The debate centered on a distinction between cameras capturing a plate in public and searchable databases that can compile a vehicle’s movements over time and across state lines. Rep. Tom Gann, a Republican representing District 8, questioned whether those accumulated records amount to surveillance rather than a single public observation.

“When does a plate observation become a travel history?” Gann asked, warning that a searchable record of a person’s movements is different from seeing a vehicle once on a public road.

Sen. Mary Boren, a Democrat representing District 16, called for greater transparency about how plate data is gathered, stored, shared and searched. She said privacy and public safety should not be treated as opposing goals, and argued that public confidence depends on people not feeling watched by their own government.

Police officials said the technology helps investigators solve crimes. Chief Russ Landon of The Village Police said losing access to the system would hinder law enforcement’s ability to pursue suspects. He said searches require a case number, a stated reason and an officer’s credentials, and that audits can flag suspicious use.

Boren said she hopes the study leads to legislation setting clearer rules for the cameras, while stressing that she is not calling for a statewide ban. The questions raised go beyond whether police can use the technology: lawmakers are also weighing limits and oversight for the data trail that can build up around drivers who are not suspected of wrongdoing.