Farry defends cosponsoring Pennsylvania plate-reader expansion bill
Pennsylvania state senator (R) running for reelection in District 6
“The bill, if it ever has a vote, will be amended to include stricter data policies and protections for the public. Having spoken to numerous local law enforcement leaders and prosecutors over the last several years has shown the systems to be what they term as a vital resource for their investigations Additionally, anyone violating the intended use of the readers should face swift and substantial penalties for their crimes.”
Source and context
Reporting
About this source
Bucks County Beacon report on the Pennsylvania Senate District 6 race and Senate Bill 933, which would expand license plate readers on state roads and PennDOT infrastructure.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Farry responded by email after his Democratic opponent, Eileen Hartnett Albillar, called on him to drop his cosponsorship of Senate Bill 933, which would expand license plate readers on roadways and PennDOT-owned infrastructure.
After the quotation
The Bucks County Beacon reports that Farry did not specify what amendments or penalties would be added, and that he said plate surveillance helped track down suspects in a 2023 Bensalem killing and a 2025 Bensalem arson.
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. Farry defends his cosponsorship of a bill to expand plate readers on state infrastructure, citing law enforcement leaders who call the systems a vital resource. He promises stricter data policies and penalties for misuse, but these accompany expansion rather than condition his support.
- 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