FORT WAYNE, Ind. (WOWO) — The fight over Flock license plate-reading cameras in northeast Indiana is moving to Washington, with U.S. Rep. Marlin Stutzman backing federal legislation aimed at restricting the technology.

Stutzman, a Republican who represents Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District, told 21Alive he believes government use of the automated license plate readers amounts to unconstitutional surveillance and said he believes the system should ultimately be eliminated.

His opposition began with a personal encounter several years ago.

Stutzman said he and his wife had driven to a destination when a police officer approached them and told Stutzman their vehicle registration had expired because of a mailing mix-up.

What caught Stutzman off guard was how the officer knew about the registration problem. He said the police vehicle had not pulled in behind them.

“I went out and I found the police officer and I said, ‘Can you tell me, how did you know that our vehicle was without a registration?’” Stutzman told 21Alive.

The officer explained that a Flock camera had captured the vehicle and that the system could connect the license plate to information including registration status and warrants.

That experience prompted Stutzman to question how much information is being collected about drivers as Flock and other automated license plate reader systems expand.

“There’s over 200-some thousand cameras across the country already,” Stutzman said.

He said the systems can record when a vehicle passes a camera and identify characteristics including its make and model. He also raised concerns about what information could potentially be available about people inside vehicles.

“It’s just too much information that the government has and that a third party has,” Stutzman said.

Flock describes its license plate readers as tools for generating investigative leads. The company says its systems capture license plates and vehicle characteristics and can help law enforcement locate stolen vehicles, missing people and vehicles connected to investigations. Flock also says searches are logged and that customers control their data and sharing settings.

The technology has become a growing point of contention in communities around the country, with law enforcement agencies citing its investigative uses while critics have raised concerns about privacy and the ability to reconstruct vehicle movements.

In Fort Wayne, City Council voted in August not to continue the city’s Flock contract. The city’s 36 license plate readers were subsequently taken offline and are being removed. Fort Wayne Police Chief P.J. Smith has said investigators used the technology to develop leads, locate vehicles associated with crimes, recover stolen vehicles and find missing people, but ultimately decided to discontinue the program following the council’s decision.

Stutzman says the issue goes beyond Fort Wayne.

“Personally, I think the Flock camera system should be eliminated,” he told 21Alive. “If people on private property want to buy that equipment and use it for that, that’s totally fine. But for the government to be setting these up alongside roadways, I think crosses the line of surveillance.”

He framed his objection around the Fourth Amendment and protections against unreasonable searches.

“We don’t want to be Russia. We don’t want to be a communist country where the government can watch our every move. And so that’s why I think the Flock camera system should be eliminated,” Stutzman said.

At the same time, police departments and prosecutors have argued that the technology can provide useful investigative information in cases involving violent crime, hit-and-runs, stolen vehicles and missing people.

Stutzman said eliminating Flock cameras would not amount to opposing law enforcement.

“Just because we’re taking away a camera system from law enforcement doesn’t mean that I don’t support law enforcement,” he said. “In fact, instead of paying for a system like that, let’s put that into salaries for more police officers.”

The debate also puts Stutzman at odds with President Donald Trump on the specific issue of Flock cameras. Trump recently told reporters aboard Air Force One that he likes the cameras because of their potential value to law enforcement, while acknowledging that some people consider them an infringement.

Stutzman said he continues to support the president but views Flock as a separate constitutional issue.

“Oh, no. I mean, I support the president, and he’s a big supporter of law enforcement. I’ll let him speak to his reasons for Flock cameras,” Stutzman said. “But I just think that this is a line that has been crossed.”

Stutzman also said concerns about Flock are not limited to one political party, pointing to opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The broader congressional debate is taking place as lawmakers consider legislation targeting automated camera systems. One measure introduced this month, the Flock-Off Act, would prohibit the use of federal funds for certain covered camera systems and related components. The bill was introduced by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and has bipartisan cosponsors, including Indiana Republican Rep. Victoria Spartz and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California. It was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Stutzman also argues that law enforcement has other investigative tools available, including cellphone data.

He pointed to the investigation into the 2022 University of Idaho student murders as an example of how investigators can use other forms of digital information to identify people of interest.

“The government has other tools available to them to find the bad guys,” Stutzman said. “Frankly, cellphones is probably one of the biggest pieces that would identify people of interest more than what Flock cameras would.”

The Flock debate is occurring alongside a broader discussion in Congress over government regulation and oversight of artificial intelligence.

Stutzman said he does not support an outright moratorium on AI. Instead, he pointed to the bipartisan Futures Act, which he said recently passed the House and is intended to help federal agencies better understand emerging technology before imposing regulations.

“So many government agencies just don’t understand how this new technology works,” Stutzman said. “And then once they get involved in a regulatory framework, they oftentimes just slow things down and shut things down because they don’t understand it.”

He said the goal should be keeping humans responsible for how emerging technologies are deployed while allowing technological development to continue.

“We should not put a moratorium on AI,” Stutzman said. “We should just simply work together to be sure that it’s safe for every American.”

The Flock fight now extends from local decisions over individual cameras to a broader federal debate over how much vehicle-location information government agencies should be able to collect, retain and access.