Kentucky lawmakers are weighing whether police should need a warrant to search Flock license plate reader databases. The proposal could reshape how Northern Kentucky departments use cameras several local cities have already dropped.

The Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary heard testimony Sept. 3 from law enforcement, the ACLU of Kentucky and the Cato Institute on whether the state's new license plate reader law goes far enough, the Kentucky Lantern reported.

The hearing comes as Edgewood, Fort Mitchell, Newport, Independence and other NKY cities have ended or paused their Flock Safety camera programs amid resident pushback over privacy and surveillance concerns.

State Rep. TJ Roberts, R-Burlington, told reporters after the hearing he would have more to say on specific legislation but did not name a bill. Roberts raised concerns about data retention and warrantless access to the camera databases. He also questioned Flock Safety's director of governmental affairs, Kevin Kane, about the company's patents for facial recognition technology.

"Most Kentuckians are law-abiding, peaceful citizens who are just looking to go to work, raise their family, and live a good life … That said, we cannot render everyone a suspect because if you say that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear, that's like saying you shouldn't care about free speech because you have nothing to say," Roberts said.

Kane told the committee Flock cameras are used by more than 6,000 law enforcement agencies nationally and that police departments using the technology find an average of 27 missing persons per day. Kane denied the company uses facial recognition, according to Spectrum News.

House Majority Whip Jason Nemes, R-Louisville, said he supports requiring a warrant for most Flock searches, with exceptions for emergencies. Republican lawmakers have not discussed the issue as a caucus, Nemes said.

The ACLU and Cato Institute both pushed for tighter rules. Kate Miller, advocacy director of the ACLU of Kentucky, said the state's recently enacted House Bill 58 included "important guardrails" but pushed for shorter data retention of 48 hours, a pause on new Flock contracts and independent annual audits. HB 58, signed by Gov. Andy Beshear and effective July 15, caps data retention at 90 days and requires agencies to adopt written policies. It does not require a warrant.

Laura Bondank-Harmon, manager of legal programs for the Cato Institute, proposed requiring judicial warrants for database searches with exceptions for stolen vehicles and active Amber Alerts. She also called for a legal cause of action for victims of illegal surveillance searches and public access to audit records.

Misuse cases drove much of the urgency. In Louisville, a detective was disciplined after allowing a federal agent to use the city's Flock system for unauthorized immigration-related searches, according to the Kentucky Lantern. In southern Indiana, a sheriff's deputy was charged with official misconduct after allegedly making more than 2,000 searches for his ex-girlfriend's car.

Elizabethtown Police Chief Jeremy Thompson offered the strongest defense of the technology, telling the committee it aided in finding a kidnapped child and recovering stolen vehicles.

Locally, Edgewood paused its four Flock cameras Sept. 1 and will not take up the issue until its Oct. 5 council meeting. Fort Mitchell Mayor Greg Pohlgeers terminated that city's $34,000 Flock contract in August.

The Kentucky General Assembly returns to Frankfort in January, when Roberts and other lawmakers could file warrant-requirement legislation.