WA ALPR Access by Border Patrol Raises Immigration Concerns

(WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES) U.S. Border Patrol tapped into Washington police surveillance systems powered by Flock Safety during 2025, sometimes without the knowledge or permission of local departments, according to academic researchers and local officials. Audit records show federal searches reached at least 17 local agencies’ automated license plate reader networks, raising questions about whether the data was used for immigration enforcement in a state with one of the country’s stronger limits on cooperation with federal immigration actions.

Researchers at the University of Washington Center for Human Rights (UWCHR) notified several cities in October that federal agents had searched their Flock systems, prompting immediate policy changes and a broader state review. Some searches explicitly listed “immigration” and “targeting” in the purpose fields, intensifying concern that the technology could be used to track people for civil immigration cases barred by state law. Civil liberties groups say the pattern shows a growing gap between local rules and how national systems actually operate.

Flock audit logs provided to UWCHR show two pathways of access. In at least eight departments, local settings granted “front door” access by allowing direct, one-to-one sharing with Border Patrol. Separate logs revealed “back door” access to at least ten additional networks, even where agencies say they never approved such searches. The total—at least 17 Washington agencies—includes sheriff’s offices and city police departments across the state. Local officials in Auburn, Renton, and Lakewood say they only learned of the federal searches when UWCHR reached out this month.

Under Washington’s Keep Washington Working Act (2019), most state and local agencies are restricted from helping federal civil immigration enforcement. The law’s supporters say that means police data should not be used to track people for immigration purposes. Some departments now worry that settings inside a vendor’s system gave federal agents more reach than local leaders thought they had authorized. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the case underscores how regional data-sharing features can outpace local policies, especially when federal and local systems mesh by default.

How the access worked

Flock Safety markets automated license plate reader (ALPR) tools that capture plate numbers, time, and location, and store them for later search. Many Washington departments adopted the technology for stolen vehicles, felony warrants, and violent crime investigations.

In 2025, at least some agencies enabled a Flock option called “National Lookup,” which allows external agencies to search their data. Officials in several cities say they did not realize that included Border Patrol or did not understand the extent of access that feature allowed.

In other cases, records point to access tied to sharing settings and system architecture that allowed federal searches without explicit local approval. Documents reviewed by UWCHR refer to a previously undisclosed pilot program involving Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which oversees Border Patrol. That pilot appears to have given federal agents an avenue to run queries across multiple local networks. Departments in Auburn, Renton, and Lakewood said they were unaware of this federal access until UWCHR notified them in October.

Flock Safety disputes parts of the research findings. The company’s chief legal officer said customer data is never shared without agency authorization and that collaboration with federal agencies remains at the discretion of local departments. Company officials argue the system respects local controls, and that any cross-agency access occurs only when customers enable it. Those assurances did not ease concerns among some Washington police chiefs who now question whether their past settings aligned with the state’s legal limits.

Audit entries describe several federal queries labeled with terms such as “immigration” or “targeting.” While each query’s target and outcome were not fully detailed in the logs provided to researchers, the language itself set off alarms.

ALPR data can reveal patterns about a person’s life — from where they work to where they pray — and these systems can be misused to track immigrants, protesters, and vulnerable groups.

Civil rights advocates warn this and are pressing for:
– Shorter retention periods for ALPR data
– Stricter sharing rules and bans on immigration-related uses
– Greater transparency about who runs searches and why

Flock’s ALPR cameras read plates and turn them into searchable data that can connect across cities. Supporters say the system helps solve car theft and violent crime. Critics say the scale and speed of plate tracking creates risk when the same networks feed agencies with different missions and legal limits.

In Washington, the mission gap matters: local police operate under state rules, while Border Patrol enforces federal law, including immigration, within 100 miles of land and coastal borders.

Local and state response

Once notified, several police departments locked down their settings:
– Auburn and Renton disabled “National Lookup.”
– Renton now requires all external access requests to be reviewed.
– Lakewood blocked external agencies from accessing its Flock data without a formal request.

Auburn police said any agency found to be using their data for immigration enforcement will have its access permanently revoked. Departments say the changes aim to ensure compliance with state law and to protect public trust.

Washington Governor Bob Ferguson and the state attorney general’s office launched an inquiry to assess whether the reported federal searches violated state law and whether additional safeguards are needed. The review will likely examine:
– Technical pathways inside Flock systems
– The specifics of the CBP pilot
– What local agencies did or did not authorize

State officials will also likely consider how to document and oversee future searches across jurisdictions in real time, rather than only after audits.

Community advocates expect the state to push for several fixes:
– Tighter default sharing settings
– Clear written agreements that ban immigration-related searches
– Shorter data retention periods
– Public dashboards showing which agencies ran searches and their stated purposes

They argue ordinary people — especially mixed-status families — need to know whether their daily routes are being logged into a system that might feed federal immigration databases.

Law enforcement leaders emphasize ALPR tools’ role in serious criminal investigations — from carjacking to armed robbery — and some chiefs support keeping the technology while narrowing who can access it and why. Others want a pause on cross-agency sharing until state guidance arrives. The divide reflects a nationwide tension: the same data that helps solve crimes can carry high risk if used for civil immigration actions that states like Washington have tried to limit.

Vendor responsibility, contracts, and oversight

The reported searches highlight vendor responsibility. When local agencies buy tools that connect to national networks, they may inherit sharing defaults they do not fully control or understand.

City attorneys now say contracts should include:
– Clear language banning specific uses (e.g., immigration enforcement)
– Explicit audit rights
– Immediate suspension clauses if a partner agency violates state law
– Faster notification requirements when a federal agency tries to access local data

They also want faster notification so chiefs can approve or deny access in real time.

For immigrants and their families, the practical message is urgent: police technology meant for public safety can still touch immigration systems if safeguards fail. Advocates recommend:
1. City councils hold public hearings and publish ALPR policies in multiple languages.
2. Departments certify that local settings block any immigration enforcement purpose.
3. Regular independent audits and timely release of audit summaries, not just after public records requests.

Legal implications and next steps

One element likely to feature in the state review is whether immigration-focused searches violated Washington’s Keep Washington Working Act (2019). The attorney general’s office has issued guidance on the law’s scope; officials and residents can review it at the Washington Attorney General’s Keep Washington Working page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/keep-washington-working.

If the inquiry finds violations, agencies may face policy directives or risk losing access to shared systems until fixes are in place.

Some local leaders worry the issue could chill cross-jurisdictional cooperation on genuine criminal cases. They argue that if cities lock down too far, they may miss chances to catch felony suspects crossing jurisdictions. Privacy advocates counter that Washington can maintain robust criminal cooperation while drawing a hard line against immigration uses — through:
– Clear labeling of purposes
– Strong audit trails
– Immediate suspension when searches cite immigration rather than a criminal predicate

So far, there is no public confirmation of how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) used the data, though ICE involvement has been suspected in some queries. Border Patrol, part of CBP, appears most directly tied to the 2025 searches in Washington. If ICE access is later confirmed, it would widen the circle of agencies subject to state oversight and could spur more departments to opt out of national lookups or revoke existing shares.

Flock Safety maintains that customers control access and sharing, and that the company does not unilaterally give federal agents entry to local networks. The company says it helps agencies comply with local law and that it is ready to support Washington departments adjusting their settings. Police chiefs, however, now want:
– Proof in the form of clearer controls
– Better alerts
– More granular logs showing when an external user even attempts a search

For residents who feel uneasy about plate tracking, the policy debate is now practical: audit logs show surveillance data flowing faster than local policy can catch. The state’s next steps — technical fixes, policy guardrails, and public reporting — will shape whether Washington’s rules on immigration enforcement hold firm when local systems plug into national networks. VisaVerge.com reports that other states with sanctuary-style limits are watching closely, since similar ALPR features are widely deployed across the country.

Washington’s response now serves as a stress test for local control in the age of networked policing. If the state can match legal intent with enforceable technical rules, departments may keep a tool they say helps solve crimes while assuring immigrant communities they are not being tracked for civil immigration enforcement. If not, the backlash against plate readers could grow, increasing pressure to scale back systems many officers consider central to modern policing.