Indianapolis council members from both parties draft new oversight rules for police surveillance technology

Members of the Indianapolis City-County Council are preparing bipartisan legislation to rein in how police use surveillance technology, after Flock automated license plate readers were allegedly misused by officers in Indianapolis and elsewhere in Indiana.

At least eight Indiana officers face criminal misconduct and fraud charges connected to Flock camera searches, five of them in Indianapolis. According to IndyStar's reporting, most of the officers looked up spouses, exes and people connected to romantic partners — in some cases running thousands of searches — and at least one officer is accused of tracking strangers.

Councilors Jesse Brown and John Barth have drafted a proposal called the Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology, or TRUST, Ordinance, along with a resolution creating a resident-led oversight board. The draft covers license plate readers, facial recognition software, gunshot detection systems and drones. It would require a public hearing before a local agency starts using a new surveillance tool, restrict how long data is kept, set how often systems are audited, and require public reports. Brown has been pushing for oversight since June and says a proposal could pass by the end of the year.

Republican Councilor Michael-Paul Hart said he supports the direction, arguing the council should balance the cameras' value in solving violent crimes against residents' privacy. Council President Maggie Lewis has also said the council needs to take time to put guardrails around Flock, and Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett has backed stronger accountability for how police use the technology. IMPD Chief Tanya Terry has told councilors she supports legislative oversight of plate-reading cameras.

Brown and Barth say their draft was influenced by Austin, Texas, which ended its Flock contract and then adopted a surveillance regulation ordinance in April 2026. Both councilors acknowledge that banning a vendor outright is legally difficult, which is why the proposal focuses on hearings, limits and transparency instead.