Police departments across the country are using real-time crime centers to bring surveillance feeds and law-enforcement data together, a fast-growing approach that privacy experts say can reach well beyond automated license-plate readers such as Flock cameras. The centers can combine footage and data from police body cameras and dashcams, 911 dispatch systems, gunshot detectors and surveillance cameras — including cameras owned by private businesses that agree to share access. Some centers use software such as Fusus, a product from public-safety technology company Axon, to make the information available through a single platform. The technology can help officers respond to emergencies and investigate crimes, police officials say. But combining data in one place can also reduce the time, staff and effort once needed to track people, raising questions for local governments weighing whether to adopt such systems and what limits to impose. Hundreds of law-enforcement agencies have real-time crime centers, which police say can help find missing children, monitor large events and assess dangerous scenes before officers arrive. Just over 100 agencies had deployed Fusus in 2024, according to reporting by 404 Media. Axon says that number has more than doubled since then. Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, a law professor at George Washington University, said these centers can offer a broad, searchable view of activity across a city, including the ability to review past events. He said the public focus on license-plate readers overlooks the wider surveillance capacity created when video analytics, drones and other systems are brought together. Police officials describe the integration as a practical way to work more quickly. Benjamin Weir, a captain with the Oklahoma City Police Department, said analysts could otherwise have to consult dozens of separate systems. Quincy Whitner, a lieutenant with the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office in South Carolina, said the technology helped his department locate a man accused of shooting an officer by combining city video with license-plate information. Privacy advocates warn that making surveillance easier can sweep up people who are not suspected of wrongdoing and make it simpler to investigate people or groups. Rachel Levinson-Waldman of New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice said the time and resources traditionally required to conduct surveillance created a kind of restraint; integrated systems can weaken that friction. Police officials say the public-safety benefits outweigh the risks. Michelle Iezzi, a deputy director at the Montgomery County Police Department in Maryland, said officers use the tools to look for people committing crimes. Axon CEO Rick Smith has described the technology as a way to extend human capabilities, not replace human judgment. The company did not respond to multiple requests for comment. For residents, the policy choices extend beyond whether a city installs license-plate cameras. Ferguson said lawmakers could set limits on how long data is retained, require regular audits and restrict surveillance near sensitive locations, including abortion clinics and immigration courts. He argued that those rules should be considered before a system is put to use, while courts continue to weigh when this kind of surveillance may cross constitutional boundaries.