Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/deflock-proposed-law-felony-city-162136999.html
Publisher: Yahoo/Gadget Review
Date Published: July 8, 2026
Relevant To: Proposed model ALPR law (DEFLOCK/Automated License Plate Surveillance Consent and Accountability Act) making unauthorized deployment a felony for officials; distinct from DeFlock.org mapping project
Verification Status: Verified — Penalty Range (5 vs. 10 Years) Should Be Confirmed Against Actual Bill Text
Notes: Confirmed via search snippets (Yahoo/Gadget Review syndication). IMPORTANT NAMING CLARIFICATION: this “DEFLOCK” is a proposed MODEL LAW (“Automated License Plate Surveillance Consent and Accountability Act”), distinct from and easily confused with “DeFlock” (deflock.org), Will Freeman’s crowdsourced ALPR camera-mapping project already referenced multiple times in this library. The proposed model law would require a public authorizing ordinance — two public hearings, 30-day advance notice, and a recorded vote — before any ALPR deployment, including free/no-cost vendor trials. Any public official who knowingly bypasses that process would commit a felony carrying up to 5-10 years (sources give slightly different figures — worth verifying exact penalty range against the actual bill text before citing a specific number). Draws on legal precedent from federal wiretap law and Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, and Illinois’ existing 720 ILCS 5/33-3 official-misconduct felony statute as a structural model. Distinguishing feature versus existing ALPR laws (Washington’s 21-day retention cap, proposed MA 14-day deletion rule under H.3755): existing statutes regulate DATA USE after collection; DEFLOCK instead regulates the DEPLOYMENT DECISION itself, closing what ACLU analysts call a personal-accountability gap. Existing ALPR systems would get 180 days to obtain retroactive public authorization or face shutdown under the model law. Cites supporting context: a Norfolk, VA circuit court ruling that ALPR data collection from 172 cameras constituted a warrantless Fourth Amendment search, and a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court warning that sufficiently dense camera networks can violate reasonable-privacy expectations. Also references documented cases of Flock cameras illegally strapped to DOT infrastructure without permits in multiple states, prompting installation bans by at least two state transportation agencies. HIGH VALUE model-legislation resource for BPA’s Bend/Oregon ordinance advocacy — the “regulate the deployment decision, not just the data” framing and personal-liability-for-officials mechanism are structurally novel compared to most existing state ALPR laws already cataloged in this library.