Possible investigative benefit
Studies support faster plate checking, more hits, and possible recovery benefits in particular deployments. NIJ experiment
Why it matters
Celina has not published enough results to justify collecting everyone's travel.
License plate readers can generate investigative leads. Celina has not published local results that let residents weigh that benefit against routine collection from ordinary drivers. Independent research also does not establish broad, community-wide crime reduction.
Independent researchWe support removal
Why the evidence supports removal
Celina should have to justify collecting everyone's travel.
The case for removal rests on Celina's incomplete outcome record, routine collection from ordinary drivers, the network's reach, and documented failures elsewhere.
No established broad deterrent effect
Independent reviews found no significant reductions in several general and vehicle-crime measures and limited support for broad reduction claims. NIJ review 2025 study
Outcomes and the search audit remain unpublished
On September 7, the portal reported 404,865 reads, 193 searches, and 4,592 raw hotlist hits for the prior 30 days. It does not publish how many hits were confirmed, false positives, arrests, recoveries, missing people located, crimes prevented, or its search-level audit. Celina portal Compare one public audit example
Larger networks create more chances for error and misuse
Wrong matches, access-control failures, proxy searches, and purpose drift are documented nationally. They are not allegations about Celina.
Celina's grant testimony
The City's broad crime count leaves the outcome question unanswered.
In July 2025, Celina told the state it had 150 vehicle-related calls during 2024. The presenter said that figure could include vehicle theft, burglary from vehicles, and stolen-vehicle recoveries. The testimony did not present 150 as a count of catalytic-converter thefts or as proof that readers had solved those cases.
The same testimony requested 41 readers and described plans to share LPR data across Collin, Denton, and Grayson Counties. The next day, a Prosper representative described a regional network involving Prosper, Frisco, and Celina and mentioned ALPRs, Flock cameras, and drone response. That statement does not show that Celina operates drones or which parts of the regional network are active. Celina grant testimony Regional network testimony
Independent evidence
What studies support, and what they do not
Independent research
Arizona randomized experiment
In one National Institute of Justice experiment, ALPR patrols produced roughly eight to ten times as many plate checks, almost three times as many hits, and about twice as many vehicle recoveries as comparison methods. Those gains concern checks, hits, and recoveries in a specific deployment. They do not establish community-wide crime reduction. NIJ Arizona experiment
Independent research
CrimeSolutions deterrence review
The NIJ profile, posted in 2013 and now marked as no longer updated, rated the program ineffective and reported no statistically significant reductions in the evaluated general-crime, auto-crime, auto-theft, or theft-from-auto measures. Its age is a reason to read it alongside newer research, not as the last word. NIJ CrimeSolutions profile
Independent research
2025 peer-reviewed evaluation
The evaluation reported limited support for broad crime-reduction claims while recognizing possible investigative and efficiency benefits. Peer-reviewed study
Do not treat “up to 70% crime reduction” as an independently verified Celina outcome. The public dashboard does not report confirmed local outcomes, and promotional claims should be labeled as vendor or city claims. Celina dashboard
What the public cannot inspect
Celina reports search volume without publishing search-level context.
City policy requires each browsing inquiry to document a case or call number and/or a reason. The City now says those queries and reasons are audited by program management and that access is logged indefinitely. But the public portal does not disclose the audit entries behind its total search count. Residents therefore cannot evaluate the stated reasons, offense categories, timing, network scope, or outside-agency involvement in individual searches. City policy City technology page Celina portal
Multiple official Texas Flock portals publish a downloadable 30-day search audit, including Temple, Pflugerville, Midlothian, Kemah, Iowa Colony, Fair Oaks Ranch, Edinburg, and Denton. User IDs may be masked; the meaningful difference is that search-level entries are available for public review. These are platform comparisons, not evidence about the propriety of any particular Celina search. Temple example Pflugerville example Denton example Detailed Arvada example
Context for safeguards
What national cases show about the risks
These cases involve other jurisdictions. They show how errors, access failures, and off-purpose searches can happen; they are not allegations about Celina.
Colorado wrong-state plate incident
A Colorado family received a $1.9 million settlement after police stopped and detained them based on a plate match tied to a stolen vehicle from another state. The incident shows why plate state, image, and vehicle details need human verification. Associated Press report
2025 pilot controversy and pause
Flock paused pilot work with Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations after Illinois found that CBP accessed Illinois camera data and the vendor acknowledged that access permissions and protocols had not been sufficiently distinct. Associated Press report
Border Patrol network investigation
An AP investigation reported that Border Patrol had access to at least 1,600 readers in 22 states for a period and that local agencies sometimes ran searches on its behalf. Associated Press investigation
Johnson County, Texas records
The Electronic Frontier Foundation reported, based on records and court filings, that Johnson County deputies used Flock in an abortion-related investigation that had initially been publicly described as a missing-person matter. This is an advocacy organization's account, not a finding about Celina. EFF report and linked records
Vendor claim
Flock describes several safeguards
Flock says it has added controls that block certain immigration and reproductive-health search terms and gives agencies control over sharing. It also says configured retention is enforced through automated deletion, subject to legal holds and other obligations. Those statements do not show which features Celina has enabled, who searched Celina data, or what happens to copies already shared with another organization. Access controls Compliance tools Immigration-search statement Deletion statement
Policy conclusion
Celina's activity counts do not show enough benefit to justify keeping the network.
More scans, searches, or raw alerts show activity. They do not establish verified matches, recovered vehicles, located missing people, fewer crimes, or fair and lawful use. The published record does not justify continued collection, so this site calls on the City to remove the network.
Email City Council