FRANKFORT, Ky. — Kentucky lawmakers are considering additional regulations for automated license plate readers as the technology becomes more widespread across the state, driven by privacy concerns and questions about police oversight of the surveillance devices.

The Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary discussed the need for tighter controls during a meeting on Thursday, hearing from technology vendors, law enforcement advocates and civil liberties groups about balancing public safety with personal privacy.

House Bill 58, which became law in July, established the state's first comprehensive regulations for automated license plate readers, limiting how long law enforcement agencies can retain data and restricting the technology's use to legitimate investigative purposes.

Kevin Kane, director of governmental affairs for Flock Safety, the largest provider of the cameras nationwide, told lawmakers that his company supports stricter safeguards. "ALPRs have become a vital tool for law enforcement investigations, but we also believe it must be used in concert with strong policy and guardrails," Kane said.

The Flock representative acknowledged that lawmakers raised concerns about potential facial recognition capabilities and data access without warrants. Kane said Flock does not currently use facial recognition technology and that the company follows all applicable laws.

Rep. T.J. Roberts, R-Burlington, pressed Kane on whether Flock would voluntarily adopt procedures requiring search warrants for data access. Rep. Nima Kulkarni, D-Louisville, asked whether the private company would comply with any future Kentucky regulations the state enacts.

The American Civil Liberties Union urged lawmakers to strengthen the existing law. The ACLU recommended reducing the 90-day data retention period to 48 hours and requiring independent audits of how law enforcement accesses the data.

Sen. Danny Carroll, R-Paducah, supported the technology as a crime-fighting tool while acknowledging the need for regulations. "This is a tool that will save lives and solve crimes," Carroll said. "Do we need to find out and research and make decisions on what the parameters are on how it's used? Absolutely."

House Majority Whip Jason Nemes, R-Middletown, advocated for a warrant requirement before law enforcement can access the data, saying: "I don't know why we wouldn't require a warrant unless there's exigent circumstances. That's the way we make sure our Fourth Amendment isn't destroyed."

Lawmakers cannot introduce new legislation until the 2027 session begins on Jan. 5. The next Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary meeting is scheduled for Oct. 1.