Across the nation, law enforcement's reliance on sophisticated spying technologies is sparking widespread public outcry. Tools such as **Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)**, **cell-site simulators**, and **facial recognition** are becoming commonplace, raising significant concerns about their impact on civil liberties. In response to these anxieties, some authorities are deliberately obscuring their surveillance activities. Police departments have been found instructing officers to avoid mentioning ALPRs during vehicle stops and to conceal their use to circumvent public records requests. This practice of concealing unpopular surveillance tools is not new but remains a critical issue, preventing public oversight of taxpayer-funded technologies and hindering accountability. This lack of transparency is particularly troubling as many municipalities enter contracts with ALPR vendors like **Flock Safety** with minimal public scrutiny. Such concealment also violates disclosure obligations, allowing police and prosecutors to hide their tactics from judges and denying defendants the opportunity to challenge evidence gathered through these technologies. **404 Media** recently exposed a usage policy in an Iowa county that explicitly instructs police to keep **Flock ALPR** camera usage secret during detentions. The policy states: “DO NOT MENTION ALPR USAGE TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE VEHICLE,” and “DO NOT MENTION ALPR USAGE IN YOUR REPORT OR COMPLAINT UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.” Officers are advised to use vague terms like “county resources” instead of acknowledging ALPRs. Similarly, police in Houston have been told to “be as vague as permissible” about their use of Flock systems, fearing that search data could be obtained through public records requests. Public alarm over ALPR cameras and reports of abuse, such as officers using the tech to spy on ex-partners, are growing. Some cities are covering up these cameras, while others are canceling their ALPR network contracts. Texas and Florida have also recently scaled back their use of ALPRs, a trend not lost on law enforcement agencies who may see concealment as a way to avoid scrutiny and negative public relations. However, the practice of law enforcement and their vendors keeping surveillance technologies under wraps predates the current backlash against Flock. For instance, **AT&T** developed a powerful phone surveillance tool for police called **Hemisphere** in the mid-2000s. The company required agencies to only use Hemisphere-derived evidence in court if no other admissible evidence existed, mandating “parallel construction” to recreate evidence through traditional subpoenas—a process critics dubbed “evidence laundering.” Police and prosecutors have also gone to great lengths to hide their use of cell-site simulators, or **Stingrays**, from the public and courts. These devices trick cell phones into connecting to them instead of legitimate towers to obtain location data, often without a warrant, by deceptively obtaining basic pen register orders. In Baltimore, a judge concluded that law enforcement intentionally hid its use of a Stingray with a standard pen register order, leading to a landmark 2015 privacy ruling that requires warrants for such devices. Despite this, efforts to mislead courts and defense attorneys continued. Prosecutors have accepted plea deals and even dropped cases to avoid disclosing Stingray usage. U.S. Marshals have gone as far as driving files hundreds of miles to thwart public records requests. At Ghost Protocol, our commitment to exposing surveillance tech is unwavering. We collaborate with privacy advocates and community groups to raise awareness about existing and emerging spy tools that threaten civil liberties, pushing policymakers and lawmakers to restrain warrantless mass surveillance before it takes root. If you're curious about whether your local police have contracts for ALPRs or other surveillance technologies, you can search EFF's [Atlas of Surveillance](https://www.atlasofsurveillance.org/).