Privacy Violated, Warrantless Surveillance Alleges Flock Safety Camera Lawsuit

Flock Safety’s technology goes further, capturing additional details such as vehicle make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics like bumper stickers. This comprehensive approach allows law enforcement to track and identify vehicles more effectively, even when plates are obscured or altered​.

However, this detailed data collection raises concerns about prolonged monitoring and data retention. The lawsuit claims that these cameras, which are designed to retain data for extended periods, allow law enforcement to effectively track the movements and activities of residents without individualized suspicion. Plaintiffs argue that this aggregated data creates a detailed historical record of every vehicle, infringing on privacy rights.

The lawsuit brings to light several issues related to Flock Safety’s ALPR systems:

Data Retention and Ownership: Flock Safety emphasizes that the data is owned by its customers—whether that’s law enforcement agencies or private organizations like homeowners’ associations. While Flock does not claim ownership of the data, it stores it on its secure cloud servers, leaving retention policies and access management in the hands of the customer​. This decentralized approach means that retention periods and access rules can vary widely, leading to inconsistencies in how data is handled and safeguarded by different law enforcement agencies, HOAs and businesses.

Profiling and Discriminatory Deployment: Critics worry that ALPR systems, especially those with advanced data-collection capabilities, could be disproportionately deployed in certain neighborhoods, leading to over-policing and potential profiling of minority communities. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has expressed concerns that ALPRs like Flock’s can contribute to surveillance biases if not carefully regulated​.

Tracking and Historical Data Logging: Flock’s systems collect and retain a rich dataset that could be used to trace a vehicle’s history over time. Such detailed records raise legal questions about whether long-term surveillance without a warrant constitutes a violation of Fourth Amendment protections, especially when public movements are aggregated and analyzed to reveal patterns and connections​.

From a law enforcement perspective, Flock Safety’s ALPR systems offer significant benefits. The ability to capture not only license plates but also vehicle characteristics provides valuable investigative leads in cases of theft, missing persons, or other crimes. Flock Safety asserts that its technology has contributed to improved crime-solving rates in numerous jurisdictions and emphasizes its use as a tool for enhancing public safety​, however, the reliability of these claims have been called into question.

Supporters of ALPR technology argue that it plays a critical role in modern policing, allowing officers to identify stolen vehicles, locate suspects, and track down missing persons. They emphasize that ALPRs focus on publicly visible information and can be deployed responsibly with appropriate oversight and policies in place.

The federal lawsuit against Virginia’s deployment of Flock Safety’s ALPR network draws on critical legal precedents set by Carpenter v. United States and Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department. Both cases have significantly influenced how courts interpret the use of surveillance technology and its implications for Fourth Amendment protections.

In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that accessing historical cell site location information (CSLI) without a warrant constitutes a search. The Court acknowledged that aggregating digital location data over time creates a detailed record of an individual’s movements, which could reveal highly sensitive details about their life. This ruling emphasized the need to ensure that advances in surveillance technology do not erode privacy protections.

In Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department (2021) the Fourth Circuit extended the privacy concerns raised in Carpenter to other forms of persistent surveillance. In this case, the court ruled that the Baltimore Police Department’s continuous aerial surveillance program violated the Fourth Amendment. The court highlighted the potential for creating a “mosaic” of an individual’s activities through prolonged, warrantless monitoring, even if each individual observation was publicly visible.

The ongoing lawsuit against Virginia’s use of Flock Safety’s ALPR systems highlights a growing tension between privacy rights and the evolving needs of law enforcement. On one side, privacy advocates argue that without clear guidelines and judicial oversight, the widespread deployment of advanced ALPR systems could lead to mass surveillance, profiling, and breaches of constitutional protections. They emphasize the importance of transparency, equitable deployment, and strict data access controls to safeguard civil liberties​.

On the other side, law enforcement officials and supporters of ALPR technology emphasize that this technology has a critical role in enhancing public safety and solving crimes. They argue that these systems, when used with proper oversight, provide valuable investigative leads and contribute to crime reduction efforts​.

As this case moves forward, the outcome could set important legal precedents on the acceptable limits of digital surveillance and the responsibilities of public and private entities in managing sensitive data. Ultimately, balancing privacy and public safety will require clear regulations, robust oversight, and ongoing dialogue between legal experts, policymakers, and the public.

Flock Safety’s Response

“Fourth Amendment case law overwhelmingly shows that license plate readers do not constitute a warrantless search because they take photos of cars in public and cannot cannot continuously track the movements of any individual. Appellate and federal district courts in at least fourteen states have upheld the use of evidence from license plate readers as constitutional without requiring a warrant, as well as the 9th and 11th circuits. Since the Bell case, 4 judges in Virginia have ruled the opposite way — that ALPR evidence is admissible in court without a warrant.

License plates are issued by the government for the express purpose of identifying vehicles in public places for safety reasons. Courts have consistently found that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a license plate on a vehicle on a public road, and photographing one is not a Fourth Amendment search.”