iStockphoto
A federal lawsuit filed by a civil liberties organization argues Flock surveillance cameras with automated license plate readers are unconstitutional.
The lawsuit, filed in Virginia by the Institute for Justice, claims the Flock cameras, or automated license plate readers (ALPRs), violate the Fourth Amendment, which gives Americans protection from the government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant
“The City of Norfolk, Virginia, has installed a network of cameras that make it functionally impossible for people to drive anywhere without having their movements tracked, photographed, and stored in an AI-assisted database that enables the warrantless surveillance of their every move,” the lawsuit reads. “This civil rights lawsuit seeks to end this dragnet surveillance program.”
Norfolk currently has 172 of these Flock cameras in operation throughout the city, 404 Media reports.
404 Media also reports that there are more than 5,000 communities across America using these automated license plate readers, which use AI to passively and constantly check which cars are driving by them at any given time.
One of the two Virginia residents listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, Lee Schmidt, explained why he feels his constitutional rights against unwarranted surveillance.
“Just outside his neighborhood, there are four Flock Cameras,” the lawsuit explains. “Lee drives by these cameras (and others he sees around town) nearly every day, and the Norfolk Police Department [NPD] can use the information they record to build a picture of his daily habits and routines.
“If the Flock Cameras record Lee going straight through the intersection outside his neighborhood, for example, the NPD can infer that he is going to his daughter’s school. If the cameras capture him turning right, the NPD can infer that he is going to the shooting range. If the cameras capture him turning left, the NPD can infer that he is going to the grocery store.
“The Flock Cameras capture the start of nearly every trip Lee makes in his car, so he effectively cannot leave his neighborhood without the NPD knowing about it.”
Interestingly, Norfolk police chief Mark Talbot admitted last year about the Flock cameras in his town, “It would be difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera.”
In their defense, a Flock spokesperson told 404 Media, “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 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, four judges in Virginia have ruled the opposite way — that ALPR evidence is admissible in court without a warrant.”
The Flock spokesperson also added, “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.”