Chief WINK Investigates Reporter Chorus Nylander
•9/14/2026
FORT MYERS, Fla. (WINK) — If you’ve driven anywhere in Southwest Florida over the last few years, chances are an automated camera logged your license plate, your vehicle’s color, and the exact time you passed by.
You didn't commit a crime, but you were tracked anyway.
What started as a quiet law enforcement tool to catch stolen cars and dangerous criminals has rapidly expanded to neighborhood gates, shopping centers, and public roadways—pushing Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology directly into the center of a growing national debate over privacy and mass surveillance.
While commonly called license plate readers, modern ALPR systems—dominated by private vendors like Flock Safety and Motorola—do far more than scan numbers.
Using artificial intelligence, the cameras capture a detailed "fingerprint" of passing vehicles, they do not capture images of the people driving those vehicles according to multiple agencies that use the devices. The technology logs the make, model, color, and distinguishing features such as bumper stickers or unique dents, building a searchable record of everyday drivers.
"Calling it a license plate reader is sort of a misnomer at this point because it collects so much other information," said Lisa Famia, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "These cameras indiscriminately collect location information and other information about every single vehicle that passes by, whether or not there is any reason to suspect that person driving that vehicle of a crime."
Multiple law enforcement agencies, like the Hendry County Sheriff’s Office, have pushed back against the suggestion the devices are used to monitor people’s movements.
HCSO sent WINK Investigates the following “fact sheet” from the Major Sheriff’s of America association.
The data collected isn't restricted to local police stations. ALPR information is frequently fed into massive nationwide networks managed by private corporations, allowing participating law enforcement agencies across the country to retrospectively search 30 days or more of vehicle movements across state lines—often without a warrant or judicial oversight.
After widespread public pushback, Flock’s CEO Garrett Langley announced last month his company would be reducing its standard retention period to 7 days. Although, customers can choose to increase that timeframe and law enforcement that downloaded the data could keep it for much longer.
"A parallel infrastructure is being built that is owned, managed, and operated by these corporate entities," said Cris Van Pelt, an independent cybersecurity researcher who developed HaveIBeenFlocked.com to help citizens track camera networks. "Let’s call it what it is: mass surveillance."
Retired FBI agent Richard Kolko tells WINK Investigates that ALPRs can be a phenomenal tool for law enforcement but he also sees the concerns over privacy.
“It tells everything about a car, not just a license plate, but it can come up with the make, model, color, even dents in the car that can make it very identifiable,” Kolko said.
"We're going to see years of court cases trying to resolve how this information is used,” he added.
The proliferation of ALPR systems has drawn sharp divides among Southwest Floridians. WINK Investigates has spoken with multiple people that feel the cameras are invading their privacy.
Marco Island resident Robert Brenner spent over 40 years working in public safety and said he doesn’t mind giving up some privacy if it means improved safety and catching “bad guys.”
"If you've done nothing wrong, what are you worried about?" questioned Brenner. "If it can help one person be found, identified, or take a bad guy off the streets, so be it. As a grandfather of seven, I have absolutely no problem with it."
Civil liberties advocates counter that the technology fundamentally alters the relationship between the public and the state.
"We're seeing people across the country say, no, it's actually a foundational principle of the United States that if you're doing nothing wrong, the government should leave you alone," Famia said.
While many have argued the devices could be a violation of the Fourth amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, establishing a baseline right to privacy in one's person, home, papers, and effects.
Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, it was designed to prevent police officers and federal agents from conducting arbitrary, blanket inspections without specific justification.
Multiple legal challenges in state courts and federal courts have determined no such violation. There are still active challenges alleging fourth amendment violations.
If you have a story you’d like WINK Investigates to look into email us at winkinvestigates@winknews.com or call our tip line at 239-344-5074.
