School Enrollment Denied by AI & License Plate Readers: Surveillance State Comes for Your Kids
A suburban Chicago school district is denying a student enrollment based on data from license plate readers, raising concerns about the expanding use of surveillance technology in everyday life and the lack of transparency surrounding data collection practices.
Thalía Sánchez moved to Alsip, Illinois, last year seeking a better education for her daughter. Despite providing all required documentation – a driver’s license, utility bills, vehicle registration, and a mortgage statement – Alsip Hazelgreen Oak Lawn School District 126 has repeatedly denied her daughter’s enrollment. The district claims its decision is based on license plate recognition (LPR) data indicating Sánchez’s car was not consistently parked at her Alsip home in July and August.
In an email to Sánchez, the school district stated, “Although you are the owner on record of a house in our district boundaries, your license plate recognition shows that is not the place where you reside.” Sánchez explained that the discrepancy occurred because she lent her car to a relative during that period. However, the school district is prioritizing the data provided by its surveillance technology partner over the documentation she personally submitted.
The technology at the center of this dispute is Thomson Reuters Clear, an AI-assisted records investigation tool marketed to school districts for residency verification. According to Thomson Reuters’ promotional materials, Clear can “automate” the process with “enhanced reliability” and identify patterns of life based on license plate data. The company’s website highlights its ability to “develop pattern of life information” to determine whether families are truthfully claiming residency. Thomson Reuters does not disclose where it obtains its license plate reader data and did not respond to inquiries about the case.
The increasing reliance on LPR data and its integration with AI-powered investigative tools is fueling concerns about privacy and due process. The New York Times reported in September 2025 that law enforcement agencies are now capable of persistent, universal surveillance at an unimaginable scale, largely due to these new digital tools. This case demonstrates how that surveillance is extending beyond law enforcement and into civilian institutions like school districts.
Experts suggest that the data likely originates from Flock Safety, a leading provider of LPR cameras. Flock Safety has faced criticism for its lack of transparency regarding data access and usage. The company has not demonstrated concern over who accesses the data it compiles, and is rapidly becoming a key data provider for third parties willing to pay a premium for access. In February 2026, Ring ended its partnership with Flock Safety following public backlash over a Super Bowl advertisement promoting the technology.
The use of LPR data to verify student residency raises questions about the appropriate balance between security measures and individual rights. The guiding principles on government use of surveillance technologies, outlined by the State Department in February 2024, emphasize the importance of respecting democratic principles and human rights while utilizing these technologies. However, these principles are non-legally binding, and their application to private companies and local school districts remains unclear.
The Harvard Law Review has examined the role of technology companies in government surveillance, noting that intermediaries like Flock Safety and Thomson Reuters hold significant power in determining the government’s access to personal information. The review highlighted that these companies have discretion in evaluating the legality of requests and minimizing their capacity to respond, effectively shaping the landscape of surveillance.
The Alsip school district has not explained the specific criteria used to interpret the LPR data or the weight given to it compared to traditional documentation. The district has not responded to requests for comment on its data-sharing agreement with Thomson Reuters or its policies regarding the use of surveillance technology in student enrollment decisions.