Using funds for auto theft tipsters to pay more than a million dollars a year for surveillance technology is a step too far for some legislators in Virginia.
Last year, only one tenth of one percent of the Help Eliminate Auto Theft fund budget went toward that law’s stated purpose of paying citizen tipsters.
Instead, about one-third of HEAT’s $4.4 million budget went toward equipment grants for local law enforcement agencies. Cardinal News found that the majority of those grants were used for license plate reader cameras or similar public-facing surveillance technology.
The law establishing the fund states that money leftover after paying rewards each year can go toward law enforcement or judicial agencies to support their work to fight auto theft, and to conduct consumer educational programming about preventing theft. Funding for HEAT is generated solely by an assessment on auto insurers in the state.
We asked lawmakers last month whether paying for surveillance technology was an appropriate use of the theft prevention fund, considering its original mandate 30 years ago to pay tipsters.
Should a tipster reward fund be used for surveillance tech?
State legislators were divided on whether surveillance technology was an appropriate use of HEAT funding.
Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin County, was the loudest objector. He said the funds should be used for the “citizen assistance” originally specified in the law, and not for LPRs, “which I believe are an unconstitutional intrusion on the privacy rights of our citizens,” he wrote.
Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Roanoke County, was also against using the funds toward LPRs.
Meanwhile, Sen. Tammy Brankley Mulchi, R-Mecklenburg County, said license plate readers were an “appropriate and responsible use” of the state funds. So did Delegates Chris Obenshain, R-Montgomery County, and Del. Wren Williams, R-Patrick County.
“The purpose of this fund has always been to combat auto theft and protect people’s personal property from being stolen,” Williams said. “With these new technologies, our officers can do their work better than ever before.”
Some responses captured the complexity of using surveillance tools to fight crime.
Though Sen. Chris Head, R-Botetourt County, said he’s “NOT a huge fan of license plate readers and other surveillance equipment,” he admitted he thinks they’re here to stay and “something of a necessity.” He added, “Because they are used so extensively when there is auto theft, I think that this is probably within the scope of what the law was addressing initially.”
Del. Ellen Campbell, R-Rockbridge County, said the tools used by law enforcement are much different now than when HEAT was established in the early 1990s. “I think as lawmakers, it’s our responsibility to find a balance between maintaining a level of privacy for Virginians while also putting tools into law enforcement’s hands to increase public safety.”
Sen. Eric Phillips, R-Henry County, noted the importance of having clarity around how license plate reader data is stored, how long it is retained and for what purpose it is used.
Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Charlottesville, also expressed reservations around consumer privacy relating to law enforcement use of LPRs. “I agree with the intent of aiding in finding stolen vehicles, and those that stole them, but worry that citizens’ privacy is being compromised. In general, I worry about the license plate reader technology,” Deeds said.
Though 30 legislators represent Southwest or Southside Virginia in Richmond, only a handful responded to Cardinal News’ request for comment.
New surveillance tech restrictions started July 1
In Virginia, a new law effective July 1 limits the reasons law enforcement agencies in Virginia can use license plate readers and the amount of time they can store that information.
HB2724 limits the reasons law enforcement can use license plate readers to criminal investigations, missing or endangered person investigations, outstanding warrants and to receive notifications of stolen vehicles or vehicle license plates.
To comply with the law, Flock has instituted a mandatory search field requiring a “case or call for service number,” said Holly Beilin, director of communications for Flock.
Beilin said Flock has updated its data retention period for Virginia agencies to 21 days, instead of the previous 30, and to two years for its audit data.
Flock has updated its system so Virginia law enforcement agencies can no longer search nationwide records or out-of-state sharing arrangements, Beilin said. Out-of-state agencies can no longer request access to data collected by Virginia agencies using Flock.
“In addition, though not specific requirements under the law, we are helping agencies post or update their transparency portal to comply with the public awareness aspects of the law, and we are running webinars to inform and educate agencies about how to use Flock in compliance with the new law,” Beilin said by email Thursday.
Flock’s updates follow both the passage of Virginia’s law and media attention around surveillance technology.
A May report from independent technology publication 404 Media found that Flock search records for a single police department in Illinois contained results from more than 78,000 devices across the country. Though many records specified search reasons such as “theft,” “fugitive,” or “warrant,” many others were not as clear on a reason, with notes stating “information,” “suspicious,” or vague letter codes like “aaaaa.” Flock has since made changes to limit how widely information from its customers in Illinois can be accessed.
Flock network audits provided by a Yakima, Wash., law enforcement agency showed results that included information for Cardinal News executive editor Jeff Schwaner. Schwaner had previously driven around Cardinal’s coverage area and tried to find out how many times local law enforcement captured his vehicle information. That effort required a trip to court when two localities tried to prevent the release of his data. 
A Flock audit obtained via the Washington Public Records Act included information for Cardinal News’ request for data in February 2025. Cardinal has partially redacted the plate numbers in this screen capture.
Privacy issues at center of debate over LPRs
As surveillance technology becomes more ubiquitous, questions remain about privacy.
License plate readers may help solve some crimes more easily, said Michael Soyfer, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm focused on abuses of government power. “But oftentimes they’re not the only thing that leads to the crime being solved. And there are often other sources of information that don’t raise the same risks of centralizing this massive amount of sensitive information in a police database that’s widely accessible,” he said.
The firm is representing two Norfolk residents in a federal lawsuit that claims the city has so many license plate reader cameras that it can easily create maps of where they and other residents regularly travel. The suit says that by building a database of vehicle whereabouts, Norfolk violates residents’ fourth-amendment right to privacy.
The spread of surveillance technology funded by state or federal funding results in a loss of local control, Soyfer said. “It helps them evade local democratic control and accountability over exactly what they’re doing, how they’re spending money, and all of the initiatives they’re engaging in.” That control erodes further once the information is shared outside of the community where a camera is placed, he said.
Does HEAT law need an update?
The law that established HEAT in the early 1990s has gone untouched for more than three decades, despite significant changes in both automotive technology and law enforcement tactics.
Mulchi, Campbell, Obenshain and Phillips were open to revising the code to better capture the scope of the HEAT fund.
“You know, it’s been 35 years since this was established,” Campbell said. “I think we should constantly be looking at ways to keep up with the times, especially with the way technology has improved.”
Because the surveillance technology has helped solve some criminal cases, “I think it is necessary and appropriate to allow use of the fund for more than just ‘tipsters’ and auto theft,” Phillips said. “I think these technologies that are being deployed are in fact often ‘digital tipsters’ that are giving law enforcement information they may not otherwise have.”
Meanwhile, Stanley said the funding from HEAT should not be used toward LPRs and the fund should stick to its original primary mission.
“If the Virginia State Police wants to reallocate these funds to license plate readers, then they should come to the legislature and ask to have that ability,” Stanley said. “This was not a general pool of money allocated to the state police, but rather is supposed to be used for a specific purpose in fighting the crime of auto theft, so it should stay that way.”
Most lawmakers who responded to Cardinal’s inquiry were open to revising the HEAT statute to require regular reporting to the General Assembly or public audits of the fund. Currently, neither is required.
“As LPRs become a more essential tool for law enforcement, it’s important that the public has confidence in how programs like this are funded and managed,” Mulchi said.
“While I understand the evolving nature of technology in policing, I think it’s reasonable to expect regular reporting and audits of the HEAT fund so the General Assembly and the public can clearly see how these dollars are being allocated,” said Del. Wendell Walker, R-Lynchburg. “As the program’s use continues to shift beyond its original purpose, it may be time to revisit and clarify the law to ensure both accountability and public trust.”
Phillips noted that while he supports additional oversight of the fund, he would not want it to be “overly burdensome” on law enforcement agencies.
Head commented that he didn’t think a formal report was necessary, “but making sure the information is readily at hand when asked should be expected.”
Without a bill introduced by a legislator, it’s not likely the HEAT statute would get updated. The Virginia Code Commission reviews state laws, which are organized under 67 titles, on a rotating basis to identify outdated or obsolete laws. Title 38, which addresses insurance matters, was last reviewed in the mid-1980s.
How we reported this story
Cardinal News contacted 30 state legislators by email for this story, and presented each with the same set of questions about the HEAT fund and its recent funding of surveillance tools.
Five of 10 senators representing southwest and southside Virginia responded to our inquiry. In addition, the office of Sen. Mark Peake, R-Lynchburg, also responded to say he had no comment.
In the House of Delegates, five out of 20 representatives from southwest and southside VA responded. In addition, Del. Terry Austin, R-Botetourt County, said he didn’t have time to respond, and Del. Tim Griffin, R-Bedford County, had no comment.
Correction, July 8, 2025, 9:14 a.m.: This story was updated to accurately reflect the relationship between the plaintiffs in the federal suit against Norfolk. Additionally, Ellen Campbell is a member of the House of Delegates. An earlier version of this story listed her affiliation incorrectly.
