North Dakota Lawmaker Proposes New Regulations for Automated License Plate Readers

“People do not want these at all,” said Sen. Jamie Selzler, D-Fargo, noting that constituents reach out to her nearly every day with concerns regarding automated license plate readers.

According to a report from Valley News Live, Selzler is preparing to introduce a bill in the upcoming legislative session to regulate the use of controversial camera technology, such as Flock cameras, across North Dakota. Rather than seeking a total ban, the proposed legislation aims to implement what Selzler calls “reasonable regulations” to prevent law enforcement overreach.

The debate centers on the tension between public safety and individual privacy. While police departments argue these tools are essential for solving crimes, privacy advocates warn that the ability to track vehicle movements creates a “mosaic of information” that can effectively monitor a person’s life.

Proposed guardrails for camera usage

The bipartisan proposal seeks to establish specific boundaries for how law enforcement agencies deploy and manage automated license plate reader (ALPR) data. Under the terms of the bill, agencies would be required to publicly disclose the locations of any installed cameras and provide a 30-day notice to the public before a new installation occurs.

To protect sensitive community areas, the bill would prohibit the installation of cameras near hospitals, places of worship, or schools. The legislation would limit the data retention period to just 14 days. Selzler also intends to criminalize the intentional misuse of the technology and requires that an open investigation be active before an officer can perform a search through the camera databases.

“It’s putting guardrails in place to protect the public from abuse or overreach by law enforcement,” Selzler said.

Selzler noted that while she hasn’t yet worked with law enforcement on the specifics, she plans to do so as the 2027 session approaches. She suggested that police might actually favor regulation, noting, “If I were law enforcement, I would be worried about law enforcement overreach causing these to be completely banned.”

A patchwork of surveillance across North Dakota

The current landscape of ALPR use varies significantly between North Dakota cities. While some departments rely heavily on mobile technology, others have moved to restrict or remove stationary cameras entirely.

City	Stationary Cameras	Mobile/Squad Car Cameras
Fargo	21 (Flock)	61 (Other brand)
Bismarck	None (Access to mall cameras)	43

In Fargo, the police department maintains a Flock Transparency Portal, though it does not disclose specific camera locations, citing exemptions under the North Dakota Century Code. The department also utilizes five pan-tilt-zoom cameras downtown that feature an AI-driven “Guardian Mode” to track movement, though officials stated they do not currently use this feature because of constant motion in busy areas.

Dickinson Deputy Police Chief Matthew Hanson described the technology as a “huge lifesaver” during investigations, citing a case last fall where camera data helped identify a vehicle of interest in a shooting incident where eyewitnesses were unwilling to speak.

The privacy debate and the cost of error

Opponents of the technology argue that the distinction between tracking a car and tracking a person is a distinction without a difference. Kellan Benson, a Fargo attorney, argued that even without facial recognition, the ability to link drivers to their vehicles allows for a level of surveillance that threatens civil liberties.

There are also concerns regarding data ownership. While some cities, like Minot and Dickinson, claim to keep their data within their own systems, Benson expressed skepticism regarding the efficacy of contract provisions meant to prevent third-party companies like Flock from sharing data.

“I have trouble with the fact that that’s not a law. That’s a contract provision. Who’s enforcing that part of the contract?” Benson said.

In the city of Horace, the local council recently voted to remove its Flock cameras. Horace City Councilmember Chad Chalmers, who participated in a local “Flock Talk” event, suggested that the equipment often exceeds simple license plate reading capabilities. He noted that some units, known as “Condors,” feature pan-tilt-zoom capabilities and live video streaming.

“When it comes down to it, liberty comes before security,” Chalmers said. “If we have no liberty, we will have no security.”

Worth a look