A demonstrator waves a red cloth as hundreds gather after ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good through her car window Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026 near Portland Avenue South and East 34th Street in Minneapolis. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

WASHINGTON — The top two Democrats in Congress on Wednesday outlined their proposal for restrictions on immigration enforcement, including body cameras and a ban on masks, though they had no details to share about when actual negotiations would begin.

Lawmakers from both political parties have less than two weeks to find a solution before the stopgap law funding the Department of Homeland Security expires Feb. 13, which could force all of its components, including the Coast Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agency, into a shutdown. However, Immigration and Customs Enforcement still has access to $75 billion in funding included in the massive tax cuts and spending package signed into law last year.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said the offer that he and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., were sending to Republicans was the result of “a very productive discussion.”

“Dramatic changes are necessary at the Department of Homeland Security with respect to its enforcement activities so that ICE and other agencies are conducting themselves like every other law enforcement agency in the country, not in so many instances in a rogue or lawless manner,” Jeffries said. 

Democrats will insist that federal immigration agents: 

• Wear body cameras
• Only wear masks to conceal their identities in “extraordinary and unusual circumstances”
• Do not undertake roving patrols
• Do not detain people in certain locations, like houses of worship, schools, or polling places
• Do not engage in racial profiling
• Do not detain or deport American citizens 

Jeffries said that judicial, as opposed to administrative, warrants should be required “before everyday Americans are ripped out of their homes or snatched out of cars violently.

“The Fourth Amendment is not an inconvenience, it’s a requirement embedded in our Constitution that everyone should follow.”

That amendment states the government shall not violate the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and that warrants can only be issued with probable cause.  

Administrative warrants are not signed by a judge, but approved by ICE officers themselves. Under U.S. immigration law, ICE also has some authority to conduct warrantless arrests if an immigration officer comes across a person suspected to be in the country unlawfully and believes that person will escape before a warrant can be obtained. 

Accountability measures

Democrats will also press Republicans to agree to what Schumer described as “real accountability.”

“There’s got to be outside, independent oversight by state and local governments, by individuals,” Schumer said. “And there’s got to be a right to sue, there’s got to be a right to go to court and stop this.” 

Schumer criticized Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., for saying that immigration agents should be able to wear masks, referring to them as “secret police” who need “to be identified more than any other group.”

“I would bet when Speaker Johnson goes down to Louisiana, the sheriffs and the police deputies are well identified, as they are in almost every city,” he said. 

When pressed about Johnson saying Republicans wouldn’t agree to require judicial warrants, Jeffries said the speaker had “articulated unreasonable positions.”

“He’s actually supporting the notion that masked and lawless ICE agents should be deployed in communities throughout America,” Jeffries said. “Mike Johnson called the Fourth Amendment an inconvenience. It’s not an inconvenience. It’s part of the fabric and DNA of our country, just like the First Amendment, yes even the Second Amendment, the 10th Amendment, the Fourth Amendment.

“We’re standing up for all of these constitutional privileges that have been part of who we are since the very beginning.” 

Negotiation timeline

Schumer said during the press conference that Democrats from the House and Senate were prepared to begin negotiations with Republicans, but would insist on changes “to rein in ICE in very serious ways.”

“If they’re not serious and they don’t put in real reform, they shouldn’t expect our votes, plain and simple,” he said.

Schumer appeared somewhat skeptical that Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt, whom Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., put forward as their top negotiator, was truly empowered to cut a deal on behalf of every GOP senator. 

Britt, chairwoman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, told reporters Wednesday that she expects lawmakers will need to approve another stopgap spending bill for the department, signaling she doesn’t expect a deal within the next two weeks. 

“We need a little more time, so hopefully (Democrats) see the good effort that we’ve made … and we’ll have another CR,” she said, referring to the technical name for a short-term funding bill, a continuing resolution. 

Britt did not say how long that temporary funding measure for the Department of Homeland Security would last.

Any spending bill, whether short or long, will need Democratic support to move through procedural votes in the Senate. 

Congress has approved 11 of the 12 annual funding bills, so DHS would be the only part of the federal government to shut down if lawmakers cannot approve its full-year bill or another stopgap measure before its funding expires.

A border patrol agent stands in front of protestors as people gather near the scene of 26th Street West and Nicollet Avenue, where federal agents shot and killed a 37-year-old man Saturday, Jan. 24, 2026, the third shooting in as many weeks. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

A Border Patrol agent warned Nicole Cleland last month that she’d be arrested if she were again discovered following and observing federal officers. 

Three days later, the 56-year-old Richfield resident received an email saying her expedited airport security screening privileges had been revoked.

Cleland is a frequent traveler and had held Global Entry and TSA PreCheck status without incident since 2014. So the timing of the notice seemed curious, she said in a sworn declaration filed in support of the American Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit challenging federal law enforcement tactics in Minnesota. The Border Patrol and Transportation Security Administration are both subdivisions of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Given that only three days had passed from the time that I was stopped, I am concerned that the revocation was the result of me following and observing the agents. This is intimidation and retaliation,” Cleland said in the declaration.  

A year into the second Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, Cleland is one of countless U.S. residents and visitors touched by the federal government’s rapidly changing data collection and surveillance apparatus. Some, like an AI-powered social media analyzer and an error-prone facial recognition tool, evoke dystopian sci-fi. Others, like automatic license plate readers, have been around for decades. 

Elected officials, privacy advocates, and ordinary community members working as constitutional observers are increasingly alarmed that the Trump administration could use these tools to chill constitutionally protected expression, while at the same time pressuring tech companies — many of which have cozied up to Trump in his second term — to make it harder for Americans to keep tabs on their government. 

Senior administration officials haven’t done much to dispel those concerns. Tom Homan, the “border czar” who’s now the face of Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, said on Jan. 15 that he’s pushing to create a “database” of people who “interfere or impede or assault an ICE officer.” 

Such a database wouldn’t outwardly differ much from the numerous information repositories the federal government already maintains. But its purpose — and, in some cases, the tools used to collect and analyze the data — may prove to be a new frontier in the emerging surveillance state.  

Facial recognition software

The Border Patrol agent who warned Cleland told her his unit had “facial recognition,” according to her deposition.

Reporting by 404 Media and other media outlets indicates that ICE and other federal immigration enforcement agencies use multiple AI-powered facial recognition tools, including Mobile Fortify and Clearview AI. Local law enforcement agencies deputized to work with ICE use a different facial recognition app, Mobile Identify, according to NPR.

DHS has used facial recognition software at airports and land border crossings for years, but its use in the field is a more recent development that civil liberties experts say represents a major expansion of government surveillance. 

Using proprietary algorithms, the tools try to match images captured in the field with data already in DHS databases, including names, birthdates, citizenship status and photos taken at U.S. entry points. DHS says it retains “biographic exit data” on U.S. citizens and permanent residents for 15 years, though it’s unclear whether this applies to images collected in the field as well.

Even before Operation Metro Surge began in earnest, lawmakers sounded alarms about the implications.

“This type of on-demand surveillance is harrowing and it should put all of us on guard,” U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, told NPR in November.

Human analytics apps

ICE also uses AI-powered apps to analyze social media activity and other digital data points to create “life profiles” for people of interest.

The agency has spent at least $5 million on Tangles, a sophisticated tool developed by a company with ties to Israel’s cyber-intelligence community, Forbes reported in September. Tangles mines social media posts, event sign-ups, mobile contacts, location data and more to create nuanced individual portraits and tease out patterns of activity — including organizing and protest — in specific places.

“Our powerful web intelligence solution monitors online activity, collecting and analyzing data of endless digital channels – from the open, deep and dark web, to mobile and social,” Tangles’ Microsoft Marketplace listing says.

The Verge reported in October that ICE has spent a similar amount on another digital monitoring tool called Zignal Labs, which uses AI text and video analysis to process billions of social media posts daily into what it calls “curated detection feeds.” The product includes near real-time alerts. “Sample workflows” featured in a Zignal Labs marketing pamphlet shared with The Lever include “an ongoing operation in Gaza” and a 2023 social media post purporting to show U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at the Mall of America.

Cellular snooping

Since September 2024, ICE has paid more than $1.6 million to a Maryland company that integrates a type of cell-site simulator popularly known as a “stingray” into government vehicles. 

TechCrunch first reported the purchases, which are a matter of public record. It’s unclear how often ICE uses vehicles equipped with stingrays in its operations, but a Utah judge reportedly authorized the agency to use one to track down a specific individual last summer. 

Stingrays trick nearby cell phones into connecting with them instead of legitimate transmitters, collecting reams of random users’ data in the process. That, plus past instances of warrantless snooping, makes them controversial even among law enforcement agencies. Ars Technica reported in 2015 that the FBI required local law enforcement agencies to drop cases rather than reveal evidence in court that “would potentially or actually compromise the equipment/technology.”

ICE is also interested in using — and may already be using — another cell-snooping tool that requires no external hardware. 

Last summer, the independent national security journalist Jack Poulson reported that the agency had reactivated a $2 million contract with the Israeli spyware developer Paragon Solutions. Once delivered via text message — no link required — Paragon’s spyware gains broad access to a phone’s contents, including encrypted messages.

“It’s an extremely dangerous surveillance tech that really goes against our Fourth Amendment protections,” Jeramie Scott, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told NPR in November.

President Donald Trump signs a government funding bill in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 3, 2026. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The partial government shutdown that began this weekend ended Tuesday when President Donald Trump signed the funding package that both chambers of Congress approved within the last week. 

“We’ve succeeded in passing a fiscally reasonable package that actually cuts wasteful federal spending while supporting critical programs for the safety, security and prosperity for the American people,” Trump said in the Oval Office.

The House voted 217-214 earlier in the day to clear the package for Trump following a tumultuous couple of weeks on Capitol Hill after it had stalled in the Senate. Democrats demanded additional restraints on immigration enforcement in reaction to the shooting death of a second U.S. citizen in Minneapolis. 

Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., reached agreement last week to pull the full-year appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security and replace it with a two-week stopgap measure.

That is supposed to give leaders in Congress and the administration a bit of time to find consensus on changes to how immigration officers operate.

Trump did not say if he agreed with any of the proposed changes to immigration enforcement floated by Democrats. 

“I haven’t even thought about it,” Trump said. 

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a morning press conference he wants negotiations to address local and state governments that don’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement activities, often called sanctuary cities. 

“What must be a part of that discussion is the participation of blue cities in federal immigration enforcement,” he said. “You can’t go to a sanctuary city and pretend like the law doesn’t apply there. It does and so we are going to be working through all that.” 

Administrative warrants debate

Johnson said GOP lawmakers would not agree to require federal immigration agents to secure judicial warrants in order to detain people, one of several proposals Democrats have put forward.

“We are never going to go along with adding an entirely new layer of judicial warrants because it is unimplementable,” he said. “It cannot be done and it should not be done and it’s not necessary.” 

Johnson, a constitutional lawyer, said those administrative warrants are “sufficient legal authority to go and apprehend someone.”

When pressed if that type of warrant is enough to enter someone’s home without violating the Fourth Amendment, Johnson said that a “controversy has erupted” over what immigration agents should do when someone they’re trying to detain enters a private residence. 

“What is Immigration and Customs Enforcement supposed to do at that point? ‘Oh gee whiz, they locked the door. I guess we’ll just go on.’ So there is some logic and reason that is to be applied here,” Johnson said. “Some have complained that the force has been excessive or what have you. I don’t know. We’re going to figure that out. It’s part of the discussion over the next couple weeks.”

Johnson said GOP negotiators will also make sure Congress maintains “important parameters” on immigration law and enforcement.  

“We can’t go down the road of amnesty, you can’t in any way lighten the enforcement requirement of federal immigration law,” he said. “That’s what the American people demand and deserve.”

Senators ‘ready to work’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said during an afternoon press conference that Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, chairwoman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, would lead negotiations for Republicans in that chamber. 

“Katie Britt will lead that on our side, but ultimately, that’s going to be a conversation between the President of the United States and (Senate) Democrats,” Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said. 

During an afternoon press conference, Schumer said that “Thune has to be a part of these negotiations.” 

Schumer said that Democrats are going to detail their proposals to Republicans in the House, Senate and White House.

“If Leader Thune negotiates in good faith, we can get it done,” Schumer said of the Homeland Security funding bill. 

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who serves as ranking member on the Senate Committee on Appropriations, said Senate Democrats are “ready to work.”

“We have a proposal ready. We’re going to start moving no matter who they (pick) at the end of the day, and the White House needs to be involved,” Murray said.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said there are “a whole bunch” of proposals.

“The House had to do what they had to do … which is great. And what we now have to do is figure out what’s this universe of reforms that we can come to consensus on,” said Murkowski, who issued a statement last week declaring her support for “meaningful reforms” for ICE.

‘Most basic duty’ of Congress

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said during floor debate on the government spending package that clearing the legislation was the best way to move into negotiations about immigration enforcement.

“We will be in the strongest possible position to fight for and win the drastic changes we all know are needed to protect our communities — judicial warrant requirements, no more detentions or deportations of United States citizens, an enforceable code of conduct, taking off the masks, putting the badges on, requiring the body cameras, real accountability for the egregious abuses we have seen,” she said.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said funding the government “is not an optional exercise, it’s the most basic duty we have in Congress.”

“Shutdowns are never the answer, they don’t work,” he said. “They only hurt the American people. So today lawmakers in this chamber have an opportunity to avoid repeating past mistakes.”

In addition to providing two more weeks of funding for the Department of Homeland Security, the $1.2 trillion spending package holds full-year appropriations bills for the departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, State, Transportation and Treasury. The Senate voted 71-29 on Friday evening to send the package to the House.

Congress had already approved half of the dozen annual appropriations bills for the fiscal year that began back on Oct. 1. 

People whistle and film as federal agents block an alley near 35th Street and Chicago Avenue while they break a car window to detain a man and his young daughter Thursday, Jan. 22, 2026. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Less than an hour after the Saturday morning killing of Alex Pretti by federal agents in south Minneapolis, conservative influencer Cam Higby took to social media with a sensational claim: Higby had “infiltrated” the group chats fueling local resistance to Operation Metro Surge.

On Monday, FBI director Kash Patel said he had “opened an investigation” into the chats. Many are said to be hosted on Signal, the encrypted messaging app.

“You cannot create a scenario that illegally entraps and puts law enforcement in harm’s way,” Patel said in a podcast interview with Benny Johnson, another conservative influencer. Johnson’s title for the episode’s YouTube stream, “Kash Patel Announces FBI Crack-Down of Left-Wing Minnesota Terrorist Network LIVE: ‘Tim Walz Next…’,” left little to the imagination.

In response to emailed questions about the nature of its investigation, the FBI declined to comment. 

First Amendment lawyers and national security experts expressed deep skepticism that any charges stemming from it will stick, however. 

“As a general proposition, reporting on things you are observing and sharing those observations is absolutely legal,” Jane Kirtley, professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota Law School, said in an interview.

A guide that Higby described as “the watered down opsec version” of a “TRAINING MANUAL for domestic terrorist patrols chasing ICE agents in Minneapolis” instructs observers to draw attention to suspected ICE activity using whistles and car horns — but specifically warns against impeding officers.

Kirtley said Patel’s statements to date have been too vague to support firm conclusions about what the FBI will actually investigate or what charges, if any, the United States Department of Justice would bring as a result. The sorts of loaded terms that influencers like Higby and President Trump himself have used to describe organizers’ activities — such as “conspiracy” or “insurrection” — are formal legal concepts that require certain standards to be met, she added.

Jason Marisam, a constitutional law professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, said any prosecution would likely need to pass a two-part test established in a nearly 60-year-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Brandenburg prohibits speech only if it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” such as violence against law enforcement officers, and “is likely to incite or produce such action,” according to a summary by Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. 

Brandenburg is “a very high bar,” Marisam said. Speech that only indirectly led to “lawless action,” such as coordinating a protest that later turned violent, would likely not meet it, he added.

Marisam said Brandenburg, incidentally, is the same standard that former special counsel Jack Smith would have needed to meet had his January 6th prosecution against President Trump gone to trial, Marisam added. That case was mooted after Trump won a second term and subsequently oversaw a campaign of professional retribution against the career prosecutors on Smith’s team. 

Marisam said narrowing or overturning Brandenburg has not yet been a priority for conservatives in the judiciary, despite self-evident benefits for Trump’s efforts to quell dissent and consolidate power. But he acknowledged that the “politics of free speech” can change depending on who’s in charge in Washington.

For instance, Trump supporters castigated what they perceived to be limits on free speech during the Biden years, but have remained silent in the face of a student’s deportation for writing an op-ed. 

Still, Patel’s apparent interest in Twin Cities observers’ encrypted chats is likely less the opening move of a well-thought-out legal strategy than an effort to discourage legally permissible activity, Marisam said.

“It seems to me that (Patel’s) announcement is meant to chill speech ahead of time,” he said.

In a blog post published Tuesday, Patrick Eddington, a senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute, said federal prosecutors would likewise struggle to make hay out of Twin Cities observers’ use of the encrypted messaging apps themselves. 

Trump officials and right-wing pundits have pointed to Signal’s popularity within the observer networks as evidence that participants want to evade legal accountability for their actions. Signal uses end-to-end encryption, meaning messages sent on properly secured devices kept in their owners’ possession are effectively impossible for third parties to see. Signal itself can’t access messages or calls sent over the app, the company says, though messages on a user’s device can be read if it is hacked or stolen. (Or, if the wrong person is added to a Signal chat, as when senior national security figures in the Trump administration — including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth — sent information about military operations to the editor of The Atlantic magazine after he’d been accidentally included.) 

Eddington, who works on homeland security and civil liberties issues for Cato, said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 1999 ruling in Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice established ordinary citizens’ rights to use encrypted channels for communication they wish to keep private. Government efforts to curtail encryption could impede individuals’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “unreasonable search and seizure.”

Eddington cited a much earlier precedent that may well have informed the Constitution’s privacy protections, though its contemporary legal relevance is unclear. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other members of America’s founding generation used “codes and ciphers” to communicate before, during and after the Revolutionary War, Eddington wrote. 

“The use of encryption to keep government authorities from getting access to our private communications is literally as American as apple pie,” he wrote.

A police officer uses the Flock Safety license plate reader system. Many left-leaning states and cities are trying to protect their residents’ personal information amid the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, but a growing number of conservative lawmakers also want to curb the use of surveillance technologies. (Photo courtesy of Flock Safety)

As part of its deportation efforts, the Trump administration has ordered states to hand over personal data from voter rolls, driver’s license records and programs such as Medicaid and food stamps.

At the same time, the administration is trying to consolidate the bits of personal data held across federal agencies, creating a single trove of information on people who live in the United States.

Many left-leaning states and cities are trying to protect their residents’ personal information amid the immigration crackdown. But a growing number of conservative lawmakers also want to curb the use of surveillance technologies, such as automated license plate readers, that can be used to identify and track people.

Conservative-led states such as Arkansas, Idaho and Montana enacted laws last year designed to protect the personal data collected through license plate readers and other means. They joined at least five left-leaning states — Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Washington — that specifically blocked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from accessing their driver’s license records.

In addition, Democratic-led cities in Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Washington last year terminated their contracts with Flock Safety, the largest provider of license plate readers in the U.S.

The Trump administration’s goal is to create a “surveillance dragnet across the country,” said William Owen, communications director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a nonprofit that advocates for stronger privacy laws.

“We’re entering an increasingly dystopian era of high-tech surveillance,” Owen said. Intelligence sharing between various levels of government, he said, has “allowed ICE to sidestep sanctuary laws and co-opt local police databases and surveillance tools, including license plate readers, facial recognition and other technologies.”

A new Montana law bars government entities from accessing electronic communications and related material without a warrant. Republican state Sen. Daniel Emrich, the law’s author, said “the most important thing that our entire justice system is based on is the principle against unlawful search and seizure” — the right enshrined in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“It’s tough to find individuals who are constitutionally grounded and understand the necessity of keeping the Fourth Amendment rights intact at all times for all reasons — with minimal or zero exceptions,” Emrich said in an interview.

ICE did not respond to Stateline’s requests for comment.

Automated license plate readers

Recently, cities and states have grown particularly concerned over the use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs), which are high-speed camera and computer systems that capture license plate information on vehicles that drive by. These readers sit on top of police cars and streetlights or can be hidden within construction barrels and utility poles.

Some cameras collect data that gets stored in databases for years, raising concerns among privacy advocates. One report from the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive think tank at New York University, found the data can be susceptible to hacking. Different agencies have varying policies on how long they keep the data, according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, a law enforcement advocacy group.

Supporters of the technology, including many in law enforcement, say the technology is a powerful tool for tracking down criminal suspects.

Flock Safety says it has cameras in more than 5,000 communities and is connected to more than 4,800 law enforcement agencies across 49 states. The company claims its cameras conduct more than 20 billion license plate reads a month. It collects the data and gives it to police departments, which use the information to locate people.

Holly Beilin, a spokesperson for Flock Safety, told Stateline that while there are local police agencies that may be working with ICE, the company does not have a contractual relationship with the agency. Beilin also said that many liberal and even sanctuary cities continue to sign contracts with Flock Safety. She noted that the cameras have been used to solve some high-profile crimes, including identifying and leading police to the man who committed the Brown University shooting and killed an MIT professor at the end of last year.

“Agencies and cities are very much able to use this technology in a way that complies with their values. So they do not have to share data out of state,” Beilin said.

Pushback over data’s use

But critics, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, say that Flock Safety’s cameras are not only “giving even the smallest-town police chief access to an enormously powerful driver-surveillance tool,” but also that the data is being used by ICE. One news outlet, 404 Media, obtained records of these searches and found many were being carried out by local officers on behalf of ICE.

Last spring, the Denver City Council unanimously voted to terminate its contract with Flock Safety, but Democratic Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally extended the contract in October, arguing that the technology was a useful crime-fighting tool.

The ACLU of Colorado has vehemently opposed the cameras, saying last August that audit logs from the Denver Police Department show more than 1,400 searches had been conducted for ICE since June 2024.

“The conversation has really gotten bigger because of the federal landscape and the focus, not only on immigrants and the functionality of ICE right now, but also on the side of really trying to reduce and or eliminate protections in regards to access to reproductive care and gender affirming care,” Anaya Robinson, public policy director at the ACLU of Colorado.

“When we erode rights and access for a particular community, it’s just a matter of time before that erosion starts to touch other communities.”

Jimmy Monto, a Democratic city councilor in Syracuse, New York, led the charge to eliminate Flock Safety’s contract in his city.

“Syracuse has a very large immigrant population, a very large new American population, refugees that have resettled and been resettled here. So it’s a very sensitive issue,” Monto said, adding that license plate readers allow anyone reviewing the data to determine someone’s immigration status without a warrant.

“When we sign a contract with someone who is collecting data on the citizens who live in a city, we have to be hyper-focused on exactly what they are doing while we’re also giving police departments the tools that they need to also solve homicides, right?” Monto said.

“Certainly, if license plate readers are helpful in that way, I think the scope is right. But we have to make sure that that’s what we’re using it for, and that the companies that we are contracting with are acting in good faith.”

Emrich, the Montana lawmaker, said everyone should be concerned about protecting constitutional privacy rights, regardless of their political views.

“If the government is obtaining data in violation of constitutional rights, they could be violating a whole slew of individuals’ constitutional rights in pursuit of the individuals who may or may not be protected under those same constitutional rights,” he said.

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.