"Indiana has zero regulation on automated license plate reader cameras, meaning these cameras can take photos and retain them for as long as they want," Walker Lasbury, director of the advocacy group Eyes Off Indiana, told local reporters in early 2026. That statement captures a genuine, unresolved gap in Indiana law that's playing out simultaneously across the state's largest city and some of its fastest-growing suburbs Indianapolis's police department operates one of the more extensive municipal surveillance networks in the state, while Hamilton County communities including Carmel, Noblesville, and Fishers face genuine, organized resident pushback over the same underlying technology.
At the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's real-time crime center, analysts have access to live feeds and search capability spanning more than 300 automated license plate readers, 160 IMPD-owned cameras, and roughly 150 additional cameras positioned outside local businesses a genuinely comprehensive, centralized surveillance infrastructure. IMPD Deputy Chief of Criminal Investigations Kendale Adams has framed this technology within a broader cultural shift around cameras generally, noting that "everybody has a camera in their hand most of the time, and they are recording every day" a framing that positions IMPD's own camera network as an extension of an already camera-saturated public environment rather than a novel surveillance expansion.
Indiana currently has no statewide law governing automated license plate readers at all no required limits on how long agencies retain location data, no standardized rules on who can search stored data, and no mandated audit or oversight process verifying that departments actually use the technology according to their own stated policies. This regulatory gap matters directly because, unlike a single department's internal policy that could change without public notice or legislative process, statewide legislation would create binding, consistent rules across every Indiana jurisdiction operating this technology the absence of any such statewide framework means privacy protections currently vary entirely based on individual department policy, with no guaranteed floor of protection for Indiana residents regardless of which specific jurisdiction's cameras happen to capture their movements.
Residents in Carmel, Noblesville, and Fishers have specifically organized pushback against expanding automatic license plate reader deployment in early 2026, citing both general privacy concerns and the specific absence of Indiana legislation regulating the technology's use. Jamie Hudson, Flock Safety's director of real-time and drone-as-first-responder consulting, defended the technology directly during a January 2026 press conference at the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office, stating the technology "allows police to respond more quickly to active situations and is not meant to be used for the surveilling of general society," while acknowledging that oversight depends genuinely on "departments hir[ing] ethical people, writ[ing] sound policy and hav[ing] oversight on those policies." This framing that responsible use depends on department discretion and internal policy rather than binding external regulation is precisely the framing privacy advocates argue is insufficient given the technology's genuine capability for comprehensive location tracking.
The ACLU of Indiana's "Get Flock Out of Indiana" campaign has specifically highlighted that Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection have repeatedly accessed Flock Safety's networked camera data to pursue immigration enforcement actions without warrants a genuinely significant concern given that Flock's networked system allows participating agencies to search camera data from other agencies' jurisdictions, meaning a Hoosier's location data captured by a local Indiana police department's cameras isn't necessarily contained to that specific department's own use. This cross-jurisdictional data-sharing capability represents a qualitatively different privacy risk than a single department's isolated camera network would present, since it means local camera deployment decisions can have consequences extending well beyond the specific municipality that installed the cameras in the first place.
Indiana lawmakers have joined a genuinely broader national legislative trend lawmakers in 35 states proposed nearly 100 pieces of license plate reader legislation in a recent legislative session, largely seeking to prohibit states from sharing or selling years of accumulated location-tracking data. Indiana Capital Chronicle reporting from June 2026 documented specific state-level proposals aimed at limiting license plate camera data sharing, reflecting genuine legislative momentum toward the kind of statewide regulatory framework Indiana has thus far lacked entirely. Privacy advocates have specifically called for requiring deletion of records for people not suspected of any crime within days or weeks, rather than the effectively unlimited retention periods current Indiana law permits.
Some Indiana police departments have proactively adopted internal safeguards ahead of any statewide mandate Fishers police, for instance, require officers to input a specific reason for using their Flock system for any given search, and Hamilton County and Carmel Police Department have established their own data retention and disposition requirements independent of state law. This kind of proactive, department-level self-regulation illustrates a genuine middle path some Indiana agencies are pursuing while broader statewide legislation remains unresolved though privacy advocates would note that voluntary, department-specific policy, however well-intentioned, still lacks the binding, externally-enforced accountability that formal statewide legislation would provide.
For Indiana municipalities evaluating their own license plate reader or broader surveillance camera investment, the genuinely honest picture is one of significant legal and political uncertainty the current absence of statewide regulation gives individual departments considerable operational flexibility today, but the growing legislative momentum documented throughout this article suggests that flexibility may narrow considerably depending on how Indiana's General Assembly ultimately resolves the current legislative proposals. Cities considering new surveillance technology investment should build in genuine policy flexibility from the outset data retention limits, search authorization requirements, and audit capability that can adapt to whatever statewide framework eventually emerges, rather than building deployment strategies purely around today's unregulated environment.
Frequently asked questions
The department's real-time crime center has access to more than 300 automated license plate readers, 160 IMPD-owned cameras, and roughly 150 additional cameras positioned outside local businesses.
No. Indiana currently has no statewide law limiting data retention periods, standardizing search access, or requiring audit and oversight for automated license plate reader systems.
Residents in Carmel, Noblesville, and Fishers have organized opposition citing general privacy concerns and Indiana's specific lack of legislation regulating how the technology can be used and how long data can be retained.
Networked systems like Flock Safety allow participating agencies to search camera data across jurisdictions, meaning local Indiana police camera data has reportedly been accessed by federal immigration enforcement without warrants.
Yes. Indiana joins a broader national trend of 35 states proposing nearly 100 pieces of related legislation, with Indiana-specific proposals documented as recently as June 2026 aimed at limiting data sharing.
Yes. Fishers police require officers to document a specific reason for each search, and Hamilton County and Carmel Police Department have established their own data retention requirements independent of any statewide mandate.
Related articles
Public Safety
