Two of Massachusetts’ larger cities are taking opposite approaches to police license plate readers. In Springfield, a city councilor has filed an ordinance that would ban the Flock cameras the police department uses, MassLive reported on November 5, 2026. In New Bedford, where two officers were fired last month for misusing the system, Mayor Jon Mitchell has proposed rules for the technology instead of the ban the City Council passed, according to the city’s announcement as published by New Bedford Guide.
Massachusetts has no statewide law governing automated license plate readers, so each city and town sets its own rules. That is why these fights keep landing in city councils.
Springfield: a proposed ban
City Councilor Zaida Govan unveiled the draft ordinance at a City Council subcommittee meeting on Flock cameras, MassLive reported. It would bar the city from acquiring, operating, funding or using the systems and would end all municipal contracts. “They have valid concerns,” Govan said of residents who asked for the ban.
The draft’s findings say the cameras “continuously capture license plate numbers, vehicle images, locations, dates and times from vehicles whose occupants are not suspected of wrongdoing,” and that sharing the data creates “substantial risks to privacy, civil rights and public trust,” according to MassLive. About a dozen members of a group called DeFlock Springfield attended to support it.
The police department wants to keep the cameras. “Absolutely we want to keep it. This tool has been so helpful in community caretaking and solving crimes,” Police Superintendent Lawrence E. Akers said, MassLive reported. The department has used license plate readers since 2011 and Flock since 2023, a police lieutenant said. Officers need a report number or service call number to run a search, and access is typically limited to detectives and supervisors, he said.
A Flock representative told councilors the data belongs to the city, not the company. City Councilor Brian Santaniello raised cybersecurity concerns, pointing to the September cyberattack on the city’s school computers, MassLive reported. The subcommittee plans to take up the ordinance again on November 17.
New Bedford: rules instead of a ban
New Bedford’s police department turned off its Flock cameras citywide on August 11, and the contract expires November 12 without renewal. An audit of 2026 searches led to the firing of two officers in October. Our earlier report on the firings.
On October 22 the City Council voted 8-3 for an ordinance barring the city from using license plate readers or mass location-tracking technology. Mitchell’s new proposal would allow the technology under limits. According to the city’s announcement, it would:
- require a public hearing and City Council approval before any license plate reader contract is signed or renewed;
- limit searches to police personnel certified as trained, for authorized public safety purposes;
- log every search and data export, with monthly audits and a written report to the City Council;
- delete data after 30 days unless it is relevant to an open criminal or internal investigation;
- prohibit the sale or commercial use of the data, and bar vendors from keeping or using it after a contract ends;
- require an officer to visually confirm the plate and vehicle before taking enforcement action; and
- set rules for sharing data with outside law enforcement agencies.
“License plate readers are a powerful tool to promote public safety, but they must be used responsibly,” Mitchell said in the announcement.
Councilor-at-Large Shane Burgo, who wrote the council’s ban, said in a statement published by New Bedford Guide that the mayor had vetoed the council’s ordinance and had sent councilors only a press release, not the text of his proposal. “While the limited details provided suggest we may be moving in the right direction, I look forward to reviewing the actual legislative language,” he said. We have not seen the veto itself, and New Bedford Guide did not report whether the council will try to override it.
What the courts have said
The Supreme Judicial Court addressed license plate readers in Commonwealth v. McCarthy, SJC-12750 (2020). It held that four cameras on the Cape Cod bridges were not a search, but warned that “with enough cameras in enough locations, the historic location data from an ALPR system in Massachusetts would invade a reasonable expectation of privacy and would constitute a search for constitutional purposes.” The court did not say how many cameras is enough. How McCarthy applies to a citywide network.
That open question is part of why a 30-day retention limit, like the one in Mitchell’s proposal, matters. In McCarthy, the SJC said a one-year retention period was long enough to warrant constitutional protection.
Frequently asked questions
Does Massachusetts have a law on license plate readers?
No statewide statute governs how police use automated license plate readers. Cities and towns set their own policies and ordinances.
Is Springfield banning Flock cameras?
Not yet. A city councilor has proposed an ordinance to ban them. The council subcommittee planned to discuss it again on November 17, MassLive reported.
Does New Bedford still use Flock?
No. The cameras have been off since August 11, and the contract ends November 12. The mayor has proposed rules for any future system.
Is a license plate reader search a “search” under the Constitution?
It can be. The SJC said in Commonwealth v. McCarthy that enough cameras in enough places would make collecting the location data a search, though four cameras on two bridges did not.
Sources: MassLive, November 5, 2026 (Springfield ordinance, quotes); City of New Bedford announcement as published by New Bedford Guide, and Councilor Shane Burgo’s statement as published by New Bedford Guide, November 2026; WBSM and New Bedford Guide earlier reporting on the council vote. Commonwealth v. McCarthy, SJC-12750 (2020). General information, not legal advice.