The Republican candidate for Ohio Attorney General wants Ohio lawmakers to make abuse of the Flock camera database a felony but keep the system’s use for legitimate law enforcement purposes. His Democratic opponent doesn’t think the plan goes far enough.

The automated license plate readers have spread rapidly through state and local law enforcement agencies as a powerful tool for finding suspects.

The public backlash has grown just as quickly.

In addition to Americans’ abiding unease with government surveillance, critics point to news investigations which uncovered eye-opening examples of police abuse of the Flock database.

A bipartisan group of Ohio lawmakers want the state’s transportation agency to rescind Flock permits. One of them is filing legislation to prohibit government agencies from deploying cameras or accessing the database without first getting a warrant.

Faber’s plan

Keith Faber, the GOP candidate for Ohio AG in November, wants to punish misuse without losing access to a critical investigatory tool.

“Flock cameras can help Ohio police recover stolen cars, find missing kids, and catch violent criminals,” Faber said in a press release. “But that data exists to solve crimes. If someone abuses it to violate the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Ohioans, that should be a crime, the same as misusing any other sensitive law enforcement database.”

If elected, Faber is promising to work with lawmakers to make abuse of the Flock database a felony. In a video on social media he explained it’s already a felony under Ohio law to misuse of state’s central law enforcement database, known as LEADS.

“As your attorney general, I’ll work with the legislature to pass legislation and get Flock and similar data that same protection,” Faber sad. “Use it to solve a crime or protect the public, and you’re doing your job. Abuse it or violate someone’s constitutional rights, and you’ve committed a felony. That goes for everyone, badge or no badge.”

There’s no guarantee that lawmakers will agree with his idea, but Faber expressed confidence that “the legislature would be very receptive to a request from the attorney general to try and put a belt and suspenders around a law enforcement tool that could be abused to spy on Ohioans.”

Is there some other existing statute the attorney general could use to pursue bad actors if lawmakers don’t act? Faber says maybe, but Ohioans would be better served with a straightforward amendment to existing law.

John Kulewicz, the Democratic nominee for attorney general, doesn’t think Faber’s plan goes far enough.

“I have been advocating for the General Assembly to adopt a wide-ranging data privacy law that limits the use of personal data companies can collect,” Kulewicz said in a statement.

Because Flock is a private company, he worries the data it collects could eventually wind up in the hands of third parties.

“We are constantly tracked, not just by our license plates, but also by our digital footprint,” Kulewicz said. “Any legislation should limit the collection and use of personal data and ban the misuse of any collected data, especially by modern algorithmic decision-makers.”

Balancing act

Ohio state Rep. Levi Dean, R-Xenia, is deeply skeptical of Flock’s license plate reader network. He’s currently filing a bill that would restrict “government entities” from deploying cameras, require warrants before gaining access, and prohibit the sale of surveillance data.

“Flock cameras and automatic license plate readers can be valuable tools,” Dean said in a press release. “But a tool that can track the movements of innocent Americans can also be abused in the wrong hands.”

“Think about what the widespread use of these systems could have meant during lockdown orders,” he added.

Dean wants law enforcement to have “the tools they need,” but he insisted the principles behind The Fourth Amendment have not changed.

“Government power must have limits,” he said. “We don’t have to choose between catching criminals and protecting our constitutional rights. We can do both.”

Oddly enough, “we can do both” has become a familiar formula among public officials defending the program.

Faber, for instance, said under his proposal, “Police keep a tool that catches criminals. Citizens keep their privacy. In Ohio, I’m sure we can do both.”

But insisting that middle path exists is a lot easier than finding it.

Late last month, as Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther announced new safeguards and oversight for the city’s Flock program, he argued the city could protect citizens privacy while continuing to utilize the camera network. A week later he reversed course and paused the program. A USA Today report revealed one Columbus Police officer conducted 272 searches for a single license plate over the course of a year.

More recently, the city of Reynoldsburg ended its Flock program outright. In a video posted to Facebook, Mayor Joe Begeny referred to their own examples of alleged misuse, but he declined to elaborate because investigations are ongoing.

Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE