicles and categorizes drivers’ “associates” based on how often they appear at the same Flock camera, according to a report from WIRED. Flock’s website code, as examined by WIRED, lists 45 functionalities included in OS Investigate, such as license plate scans, archive data from cameras, arrest records, case files, and 911 dispatch logs for identifying potential suspects.
“This tool transforms from merely examining suspicious individuals to determining who is regarded as suspicious,” noted Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst from the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, in comments to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “[It] raises the risk that you’ll come under scrutiny from law enforcement simply because an algorithm perceives your driving behavior as ‘suspicious.’”
Stanley thinks the AI sector will likely adapt towards developing in-house models to alleviate privacy issues. He mentioned, “[A] lot of AI applications will need to be local models,” and suggested that homes and local organizations like hospitals and police could soon have tailored AI systems for lighter tasks as technology progresses.
“I believe many organizations will head in that direction… I have spoken with law enforcement officers who’ve indicated, ‘yeah, I want to use AI, but implementing it internally is a concern. We can’t let that data leave our premises,’” Stanley expressed to the DCNF.
Responses from Flock Safety, the Texas Municipal Police Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Code Four Labs, Tyler Technologies, and 3SI Security Systems were not immediately available.
For several critics, the main issue lies in how easily police might act on the information provided by this AI tool.
Flock CEO @glangley wants you to “compromise” away your 4th Amendment rights.
Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at this suggestion.
pic.twitter.com/NMCSLktcBn— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) August 25, 2026
“Currently, law enforcement isn’t receiving comprehensive training on how to scrutinize the findings of an AI model regarding who the top 10 suspected criminals are in their areas, and they likely won’t take the time to examine it thoroughly,” explained Alex Marthews, national chair of Restore The Fourth, to the DCNF. He pointed out that this technology gives law enforcement the power to delegate their decision-making.
If police have the capability to ask “okay ChatGPT, show me the top 10 major issues in my area,” and if the AI makes incorrect claims, it could lead to the arrest of innocent individuals without due process, he cautioned.
He referenced the Calvary Chapel San Jose that continued indoor services despite COVID restrictions, and how the government subsequently used mobile location data to track attendees. Marthews contended that just as those worshippers were caught off guard by technology being used against them, so could these AI tools serve similar purposes.
This Flock system “has the potential to target anyone. Governments shift, ideologies change, adversaries evolve, and we cannot be certain that in a decade, we wouldn’t be the targets ourselves,” he explained.
Flock CEO Garrett Langley maintains that a balance must be struck between safety and privacy for Americans.
“When conversations arise around either privacy or safety, the focus is misplaced. As a nation, our priority should be on ‘compromise,’” asserted Flock CEO Garrett Langley in a Saturday interview shared by Sen. Rand Paul on X. “How do we ensure safety while balancing privacy?”
“That comment does not represent my views. At Flock, we uphold the Constitution,” Langley stated in response to the senator’s critique. “I hope you concur that Americans deserve to feel secure.”
Senator – that was not my comment. We believe in the constitution at Flock.
I hope you can agree that Americans deserve to be safe.
— Garrett Langley (@glangley) August 25, 2026
Flock describes its FlockOS platform that supports OS Investigate as a command center capable of functioning from anywhere, according to the company’s information.
“We tracked vehicles entering through license plate recognition, monitored them throughout the city, and our units were ready before the suspects had even exited their cars,” Major Patrick Krieg of the Dunwoody, Georgia, Police Department stated on Flock’s website. “It was the first time we realized: this platform is incredibly effective.”
The genuine advantage of AI in investigations lies in managing the extensive amount of information a single case can generate, George Cheng, CEO and co-founder of Code Four noted to the DCNF. Body camera footage, jail calls, digital phone extractions, and call records can easily overwhelm a detective, with cases going cold due to time constraints. Code Four’s INSIGHTS product consolidates records from an active case into a single location, allowing detectives to inquire about everything in plain language, with answers tracing back to their original sources.
Cheng made a clear distinction between investigating existing evidence and conducting public searches to unearth suspects, insisting that searches should initiate from the former. Additionally, he emphasized the importance of citing sources in outputs, ensuring that officers take responsibility for what the software produces, maintaining an audit trail for machine versus human contributions, and preventing agency data from training external AI models or being sold.
A policy analyst pointed out that the real issue with Flock’s tracking tools lies in how the government employs this technology.
“AI is merely a tool. It can be utilized in beneficial ways, but also in detrimental ways,” said James Czerniawski, head of emerging technology policy at Consumer Choice Center, speaking to the DCNF. “[B]ut rather than regulating the tool itself, we should regulate based on the results. In this scenario, the outcome involves the infringement of people’s Fourth Amendment rights by the government, and there isn’t a good way to address that right now.”
Czerniawski suggested that one crucial safeguard would be requiring warrants.
“‘Warrants’ are essential for both law enforcement and the due process of individuals,” Czerniawski said, arguing that a warrant compels officers to justify AI-assisted searches.
“I believe we need legislation at both the federal and state levels,” Knox County, Tennessee Mayor Glenn Jacobs mentioned in an August interview with the DCNF. “As this issue gains prominence nationwide, I anticipate Congress will take it on.”
WATCH:
One member of Congress is attempting to incorporate a warrant requirement into federal law.
Rep. Keith Self stated, “The PRIVACY Act forbids federal agencies from using outputs from applications like Flock Safety’s OS Investigate without securing a warrant first,” Republican Texas Rep. Keith Self told the DCNF. “Flock Safety’s camera network stands among several emerging technologies that surveil ordinary Americans, necessitating Congress to establish processes to handle new technologies that should require warrants.”
Self’s proposed legislation aims to limit data retention from these cameras to 30 days with a warrant, unless the data is deemed evidence for prosecution or if a court grants an extension.
“AI has significantly enhanced the surveillance state, infringing upon our inherent right to security in our personal belongings,” Self noted to the DCNF. “These cameras are evolving beyond just license plate readers searching for vehicles of interest. OS Investigate illustrates their role in compiling a growing amount of personal data, provoking constitutional concerns and jeopardizing individual privacy.”
He urged Congress to act on this issue and impose limitations on devices that surveil the public and violate Fourth Amendment rights.
Republican Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri initiated a Senate subcommittee investigation into Flock cameras on Wednesday, as stated in Hawley’s letter to Langley.
The Institute for Justice reported over 100 instances of ALPR misuse, based on a database published by the group on August 12. Among these instances was a police chief in Georgia who conducted 600 searches to locate his ex-girlfriend and her daughter, as reported by the Washington Post.
