Cleveland · Jeremy Pelzer · September 8, 2026
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- As growing public concern about Flock cameras has made them an increasingly significant political issue, two of the three candidates for Ohio governor this year are backing major new restrictions on the automated license plate readers.
Democratic nominee Amy Acton and Libertarian Don Kissick each want some sort of ban on the controversial cameras, which in recent years have been set up in thousands of communities nationwide, including dozens in Ohio.
Republican Vivek Ramaswamy, whose campaign didn't reply to questions for this story, has voiced similar misgivings, warning that the cameras could lead to a "Chinese-style surveillance state" if their use isn't tightly constrained.
However, the Columbus-area entrepreneur has offered few details so far about exactly what policies and restrictions he would seek to create if elected.
The issue of Flock cameras will likely be something Ohio's next governor will have to address, as lawmakers from both parties are currently drawing up proposed new restrictions on the cameras, including a public-sector ban.
Many Ohio cities are also currently weighing the cameras' public-safety benefits against privacy, data-sharing, and surveillance concerns.
This is the tenth in a series of stories in which The Plain Dealer and cleveland.com will examine where the 2026 candidates for Ohio governor stand on key issues leading up to November. Each story will ask the candidates to lay out what's behind their campaign statements and explain specifically how they will put their proposals into practice if elected to the most powerful position in Ohio government.
The Plain Dealer and cleveland.com posed these three questions to the candidates:
1. Overall, do you think Flock cameras are a net positive or a net negative for Ohio? Why?
2. What restrictions on Flock cameras, if any, do you specifically support? That includes (but isn't limited to) rules requiring Flock camera data to be automatically erased after a set period of time, only allowing law enforcement to use such data if they get a warrant, restricting where such cameras can be located, and banning their use either entirely or in certain cases (such as for ICE to use in immigration cases and free-speech activity)
3. If you support any new rules regarding Flock cameras, which would you be able to do unilaterally as governor, and which would require state lawmakers to pass legislation?
Background on Flock cameras
The AI-powered license plate reader cameras, sold by Atlanta-based Flock Safety and similar companies, are used by law enforcement agencies, other government entities and private businesses to capture license plate numbers and other information from vehicles in public spaces and store it in searchable databases.
Proponents of the cameras, including outgoing Gov. Mike DeWine, Attorney General Andy Wilson, and police departments around the state, say automated license-plate readers have helped solve serious crimes, recover stolen vehicles and locate missing people.
At the same time, activists have pushed back against the cameras in Cleveland and several Ohio cities, arguing they allow police to conduct broad surveillance of people who aren't suspected of crimes.
Critics have pointed in particular to evidence that Flock systems in Cleveland and Columbus were often used to help federal officials enforce immigration laws.
Several Ohio lawmakers from both parties are working to draft legislation that, among other things, would prohibit government agencies from deploying Flock cameras, mandate warrants for law-enforcement searches, and require data to be deleted after 10 days.
However, bills introduced this late in the legislative session, which ends in December, usually don't pass. That would mean Flock critics would have to reintroduce their legislation next session, when Ohio's next governor will have the power to sign or veto any bills that reach his or her desk.
Acton
Acton, a former state health director from suburban Columbus, "would support bipartisan legislation banning the use of Flock across Ohio" if elected governor, according to campaign spokeswoman Virginia Schaus.
Schaus' statement didn't specify exactly how stringent of a ban that Acton favors. On Thursday, Republican state Rep. Levi Dean of Xenia announced he would soon introduce legislation to prohibit government entities from deploying Flock cameras and other "mass surveillance technologies."
Acton also supports a recent request from a bipartisan group of state lawmakers for the Ohio Department of Transportation to stop approvals of any new automatic license-plate readers along state highways, as well as review all existing permits, Schaus said.
As recently as last week, Acton gave a less definitive answer when asked by reporters for her stance on Flock cameras.
She noted DeWine's praise for the cameras to help solve crimes and vowed only that her administration would conduct "a very comprehensive overview" of public safety and emergency-response efforts.
"We're working very closely with our law-enforcement officers to use technology in all the right ways to protect Ohioans," Acton said.
Kissick
Kissick, a TV station control-room operator from Ottawa, expressed strong criticism of automated license plate readers and vowed to take major steps to restrict their use if elected.
In an email, Kissick said that upon taking office, he would immediately issue an executive order banning the Ohio Department of Public Safety from using Flock cameras.
He said he would then push state lawmakers to put additional restrictions in state law, including a ban on any public-sector entity in Ohio deploying Flock cameras.
Kissick said he would only support lesser restrictions on public-sector use if state lawmakers refuse to pass an outright ban.
While he wouldn't seek a similar ban on private-sector cameras because of constitutional concerns, Kissick said he favors "strict limits" on how government - at any level - can get information from private cameras, including requiring law enforcement to obtain warrants before accessing it.
"I am unwaveringly opposed to Flock cameras as well as all other ALPRs entering the market," Kissick said. "The threat to civil liberties these cameras pose goes against every principle on which our society was founded."
Ramaswamy
Ramaswamy's campaign did not respond to questions for this story, continuing a pattern of declining to answer detailed questions from The Plain Dealer and cleveland.com about the candidate's positions on major policy issues.
The Republican nominee has also, so far, said little in public about what, if anything, he specifically would do about Flock cameras as governor.
However, when asked about the issue, the Republican nominee has expressed fears that Flock cameras could eventually threaten Ohioans' constitutional rights.
"If the government is able to and does map out every movement you make, ...It's not hard to imagine a Chinese-style surveillance state," Ramaswamy said when asked at the Butler County Fair on July 29 about his thoughts on Flock cameras.
Speaking at the Allen County Fair last week, Ramaswamy said Flock cameras should never be used to spy on people in private spaces, including their homes and cars.
"That has to be respected as a hard boundary," he said.
"The good news," he added, "is I've had conversations with law enforcement where we're on the same page about that, and we're going to work together to both combat violent crime and do it on terms that respect our rights."
Ramaswamy also said abuses of the technology should be taken seriously, but added that he has spoken with law-enforcement officials who agree that crime can be fought "on terms that respect our rights."
At the Butler County Fair, Ramaswamy expanded on those concerns, warning that government efforts to map people's movements could eventually lead to an "authoritarian surveillance state" that undermines individual liberty.