Nevada does not have state laws governing the use of license plate reader cameras by police, even as multiple local governments have rolled out large networks that collect vehicle-identification information and can be searched across jurisdictions, according to reporting distributed by the Associated Press.
The lack of statewide rules has become a flash point as local agencies expand systems from companies including Flock Safety, which the reporting describes as collecting data such as license plate information and vehicle make and model and then connecting it to a national database police can use to look up the locations of specific vehicles.
In the past three years, the reporting says at least five Nevada cities and counties—including Clark County, Reno and Sparks—have signed agreements with Flock. It also points to publicly available police-department data showing at least 200 Flock cameras in Clark County and at least 180 in Washoe County, as the technology spreads beyond individual agencies’ borders.
Advocates and lawmakers said the privacy questions intensify because the Flock network allows vehicle location tracking “virtually in real time,” and because information about where the cameras are installed is not consistently public. The reporting also describes concerns that some agreements may have been entered without public discussion, including in Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, or LVMPD.
Assm. Selena Torres-Fossett, a Democrat from Las Vegas who has worked on legislation for other automated camera systems, said it has been difficult to legislate what she described as not clearly existing in Nevada’s legal framework. “It’s a challenge,” she said, adding that “It’s hard for lawmakers to legislate what doesn’t currently exist.” She also said she has been concerned about possible uses beyond policing, including immigration enforcement, and about whether data could be sold to third parties, while noting that she was not aware of any state policies that prohibit those uses.
Torres-Fossett, according to the reporting, said she does not want law enforcement to access resident data without consent, characterizing the practice as intrusive. “I don’t want law enforcement to be able to access my data without my consent,” she said, adding, “It’s very big brother.”
Assm. Skip Daly, a Democrat from Reno who has criticized the state’s use of AI-related technologies, said he was not sure whether he would introduce a bill but said he was “incredibly concerned about the technology.” The reporting describes Daly as arguing that residents do not understand how invasive and how widespread the devices are, and it cites an example from 2025 in which the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office purchased 120 cameras intended for “high-crime areas,” combining not only Flock cameras but additional cameras operated by county partners.
Police officials interviewed for the story said the cameras help solve crimes and improve investigative speed. The reporting says Sparks Police Chief Chris Crawforth described a recent expansion of Flock cameras as helping identify suspects “in a much more timely fashion so we can bring those people to justice,” and said the focus is on the vehicle rather than the person. A spokesperson for Las Vegas police, the reporting adds, described the technology as a “wonderful investigative tool.”
The story also describes that Flock is not the only player in the automated license plate reader market. It says jurisdictions have struck deals with other providers such as Vigilant Solutions and reports that in 2018, Sparks police scanned 420,506 license plates using that technology, based on data from a public-records request, while noting that Sparks police did not say immediately whether the agreement remains active.
Civil-liberties experts cited in the reporting said Nevada’s approach has lacked meaningful privacy guardrails. Dave Maass, director of investigations for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and an instructor at UNR, said Nevada has been “bad on fighting stuff” and characterized Nevada’s 2019 effort to protect data privacy as inadequate, saying it was “a joke” among people focused on technology-related protections.
The reporting also includes concerns from residents who say the technology is hard to track and challenging to understand in real time. Brandon Bunce, an IT professional described as starting to speak at Clark County Commission meetings to protest Flock cameras, said it was “impossible” to keep up with the technology, and said he wants state legislation to limit or stop private companies from storing and sharing data about citizens.
Beyond license plate readers, the reporting describes additional surveillance-related programs in Nevada. In late 2025, Sparks Police Department unveiled a program in which residents can register their home camera systems and allow police to tap into the feed in emergencies, and it says the City of Reno has a similar program with more than 700 cameras registered.
The Associated Press reporting places the Nevada debate in a wider national context, saying only 16 states nationwide have implemented legislation addressing the use of such cameras, including five states that explicitly prohibit use by anyone other than law enforcement. It adds that a search of Nevada legislation does not turn up bills discussing the issue in 2025, leaving residents and lawmakers to grapple with how quickly the technology is expanding and what limits, if any, should be set.