In a months‑long review of public records, investigators found that police departments across the United States have been querying a national database of license‑plate reader data that includes feeds from school district cameras to support immigration enforcement tied to the Trump administration. Audit logs covering a one‑month span from December 2025 through early January show thousands of agencies ran hundreds of thousands of searches against camera networks that include school parking lots and nearby street‑mounted devices. The records — supplied to independent education outlet The 74 by advocacy researchers — show immigration‑related justifications recorded hundreds of times, and identify specific Texas school districts and local police partners involved in the queries. The disclosures raise questions about whether student‑safety surveillance systems have been repurposed to help federal immigration operations.
Key takeaways
- Over one month (Dec 2025–early Jan), more than 3,100 police agencies ran in excess of 733,000 searches on licence‑plate data tied to the Alvin Independent School District’s eight Flock Safety cameras.
- Audit logs show immigration‑related reasons were cited at least 620 times by 30 law enforcement agencies in that Alvin dataset, including agencies in Florida, Georgia, Indiana and Tennessee.
- Flock Safety devices have been installed by more than 100 public school systems and the company reports operating roughly 90,000 cameras across about 7,000 networks nationwide.
- Alvin ISD (about 30,000 students) purchased eight Flock cameras beginning in 2023 and documented expenditures of more than $50,000 for those devices.
- Several agencies appearing in the logs participate in the federal 287(g) program; that program’s local deputization has expanded markedly during President Trump’s second term, growing roughly 600% in that period.
Background
License‑plate readers (LPRs) and related camera systems produced by private companies such as Flock Safety are marketed to schools and local governments as tools to deter and investigate campus crime: they capture plate numbers, timestamps and locations, and upload that metadata to cloud systems for search and analysis. Many customers can opt to share their camera streams or data with other law‑enforcement agencies through a company’s nationwide lookup service; that sharing model is central to how searches in one district can return results from another.
In recent years, federal immigration agencies have increased collaboration with local police in some jurisdictions, using tools and information supplied by local partners to locate and detain people suspected of immigration violations. Advocacy groups and academic researchers have warned that broad data sharing can turn systems designed for public‑safety purposes into instruments supporting federal enforcement objectives, with potential privacy and civil‑liberties implications for students and families.
Main event
Public records obtained from multiple Texas school districts and analyzed by The 74 and allied researchers show that out‑of‑state and local police searched a national LPR database that included cameras on school campuses. In one detailed dataset from the Alvin Independent School District, more than 733,000 queries were logged over roughly one month, and at least 620 entries explicitly referenced immigration as the reason for the search.
Records and interviews indicate that some local police departments conducted those queries to help the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or its components, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In a number of cases the audit trails show searches labeled with terms such as “ICE,” “ERO proactive crim case research” and “CBP Investigation.” School officials who supplied records did not confirm that districts themselves ran searches for immigration purposes.
The logs show that campus police used Flock cameras for routine local investigations — traffic complaints, vandalism and other campus incidents — while outside agencies used the same nationwide lookup to query any camera a Flock customer has elected to share. In at least one district, an administrative staffer for the campus police granted Border Patrol access to district LPRs in May, records indicate.
Analysis & implications
These records highlight several intersecting concerns: the breadth of data captured by modern surveillance systems; the ways private companies mediate data access between customers and outside agencies; and the potential for information gathered for one stated purpose (student safety) to be used for another (immigration enforcement). When school cameras are part of a searchable national network, any participating agency’s nationwide query can touch cameras beyond the district’s borders.
For immigrant families, the consequences are tangible. Investigators and advocates described instances where parents and students were stopped during school drop‑offs or pick‑ups, with cameras installed in parking lots and nearby streets providing movement traces. That dynamic can chill school participation and raise safety concerns for children whose caregivers fear enforcement action, complicating schools’ basic obligation to provide a safe learning environment.
From a policy perspective, the disclosures create pressure on districts and vendors to clarify data‑sharing settings, disclosure practices and contractual terms. Legal questions also arise about the interaction of broad camera sharing with federal student‑privacy protections and state privacy laws. Attorneys and researchers say many districts may not have fully considered whether enabling nationwide lookups on third‑party platforms could expose students and families to immigration enforcement activity.
Comparison & data
| Metric | Count / detail |
|---|---|
| Alvin ISD searches (one month) | 733,000+ |
| Agencies querying Alvin cameras | 3,100+ |
| Immigration‑tagged queries in Alvin logs | 620 entries by 30 agencies |
| Flock cameras installed in Alvin ISD | 8 devices; district ~30,000 students |
| Flock national footprint (company figure) | ~90,000 cameras across ~7,000 networks |
| Alvin ISD spend on cameras | More than $50,000 since 2023 |
The table above places the Alvin dataset in context. The volume of queries (hundreds of thousands in a month) and the participation of thousands of law‑enforcement agencies show how a single district’s shared cameras can surface in broad national lookups. Company‑reported totals for camera installations nationwide indicate the technical capacity for searches to reach many school systems, depending on customer sharing settings.
Reactions & quotes
Researchers and advocates expressed alarm about the scope and downstream effects of the searches.
“This just really underscores how far‑reaching these systems can be,”
Phil Neff, University of Washington Center for Human Rights (research coordinator)
Organizers who provided records to investigators emphasized the community impact of routine surveillance and the difficulty local residents have in understanding how their data may be used.
“The scale of it is phenomenal, and it’s something I think is difficult for people to fully appreciate,”
Ed Vogel, NOTICE Coalition (researcher and organizer)
Flock Safety has publicly said the company does not grant DHS direct access to customer cameras and that sharing decisions are made by the data owner.
“ICE cannot directly access Flock cameras or data. Local public‑safety agencies sometimes collaborate with federal partners on serious crimes… decisions about how data is shared are made by the customer that owns the data, not by Flock,”
Flock Safety (company statement)
Unconfirmed
- There is incomplete documentation about whether school districts were explicitly aware that outside agencies were using their shared cameras for immigration‑related searches.
- Not every search tagged as immigration‑related in the logs has been independently verified as directly resulting in an ICE or CBP arrest or civil enforcement action.
- Company statements and public records differ on the extent and technical modalities of prior pilot programs with DHS; details and current scope require further confirmation from the parties involved.
Bottom line
The records reviewed by investigators show a technical and procedural pathway by which school‑owned camera data can surface in federal immigration investigations when districts or vendors permit nationwide lookups. For families in immigrant communities, the consequences are immediate: surveillance intended for campus safety can produce information used in civil immigration enforcement, with potential disruptions to school attendance and community trust.
Policymakers, school boards and vendors face near‑term choices about transparency, default sharing settings, contract terms and oversight. Clearer disclosure to parents and formal limits on cross‑jurisdictional lookups would help districts weigh safety benefits against privacy harms; absent reforms, the trend documented in these logs is likely to fuel legal and political debates about surveillance in schools.
Sources
- The Guardian (news report summarizing The 74 investigation; international news outlet)
- The 74 (investigative reporting on education and the source of the audit‑log analysis; independent nonprofit)
- Flock Safety (company statements and product information; private vendor)
- University of Washington Center for Human Rights (UWCHR) (academic research and expert commentary)