Mike Ezell defends investigative ALPR use

U.S. representative from Mississippi

“Voted no on Amendment No. 221 to H.R. 8870.”
Open source (opens in a new tab)Eno Center live coverage of House transportation markupUpdate on Perry Amendment No. 221 and Mike Ezell
Read the original text (opens in a new tab)Perry Amendment No. 221 to H.R. 8870Section on license plate readers
Read the original text (opens in a new tab)House Transportation Committee roll call on Amendment No. 221Vote 104, page 58

Source and context

Reporting

Eno Center live coverage of House transportation markup (opens in a new tab)Update on Perry Amendment No. 221 and Mike Ezell

About this source

Firsthand markup coverage reports that Ezell opposed the tolling-only ALPR amendment and cited recovery of abducted minors.

Original text

Perry Amendment No. 221 to H.R. 8870 (opens in a new tab)Section on license plate readers

About this source

Proposed amendment would limit ALPR use by recipients of Title 23 assistance to tolling.

Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Original text

House Transportation Committee roll call on Amendment No. 221 (opens in a new tab)Vote 104, page 58

About this source

Official committee record lists each member's vote on Perry Amendment No. 221. The amendment failed 20 to 44.

Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Before the quotation

Scott Perry proposed limiting ALPR use by federal highway-aid recipients to tolling.

After the quotation

The committee rejected the amendment 20 to 44; Ezell voted no.

How this statement is classified

Defended or excused

Case context: Should Flock-style license-plate surveillance networks exist?

The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.

Why this label?

He defended a public-safety use and opposed restricting federally aided systems to tolling only.

Recorded on
Published here
A close view of a green Flock Safety automated license-plate reader mounted beside a street.
Credit: Bruxton

More from this case

Read the full case

Don Kissick

“Ohioans should not have their movements routinely tracked, photographed, and stored simply for driving on public roads.”
Read statement