Rhode Island police departments that use license plate reading cameras now have statewide rules to follow, if they choose to.
The McKee administration released new guidelines Monday for Flock cameras installed around the state to record identifying details of every car passing by them.
"Automated license plate readers can be a valuable tool for law enforcement, but we need to make sure they're being used responsibly and that people's privacy is protected," McKee said in a statement.
The governor is keeping in place his pause on new installations while lawmakers draft legislation to codify the proposed safeguards. Meanwhile, more than 300 automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras already deployed across the state will stay up and running unless local communities take them down.
What the policy does
The State Police drafted the proposed new safeguards with input from the Rhode Island Police Chiefs' Association, the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns and the state's Police Accreditation Commission.
That list doesn't include civil liberties groups. The ACLU of Rhode Island says it urged the working group to model the policy on a bill that has stalled at the State House.
"It's an admirable attempt to put in some rules around these systems, but we do think it's lacking in some key areas," said ACLU policy associate Madalyn McGunagle.
The proposed new standards bar the use of Flock cameras for immigration enforcement, for investigations into reproductive or gender-affirming healthcare, for harassment, or to pursue conduct that isn't a crime under Rhode Island law, which would include traveling here from another state to seek an abortion.
The new policy would require deleting license plate data within 30 days unless it has been flagged for an ongoing investigation.
Police departments would be required to post a public "transparency portal" showing how many cameras they run, how long they keep the data, and which agencies can see it. Each police department’s ALPR administrator would audit searches every three months.
The policy would also restrict who can access the data from Rhode Island Flock cameras. Outside agencies would have to agree not to share the data with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, private companies, or any agency that hasn't signed a similar agreement.
The penalty for breaking the agreement: the outside agency loses access.
Where critics say it falls short
The ACLU of Rhode Island says it is still studying the new policy. But in a statement Monday, the group said even a quick read turned up "fundamental concerns."
The first is how the policy defines a legitimate reason to run a search. It allows the cameras to be used for "information gathering," the "prevention of crime," and "ensuring the safety of the public," whether or not anyone suspects a crime has been committed.
"In other words, for just about any reason," the ACLU wrote.
The group also says 30 days is too long to keep the data. That’s longer than Flock Safety's own default, which the company cut to seven days in August, responding to nationwide criticism.
Other states, including every other New England state except Massachusetts, set their own limits on how long they keep the data. Connecticut’s new law, which took effect Oct. 1, sets the data retention limit at 21 days.
"My favorite is New Hampshire," McGunagle said. "They keep it for three minutes.”
McKee’s policy does not stop the cameras from photographing drivers and passengers, or rule out using Flock images for facial recognition.
And while the policy warns that officers who misuse the system could face criminal prosecution or civil liability, the ACLU says that's an empty threat until the state actually passes a law that makes misuse a crime.
Rhode Island currently has no statewide law regulating Flock cameras. Lawmakers have tried every session for the past few years, but those efforts have struggled to get traction on Smith Hill.
Last session's bill, which died in the House Judiciary Committee, would have gone further than the governor’s new proposal. It called for limiting the use of the cameras to finding stolen cars and missing or endangered people, as well as investigating violent felonies and domestic violence. Towns would have to sign off before cameras went up. Police would have to publish a log of how they used the system.
"Policies can be changed at any moment," McGunagle said. "So a strong statewide bill is the most important part."
She says she's heard numerous legislators say this will be the year such a bill finally moves forward.
The cop who spoke up
Former Pawtucket police officer Noel Pichardo raised many of the same concerns from inside a police department, and paid for it.
Pichardo says the department hounded him out after he raised privacy concerns about the Flock cameras Pawtucket installed in 2023. The department suspended him without pay for 30 days. Over the next two years, he faced four more internal affairs investigations. Pichardo resigned in 2025 after the chief recommended firing him.
Pichardo’s union, which backed him over the first suspension, told WIRED it saw no evidence the later investigations were retaliatory.
Pichardo said what bothered him from the start was how little it takes to get swept up in a database that’s accessible from every patrol car.
"It doesn't require a violation, it doesn't require anything," Pichardo recently told Ocean State Media. "It's just a blanket mass surveillance system that tracks every car, and then it creates a network of where that car goes."
Pichardo doesn't dispute that the cameras help police.
"It is going to make catching criminals faster. That is true," he said. "My point is, and a lot of other people are saying, at what price?"
McKee’s new policy would bind only the agencies that sign on. Once data leaves Rhode Island, it’s not clear who’s watching how it is used.
Bristol's one camera
Bristol shows the limits of local rules.
The town has a single Flock camera at the Mount Hope Bridge, which links Bristol to Portsmouth and Aquidneck Island.
Earlier this year, the Bristol Town Council adopted what Councilor Aaron Ley calls one of the most stringent Flock ordinances in Rhode Island. The council has to reauthorize the camera after 18 months, or it comes down. Any new camera needs a council vote.
But the ordinance covers only the Bristol police. Ley says they don't even have access to the system, which the state police run.
"It's their camera, their data," Ley said of the state police. "They choose who they will be sharing it with."
The state police promise not to share it for immigration enforcement. But Ley worries about what happens after that.
"They might also be able to reshare that data with somebody else who's going to use it for purposes that are inconsistent with our values," he said.
Ley ultimately voted against the Bristol ordinance because he thought it should have gone further. He wants state law, not police policy, setting the rules. And he says auditing 10 searches a quarter, the standard the state police brought to Bristol, isn't nearly enough.
"We're talking about millions and millions of scans and tens of thousands of searches," he said.
The model policy unveiled Monday by McKee will be reviewed every year. Whether it ever becomes more than a model depends on the General Assembly, which convenes in January with a new governor in office.
