Virginia’s Flock Safety Network Tapped Thousands for Immigration Cases

First, the detected linkable resources in order of appearance:
1. 287(g)
2. 287(g) partnership list / U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement page for 287(g) partnerships (ICE 287(g) Program)

I will add .gov links only to the first mention of each resource in the article body text, using the exact resource names as they appear and preserving all other content and structure.

(VIRGINIA) Virginia’s statewide network of Flock Safety cameras was queried thousands of times for immigration cases between June 2024 and June 2025, according to audit records reviewed by reporters. The records show more than 3,000 searches tied to terms like “DHS,” “ICE,” and “CBP,” even though local agencies in Virginia say they ban use of automatic license plate readers, or ALPR, for immigration enforcement.

The data reflects a growing gap: local policies that claim to wall off immigration work, and a national network that still lets outside users pull Virginia images for federal targets.

Scope of access and conflicts with local rules

At least 1,000 Flock Safety ALPR cameras operate across 28 cities and counties in Virginia, capturing tens of thousands of vehicles daily. More than 4,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide had access to query that feed.

In practice, agencies far from Virginia could run searches across large swaths of the state’s network. Examples from audit logs include:

• A Fairfax County user in March 2025 pulled data from over 76,000 cameras for “DHS case assistance.”
• An April 2025 query spanned 81,000 cameras for “HSI patrol car arson.”

The reach went well beyond local borders, raising basic questions about who controls the data and how it is used.

Officials in several Virginia jurisdictions say their ALPR programs cannot be used for immigration enforcement. Yet audit logs show federal users and out-of-state police were able to search for cases tied to immigration. Immigration-related queries were confirmed in Fairfax, Chesterfield, Isle of Wight, Loudoun, and Stafford counties.

Of those, Loudoun County is the only jurisdiction formally signed to work with ICE under the 287(g) program, which shares federal immigration duties with local agencies. The official 287(g) partnership list confirms that Virginia has been one of the most active states in this program, with 24 sheriff’s offices enrolled as of June 2025.

Flock Safety’s stance and capabilities:

• Flock Safety says local agencies are responsible for following their posted rules.
• The company also says it is adding new software guardrails to align with Virginia’s latest law, but details on how those guardrails will work are not yet public.

Privacy advocates argue that putting the burden on local departments has not stopped federal access. They worry new limits will fail unless enforced at the system level, not just on paper.

How the technology widens the risk

Flock’s ALPR does more than read plates. It uses AI to classify vehicles by:

• make, model, color
• decals, visible damage
• temporary tags

That capability is significant in immigration work. Agents with partial data (for example, a car color and travel route but no plate) can use attribute-based searches to turn a partial clue into a lead across a multi-state area. For people without status, that means more ways to be found before they can speak to a lawyer.

New Virginia limits and ongoing gaps

A new Virginia law, effective July 1, 2025, restricts how ALPR data can be used. Under the law, agencies may keep and share plate data only for certain purposes:

• Criminal investigations based on reasonable suspicion
• Missing persons
• Human trafficking
• Alerts for stolen vehicles or active warrants

Additional provisions:

• The statute limits sharing data outside Virginia
• It exempts network audit logs from public records

Supporters say the law puts strong guardrails in place after a year of heavy federal access. Critics argue that the exemption for audit data reduces public oversight, making it harder to check whether the rules are followed.

Federal legal routes and a practical loophole

Even with the new limits, federal agencies can still try to obtain Virginia-collected data through subpoenas or court orders served on Flock Safety outside the state. That creates a loophole: a local ban on immigration enforcement may not stop a federal request sent to a company’s headquarters.

Civil liberties lawyers fear federal immigration enforcement can continue to draw from Virginia’s ALPR images through a different legal door.

Human and community impacts

This clash—local bans versus national access—lands hardest on mixed-status families and everyday activities:

• Parents driving children to school
• Essential workers on night shifts
• People visiting clinics

If a vehicle is linked to an immigration case, a routine drive could spark a stop. Immigrant defense groups say this chills daily life and makes people less likely to report crimes or serve as witnesses, which can weaken public safety.

Data-sharing features compound the problem. The Virginia network allowed users to query thousands of cameras outside their home jurisdiction. One user could sweep across partner agencies with a few clicks.

• Benefit: Helps recover stolen cars and find missing people.
• Risk: When tied to immigration enforcement, the same ease erodes local promises that officers won’t act as immigration agents.

VisaVerge.com reports national use of AI-powered surveillance in immigration cases has grown rapidly since 2020, with real-time feeds shaping field actions before attorneys get involved. Advocates say this front-end reliance on data stacks the deck and can lead to errors that are hard to fix later. When a mistaken match triggers a stop, the person pulled over is the one who pays the price—even if the record gets corrected later.

“When a mistaken match triggers a stop, the person pulled over is the one who pays the price—even if the record gets corrected later.”
— Reporting on AI-powered ALPR impacts

Community responses and next steps

Sheriffs in 287(g) counties defend the program, saying it helps identify people who pose a risk. Their argument: fast checks, including ALPR leads, keep communities safe.

Immigrant advocates respond that broad data access casts too wide a net and ensnares many people who are not accused of any crime. They argue immigration enforcement should not rely on mass data tools that track everyone’s movements by default.

For local leaders, the choice is stark:

1. Keep ALPR for core police work, but
2. Enforce clear bans against immigration enforcement — backed by real technical limits — or
3. Risk losing community trust.

The new Virginia law moves toward a tighter framework, but it will be judged by outcomes: fewer immigration-tagged queries, stronger audits, and transparent reports. Without that, promises may ring hollow.

What residents can do

Residents who worry about surveillance can:

• Ask their police departments for written ALPR policies, retention periods, and sharing agreements
• Push for independent audits and public briefings on how state limits are applied
• If pulled over after an ALPR hit, ask what information triggered the stop and seek legal help to review the basis for the search

For broader policy context, the official description of the 287(g) program explains local-federal partnerships and their role in federal strategy. Readers can find that at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement page for 287(g) partnerships: ICE 287(g) Program.

Outlook and legal battles ahead

Flock Safety’s promised software guardrails will face quick tests in Virginia. Potential measures of success:

• A drop in queries labeled “DHS,” “ICE,” or “CBP”
• Stronger, transparent audits and reports

If queries do not decline, expect continued court fights. Lawsuits already contend that constant, warrantless plate scanning—combined with AI tags—may cross constitutional lines.

For now, the record is clear: thousands of searches tied to immigration enforcement ran through Virginia’s ALPR network over a single year, despite local promises to the contrary. Whether the new rules can reverse that pattern will be the next test for the state’s surveillance era.