Philadelphia leaders have asked Pennsylvania to place stronger limits on license plate readers. But there is a detail worth knowing before anybody assumes the city has turned off its cameras: Philadelphia police say they have 137 license plate readers of their own. They also say those readers are not from Flock Safety, the company at the center of much of the controversy.
That difference matters. On September 24, 2026, City Council adopted a resolution asking state lawmakers to act. On October 19, the Pennsylvania House passed a bill that would set new rules statewide. Neither action automatically removed a camera from a Philadelphia street. And the state proposal was still awaiting Senate consideration in early November.
So is Philadelphia planning to ban the technology, regulate it, or continue using it? The answer depends on which government decision you are talking about.
What did Philadelphia’s City Council actually do?
Councilmember Rue Landau introduced Resolution 260730, asking Pennsylvania lawmakers to ban Flock cameras and establish strong safeguards for other automatic license plate reader systems. Council adopted it on September 24 after hearing from people concerned about both privacy and crime.
A resolution like this is a public statement of what city lawmakers want another government to do. It is not the same thing as passing a local ordinance that immediately prohibits Philadelphia police from using their equipment.
During the debate, residents raised concerns about information on innocent drivers becoming searchable. Others pointed out that cameras can help officers locate stolen vehicles. CBS Philadelphia reported both perspectives and quoted a Flock spokesperson arguing that a blanket ban could deprive police of a useful investigative tool. The company also expressed support for bipartisan regulation.
City Council’s concerns focused heavily on data sharing and the chance that somebody could search a driver’s movements for an improper reason. Even when cameras capture public roads, storing large numbers of ordinary trips can produce a much more revealing record than a single photograph.
Why does Philadelphia still have 137 license plate readers?
The Philadelphia Police Department told CBS in September that it did not use Flock Safety, but that 137 license plate readers were positioned across the city. Some police vehicles also had plate recognition capabilities.
Those are statements about Philadelphia’s own police equipment, not a count of every camera owned by businesses, neighboring agencies or other authorities in the metropolitan area. Nor does a different manufacturer make privacy concerns disappear. The important questions remain: who can search the records, how long they are stored and which agencies can receive them.
There is a practical police argument, too. A plate reader may alert officers that a vehicle was reported stolen or help identify a car connected to a serious crime. But a plate sighting is not proof of who was driving or whether the person behind the wheel committed a crime. Good policy has to account for both uses and mistakes.
What did the Pennsylvania House vote for?
On October 19, Pennsylvania’s House approved House Bill 2771 by a vote of 190 to 13. The proposal was sent to the Senate and referred to its Transportation Committee on October 26, according to the official legislative record. As of November 9, it had not become law.
Under the House sponsor’s explanation, the bill would limit government use of license plate readers to law enforcement, certain parking functions and controlled access to secure areas. It would normally require plate information unrelated to an investigation or enforcement matter to be deleted within 72 hours. Requirements would also address auditing, staff training and improper sharing.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania’s analysis describes additional proposed protections for searches of older records and access by other agencies, including warrant requirements in defined circumstances. Those are details of legislation under consideration, not rules every Pennsylvania department already must follow.
Why does 72 hours matter? Think about a driver who passes the same camera on the way to work every day. A brief retention period would normally erase those routine sightings sooner. But a record preserved as evidence in a particular case may be treated differently. A useful law needs to make that distinction clear.
Would a statewide law apply beyond Philadelphia?
Yes, if legislation is enacted as written and applicable to the agency involved. A state law could set rules for government departments in big cities, suburbs and rural counties. That is much broader than Philadelphia changing its own camera contract.
But not every device photographing a license plate is part of a police tracking network. Cameras used for specific tolling, speeding or red light enforcement can have separate rules. The bill’s supporters have drawn a distinction between those systems and databases that record ordinary traffic for later searches.
That is also why the Council resolution and House bill should not be described as identical. Philadelphia’s resolution urged lawmakers to consider a Flock ban and stronger restrictions. The House instead advanced a statewide framework regulating the technology under specified conditions.
What should Philadelphia residents watch next?
The next decision belongs to Pennsylvania’s Senate. A House vote does not guarantee the Senate will approve the same language, and a proposal that changes in the legislative process is not the same as an enacted law.
Meanwhile, people in Philadelphia can ask the police department for its current retention, search, sharing and audit rules. Does the 137 camera figure still describe its network? Are vehicle mounted readers governed by the same policy? Can residents see meaningful reports about successful investigations and improper access?
For an example of what happened when a state actually enacted new restrictions, see our Washington article comparing cities that restarted their cameras with agencies that shut theirs down. Pennsylvania is still debating its answer. Philadelphia’s story is a reminder that asking for a rule, voting on a proposal and changing what happens on the street are three different stages.
Sources
Philadelphia City Council, September 24, 2026: adopted Resolution 260730; CBS Philadelphia, September 24, 2026: police camera count, Council debate and vendor response; Pennsylvania General Assembly: House Bill 2771, House vote and Senate status through October 26; Pennsylvania House, October 19, 2026: sponsor’s explanation of the bill; ACLU of Pennsylvania: analysis of proposed protections and exceptions.