Nebraska ALPRs: ICE Immigration Enforcement via Local Programs Under Scrutiny

Federal immigration agents are using Nebraska’s automatic license plate readers to help find people for immigration enforcement, a practice confirmed by fresh records and congressional attention in August 2025. While state law regulates ALPR systems, it does not stop federal searches, and the vendor Flock Safety provides network tools that let outside agencies run plate searches across thousands of cameras when local departments opt in.

Internal audit data show the scale of outside use. In April 2025, the Hall County Sheriff’s Office logged more than 424,000 searches of its license plate cameras. Only 211 were by local deputies. The rest were run by outside agencies, including searches tied to immigration offenses, according to records cited by investigators.

The revelation comes as two Democratic members of Congress opened a formal investigation into how Flock Safety markets and oversees its network, with a particular focus on departments that use the technology for immigration enforcement even where local policy bars that purpose.

State officials and privacy advocates are now urging lawmakers to revisit Nebraska’s 2018 Automatic License Plate Reader Act. The law requires annual reporting and lists acceptable uses, but it does not explicitly bar immigration-related searches or data sharing with federal agencies. That gap, they argue, leaves residents exposed to federal surveillance that local leaders never intended.

Policy framework and access through Flock networks

Under the Nebraska act, agencies must file yearly reports with the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, a statewide body that tracks ALPR use. The statute describes several lawful purposes, such as locating stolen cars or suspects with warrants. It does not list immigration enforcement as a prohibited use, and it does not forbid data sharing with federal partners.

That legal backdrop matters because Flock Safety operates Statewide and National Lookup tools that pool plate scans from thousands of cameras. If a Nebraska department opts in, outside agencies can query plates that appear in that network without contacting each local owner of the cameras.

• Officials say direct federal access is limited, but the network search capacity still gives ICE and other agencies a broad view.
• According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, networked searches blur jurisdictional lines: a detective in another state can type a plate number and pull up hits from Nebraska’s roads if participating agencies have allowed their data into the pool.
• Local chiefs may not even know when a federal investigator taps their cameras, because the query happens through the vendor’s shared system rather than a direct request.

The Hall County figures from April are a rare glimpse into outside usage. With more than 424,000 searches in a single month and only 211 initiated by local deputies, the data suggest heavy use by other agencies, some related to immigration offenses. Nebraska’s law does not require agencies to break out immigration-related queries in their annual reports, so the true statewide scale remains unclear.

“Immigration enforcement was not a focus when lawmakers drafted the bill,” said former State Senator Matt Hansen, who introduced the 2018 law. He has urged a fresh look now that ALPR networks are used in ways the Legislature did not anticipate seven years ago.

Privacy advocates quoted by state media push for bright lines on sharing and access, especially when searches involve immigration cases.

Community impact, scrutiny, and possible changes

For Nebraska’s immigrant families, the debate is practical and immediate. ALPR cameras capture plates as cars pass, then flag matches against lists. If ICE places a plate on a watch list tied to an immigration warrant, a routine trip—such as a grocery run—could trigger an alert to an out-of-state agent through the Flock Safety network.

• Families may face stops far from courthouses or workplaces, with little notice to local leaders.
• ALPRs do not identify the person behind the wheel; plates can be misread. When alerts move quickly across state lines, a mistaken hit can lead to stops or questioning that would not have occurred with local oversight.
• Nebraska’s reporting rules do not yet capture those downstream outcomes.

Civil liberties groups warn this quiet sharing can produce errors and overreach. At the same time, sheriffs and police chiefs point to benefits:

• Recovering stolen vehicles
• Finding people with outstanding warrants
• Spotting dangerous suspects moving through communities

They say ALPRs are now a standard tool and support clearer guidelines defining allowed uses and audit procedures when federal agencies run searches via shared networks.

How other states differ

Illinois passed a state ban in 2023 on the use of ALPR data for immigration enforcement by outside agencies. Nebraska has not followed suit. As of late August 2025, Nebraska has no statewide restriction that blocks sharing with ICE when a local department has opted into Flock Safety’s pool. That difference makes Nebraska a key node for federal searches, according to academic experts.

Syracuse University researcher Austin Kocher explains that modern surveillance platforms are rearranging jurisdiction in practice. When a private vendor hosts a shared search tool, a federal agent no longer needs direct access to a local server—access rides on the vendor’s terms and the opt-in choices of local partners. That complicates democratic oversight.

Potential legislative and administrative responses

Lawmakers in Lincoln face competing choices:

• Some want to sharpen the Nebraska act to state explicitly whether immigration enforcement is an acceptable use.
• Others prefer keeping broad public safety permissions while demanding stronger transparency: clearer logs, more detailed annual reports, and rapid notice to local chiefs when an outside agency runs an immigration-related search.

The Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice is likely to be central to any change. It already receives required reports and could:

• Create a standardized reporting template showing how many searches came from outside agencies and how many involved immigration-related queries
• Maintain and publish resources on ALPR policy for public review

Readers can find the agency’s guidance and reporting materials on the Nebraska Commission’s ALPR resources page at the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice ALPR resources.

Supporters of reform propose clearer statutory limits to help local agencies draw the right lines without cutting off useful cooperation. Common reform ideas include:

• Setting explicit limits on data retention periods
• Restricting watch-list sharing with ICE unless the person is named in a criminal warrant
• Marking queries so immigration-related searches can be tallied and audited across departments

Opponents counter that new limits could slow urgent work and increase costs for rural departments. Points they raise:

• Current law already demands reporting
• Misuse can be punished under existing privacy and civil rights rules
• An outright ban could create confusion when ALPR hits relate to both criminal warrants and immigration paperwork

Practical steps for residents and local officials

Privacy lawyers recommend simple, immediate actions residents can take:

1. Ask your town or county if it participates in Flock Safety’s Statewide or National Lookup networks.
2. Request the annual ALPR report that the local department submits to the state.
3. Press for an audit trail showing when outside agencies searched local cameras and why.

These steps do not require new laws and can be pursued today.

Immigration lawyers add that ALPR hits are often one part of a case file: a plate alert can prompt a stop, which can lead to questions about identity and status. People fearing arrest sometimes change routines, carpool, or avoid camera-dense areas—behavioral changes that are difficult to measure but widely reported by families.

Rural/urban differences and resource concerns

The debate also reflects differences between smaller and larger agencies:

• Smaller sheriff’s offices often rely on vendor support for systems and training. New audit logs and redaction standards could require contractors or new funding.
• City departments with in-house tech staff may implement changes more quickly.

If the Legislature requires more detailed reporting and redaction standards, rural agencies may need financial and technical assistance to comply without compromising frontline services.

What’s at stake and what to watch next

The congressional probe could reshape the national conversation. Lawmakers want to know:

• Whether vendors are policing their networks
• If departments in places with local bans are still sending or receiving data that supports immigration enforcement

If federal investigators find rules are too loose, new national guidance could set baseline limits for cross-state searches. If not, states will remain the primary arena for policy change.

For Nebraska, possible next steps include committee hearings with testimony from:

• Sheriffs and police chiefs
• Civil rights lawyers
• Residents affected by ALPR-driven enforcement

Advocates expect proposals to require more detailed logs, limit immigration watch-list sharing, and add penalties for misuse.

Key takeaway: Nebraska’s current ALPR rules do not explicitly bar immigration enforcement. The Hall County records, statements from former Senator Hansen, and the new congressional attention make clear there is a policy gap that some want fixed through clearer laws, stronger transparency, or federal guidance.

Residents who want updates can:

• Watch the Commission’s agenda
• Attend city council meetings where technology contracts are approved
• Ask police departments for policy manuals and audit logs

Those local steps matter because they shape how license plate readers are bought, placed, and audited in daily practice, even as Congress investigates.