{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-questions-witnesses-in-senate-judiciary-subcommittee-hearing-on-flock-cameras-and-protecting-americans-right-to-privacy", "Durbin Questions Witnesses In Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing On Flock Cameras & Protecting Americans\u2019 Right To Privacy", "2026-09-23", "2026", "2026-09", "Democrat", "Senate", "IL", "Richard J. Durbin", "D000563", "www.durbin.senate.gov", "durbin", "https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases", "scraper", "WASHINGTON \u2013 U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today questioned witnesses during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism hearing entitled \u201cAlways Watching: Flock\u2019s Nationwide AI Surveillance Network.\u201d Today\u2019s hearing examined the importance of protecting Americans\u2019 right to privacy and underscored the need for meaningful oversight and accountability measures over Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), including Flock cameras, that have been unjustly used for federal immigration enforcement, to share information across state lines, or to stalk Americans.\n\nDurbin began his questioning by asking Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel for ACLU, about how data collected by Flock cameras could be used during the Trump Administration\u2019s cruel mass deportation campaign.\n\n\u201cWe are concerned in Illinois with Operation Midway Blitz, where ICE and the Department of Homeland Security came into our state and started looking for people to deport\u2026 It turned out that the majority of people they were deporting were not committing any crimes. Our state passed a law which limits law enforcement from using Flock data for immigration purposes. Have you heard of such laws in other states?\u201d Durbin asked Mr. Marlow.\n\nMr. Marlow explained that while some states have laws limiting the use of Flock data for immigration purposes, federal law supersedes those laws. As a result, if a federal agency were to present a judicial warrant or administrative subpoena, any state would be required to comply. Further, one actor within a state government who has access to a data-sharing database could easily search and release information on someone else\u2019s behalf.\n\nDurbin then asked Alasdair Whitney, legislative counsel for the Institute for Justice, about how warrants could prevent federal agencies from unconstitutionally obtaining information through the use of Flock cameras.\n\n\u201cMr. Whitney, I heard your testimony, saying the answer is a warrant. A warrant is certainly recognized under our Constitution as a valid use of government power and authority if used properly. Is that the problem here, that they collect the information before there is any specific allegation that wrongdoing has taken place?\u201d Durbin asked.\n\nMr. Whitney noted that the data collection itself is a problem, but further, unlimited access to people\u2019s personal data is even more of a concern. Mr. Whitney asserted that the Constitution lays out what an unlawful search and seizure looks like, and even with modern technology, a warrant must be obtained in order to access data collected by Flock cameras.\n\nDurbin asked Sherriff Ross Teeple of Pinal County, Arizona, about his decision to end his department\u2019s contract with Flock cameras after initially supporting the technology as it had supported the department in resolving Silver Alerts, an emergency public notification system used by law enforcement to locate missing and endangered older adults or individuals with cognitive impairments.\n\n\u201cSheriff Teeple, what was the breaking point for you? You used this information and then decided there was too much of a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Where did you break with the precedent that had been set before you?\u201d Durbin asked.\n\nSheriff Teeple explained that his own community members raised privacy concerns about Flock cameras. When Sheriff Teeple brought these questions and concerns to Flock, he was stonewalled and received little information that alleviated his constituents\u2019 concerns. Specifically, Flock inaccurately told Sherriff Teeple that their cameras didn\u2019t capture photos well enough to recognize a person. However, Sherriff Teeple, using his own department\u2019s database, was easily able to identify people in images captured by Flock cameras. After Flock failed to provide Sherriff Teeple with suitable answers to his concerns, he cancelled the department\u2019s contract with the company.\n\nDurbin replied to Sherriff Teeple: \u201cThank you for raising that point because it is not a matter of just reading license plates. That seems so routine, but it comes to the point where you can identify and recognize the people in the car. You can imagine in a state like Illinois, and in your state as well, the Hispanic population views this as a threat to their existence, where they can be pulled over for driving while looking Hispanic. Unfortunately, we have seen too many instances where people with no criminal records, American citizens, are removed from their homes, arrested, and deported. It is just the kind of thing that is hard, if not impossible, to explain.\u201d\n\nDurbin concluded his questioning by asking Lindsey Isaacs about her experience being wrongfully arrested and spending 13 days in jail on eight felony charges for a crime she did not commit. She was arrested on accounts of vehicular homicide after a Flock camera misidentified her vehicle in a fatal October 2025 crash. It took seven months for the faulty charges to be dropped.\n\n\u201cWhen I listen to your description of your experience, the thing that struck me was that the law enforcement agency involved had tangible evidence in your car that could be viewed [that would prove you were not responsible for the accident]. Did you take a look at it later and see the damage they were referring to?\u201d Durbin asked Ms. Isaacs.\n\nMs. Isaacs explained that her car was brand new and had no damage that would indicate she was involved in a vehicular homicide.\n\n\u201cIf the notion here is to gather accurate information so we don\u2019t make the mistake that led up to your incarceration, there was a failure here. A complete failure and misuse of the information. I\u2019m sorry for what you went through, and thanks for your courage in testifying,\u201d Durbin concluded.\n\nVideo of Durbin\u2019s questions in Committee is available here.\n\nAudio of Durbin\u2019s questions in Committee is available here.\n\nFootage of Durbin\u2019s question in Committee is available here for TV stations.\n\n-30-", 1, "2026-09-25T10:04:52Z", "2026-09-25T10:05:46Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-questions-witnesses-in-senate-judiciary-subcommittee-hearing-on-flock-cameras-and-protecting-americans-right-to-privacy"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.8040238171815872, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}