Several communities in West Virginia have delayed plans to install or activate ALPRs in their jurisdictions: Putnam County has not activated their eight Flock ALPRs that were placed in June 2025, the Barboursville police chief said that they would not install Flock ALPRs on Fourth Amendment grounds, and St. Albans recently became the first city in Kanawha County to pass an ordinance rejecting Flock Cameras. The Huntington City Council revised their standards for how ALPRs can be used after public outcry over a five-year $2.1 million contract with Flock Safety. West Virginia lawmakers have recently expressed dissatisfaction regarding a lack of transparency from Flock Safety.

Legislation in West Virginia

West Virginia does not have any legislation specifically covering ALPRs. The Protecting Everyone from Excessive Police Surveillance (PEEPS) Act (HB 4628) was proposed in 2026. The Act would have banned government officials from accessing historical location data except for a limited number of approved uses, set a 10-day limit for data retention, and prevented municipalities and other political subdivisions from enacting less stringent standards. The Privacy Protection Act (HB 2500) was proposed in 2023 and would have created a Personal Privacy Oversight Committee composed of experts in the field and a State Privacy Officer who would conduct a review on data collection, use, and storage for technology containing personal data including ALPRs. The State Privacy Officer would develop best data management practices on the recommendation of the committee, and be required to terminate the use of technology found to violate personal privacy standards. Both of these acts did not make it out of committee.

Policy Options From Other States

Among neighboring states, Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky have passed ALPR-specific statutes, with Virginia’s being the most comprehensive. Virginia requires ALPR vendors to certify they will not share or sell data, sets a 21-day limit on data retention, requires audit trails to be generated, and regulates data sharing between law enforcement agencies. West Virginia could consider introducing similar ALPR legislation, which would increase transparency and unify regulations regarding state and local law enforcement agencies’ use of ALPR systems. Alternatively, West Virginia could move to further restrict or ban the use of ALPRs, however, this would likely be unpopular among law enforcement agencies in the state.

Congress is considering legislation that would penalize states that have not regulated ALPRs. H.R. 10366, the No Federal License-Plate Observation and Camera Keeping (No FLOCK) Act, was introduced in 2026 and would strip 10% of federal highway funds from states that do not ban the use of ALPRs except for toll collection and approved police investigative work. H.R. 10211, known as the Flock-Off Act, was also introduced in 2026, and would prevent federal funds from being used for acquiring and operating ALPRs except for border security and tolling. Both of these acts are pending in committee. West Virginia could consider enacting provisions clearly defining the allowed uses of ALPRs from pending federal ALPR legislation to ensure that it will not face potential penalties for noncompliance. 

Most states’ statutes only cover law enforcement activity and government use, however, Iowa requires all users of ALPRs to adhere to a 30-day data retention limit under penalty of committing a simple misdemeanor with exceptions for active law enforcement investigations. West Virginia could consider extending proposed guardrails to cover private sector use of ALPR technology, which would likely be supported by privacy advocates and potentially opposed by businesses that use the technology.