Harrison says fee money funded warrantless Flock surveillance
Texas state representative (R) running for reelection in District 10
“In a million years, I never could have even contemplated that this would be used to fund what is effectively warrantless surveillance, Otherwise, I can’t imagine it would have gotten unanimous support. I sure as hell wouldn’t have voted for it if I knew some bureaucrat was going to redirect the money to Flock cameras.”
Source and context
Reporting
About this source
Texas Tribune analysis of how the Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority used a 2023 auto insurance fee increase to fund Flock license-plate cameras, with comment from state lawmakers, police and privacy advocates.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The Texas Tribune reported that a state agency used a $1 auto insurance fee increase, passed unanimously in 2023, to fund at least 3,200 Flock cameras. Harrison voted for the bill and, according to the Tribune, filed bills in 2023 and 2025 to require a warrant before police could access license plate reader data.
After the quotation
The Tribune reports that Harrison and Rep. Mitch Little intend to file bills next session banning the devices, and that Harrison said state officials should shut off Flock grants.
How this statement is classified
Case context: Should Flock-style license-plate surveillance networks exist?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is whether networked license-plate reader systems such as Flock should exist and be used. Harrison called the Flock network effectively warrantless surveillance he would not have funded, and the Tribune reports he intends to file a bill banning the devices. His quoted words focus on the funding, but together with the reported ban plan they reject the systems, so Condemned fits.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Flock Safety
Should Flock-style license-plate surveillance networks exist?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“Ohioans should not have their movements routinely tracked, photographed, and stored simply for driving on public roads.”Read statement
“Tennesseans should be free from a surveillance state.”Read statement
“We need to restore real limits, real oversight, and real due process.”Read statement