COLUMBUS, Ohio (WOWO) — A bipartisan group of Ohio lawmakers is pushing for new limits on Flock Safety license plate cameras, with one Republican legislator drafting legislation that could prohibit the technology statewide and a Democratic lawmaker proposing financial restrictions on communities that choose to use it.

The debate comes as Flock Safety faces growing scrutiny over how automated license plate reader technology is used by law enforcement and how information collected by the cameras can be accessed and shared.

Flock has announced additional safeguards for its system amid that criticism. The company says searches can be tied to specific investigative purposes, activity is logged and agencies can establish their own rules governing access and data sharing. Flock also says search filters are available to help prevent searches that violate laws or agency policies.

Those changes have not satisfied Ohio state Reps. Levi Dean, a Republican from Xenia, and Tristan Rader, a Democrat from Lakewood.

Dean told WCMH that he believes the company’s new safeguards come too late to restore his confidence in the technology.

“It seems funny to me that they came out with these safety features now,” Dean said. “It seems like they’re trying to cover their butts. It really just seems too little, too late.”

Dean is preparing legislation that would go beyond regulating Flock cameras. His proposal would prohibit Flock cameras and other artificial-intelligence-assisted surveillance technologies, regardless of arguments from police departments and municipalities that the systems can help solve crimes.

Dean said lawmakers have an obligation to protect constitutional rights rather than make law enforcement operations as easy as possible.

“The job of the legislature and the courts is not to make the police’s job as easy as possible; it’s to protect people’s rights,” Dean said.

The legislation was still being reviewed by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission at the time of the WCMH report.

Rader is also looking for ways to restrict the technology, although he acknowledged that an outright statewide ban could be difficult to enact.

One option, Rader said, would be to prohibit communities from using state money to pay for Flock systems.

“So, you want to use Flock, you’re going to have to use your own funds and the state’s not going to pay for it, essentially,” Rader said.

Rader said that approach could give Ohio communities the ability to make their own decisions while still limiting the state’s role in supporting the surveillance technology.

“We understand that it’s going to be hard as a state to ban these straight out, so we want to find ways to essentially limit their use,” Rader said.

The dispute reflects a larger question over who should decide how automated license plate readers are deployed: state lawmakers or individual communities.

Republican state Rep. Phil Plummer of Dayton said he believes the decision should remain at the local level.

“I think local control is the best avenue here and giving the people a voice locally,” Plummer said.

Plummer suggested communities could use local referendums or moratoriums to determine whether Flock cameras should remain in operation. If voters oppose the technology, he said, local officials should respond accordingly.

Plummer’s position carries particular weight because of his background in law enforcement. He previously served as a sheriff and said he recognizes the potential value of the cameras while still questioning whether their use justifies the privacy concerns surrounding them.

“I did 30 years of law enforcement, worked very hard; I don’t feel any safer today with Flock cameras than I did during my 30-year tenure,” Plummer said. “Are we really making a difference with these cameras, as we’re losing our freedoms?”

Flock Safety says its license plate readers capture images of vehicles at specific points on public roads rather than continuously tracking an individual’s movements. The company says searches are restricted to authorized users, tied to investigative purposes and recorded for later review. Agencies also control whether their data is shared with other law enforcement agencies.

The company’s safeguards have evolved as communities and lawmakers have raised concerns about potential misuse. Flock says its system now includes search filters designed to block queries prohibited by law or agency policy. The company has also described tools for requiring case numbers and flagging unusual search activity.

But critics say the fundamental concern remains: large databases of license plate information can provide law enforcement with information about where vehicles have been seen, raising questions about privacy, access and how information collected for one purpose might ultimately be used for another.

Dean specifically pointed to Dayton’s decision to discontinue its use of Flock after officials determined that information from the company’s system had been used for immigration-enforcement purposes in a manner that violated city policy.

Dean said he personally supports federal deportation policies, but argued that the issue in Dayton was whether established local restrictions were followed.

“Dayton had laws and structures in place about how it could be used and accessed, and both Flock and the federal government ignored that,” Dean said.

The issue has also exposed a political divide that is not necessarily following traditional party lines.

Dean said the opposition he has encountered goes beyond partisan politics.

“I wouldn’t even say it’s bipartisan,” Dean said. “I see a lot of people who, they’re completely not political at all, who are very concerned about this issue.”

Rader similarly framed the debate as a question of privacy and government power rather than party politics.

“Regular, ordinary citizens don’t want big brother peeping through their window,” Rader said. “Nor do they want to be tracked everywhere they go.”

Ohio’s debate comes as communities around the country continue to reconsider policies governing automated license plate readers. Some have sought stricter retention periods, limitations on data sharing and prohibitions on particular uses, while others have maintained that the technology provides investigators with another tool for locating vehicles connected to crimes.

The legislative effort in Ohio could therefore set up a broader fight over the balance between law enforcement technology, local control and individual privacy.

For now, Dean’s proposed statewide ban remains under legislative review, while Rader is exploring funding restrictions and Plummer continues to advocate for decisions to be made by individual communities.

The Ohio House’s official legislative records show Dean as a primary sponsor on multiple bills during the current General Assembly, while Rader has served as a cosponsor on legislation with members of both parties.

No statewide ban on Flock cameras has been enacted as a result of the proposal described in the WCMH report. Any legislation would still have to move through the Ohio General Assembly and receive the governor’s approval before becoming law.