Flock Safety: Difference between revisions

Line 52:

==Incidents==

===The FBI is accused in pending lawsut to use Flock data to "create a domestic terrorist" (February 2026)===

in a recent reporting by LegalEagle on Youtube https://youtu.be/ZRZoGc3Wdpo?t=1138 at timestamp 18:58 Court documents are shown where ~~Laweforcement~~ collects 30 days of movements from Flock cameras (after the fact) in efforts to "construct the appearance the person is a domestic terrorist", the release of this footage was denied to ensure people not know where the cameras are in order to avoid them. this was in part of the ICE operation "Midway Blitz"

in a recent reporting by LegalEagle on Youtube https://youtu.be/ZRZoGc3Wdpo?t=1138 at timestamp 18:58 Court documents are shown where Law enforcement collects 30 days of movements from Flock cameras (after the fact) in efforts to "construct the appearance the person is a domestic terrorist", the release of this footage was denied to ensure people not know where the cameras are in order to avoid them. this was in part of the ICE operation "Midway Blitz"

===Wrongful package theft accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (September 2025)===

On 27 September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the robbery.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Kenney |first=Andrew |title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence |url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ |website=Denverite |date=28 Oct 2025 |access-date=7 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251028180112/https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ |archive-date=28 Oct 2025}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure." He also bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "You can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Prentzel |first=Olivia |title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence |url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ |website=The Colorado Sun |date=28 Oct 2025 |access-date=7 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251112221400/https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ |archive-date=12 Nov 2025}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating, "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Coon |first=Anna |title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft |url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ |website=KDVR |date=28 Oct 2025 |access-date=7 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251103031304/https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ |archive-date=3 Nov 2025}}</ref> Elser was compelled to compile extensive exculpatory evidence, including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor. She ultimately submitted a seven-page affidavit and a voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref name=":5" /> The summons was voided several weeks later after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing, "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued." However, the department provided neither an apology nor an explanation.<ref name=":6" />

Line 91:

==Lawsuits==

===''Schmidt v. City of Norfolk'' (18 September 2025)===

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months.<ref name=":9" /> The second plaintiff had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to the Norfolk Police Department in a deal costing $2.2 million, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and, at present, there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is requesting that the plaintiff's data be deleted and the cameras be turned off, arguing that these actions constitute an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and a warrant-less search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a ~~warrantless~~ search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual." This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrant-less use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref name=":10" />

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months.<ref name=":9" /> The second plaintiff had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to the Norfolk Police Department in a deal costing $2.2 million, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and, at present, there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is requesting that the plaintiff's data be deleted and the cameras be turned off, arguing that these actions constitute an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and a warrant-less search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrant-less search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual." This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrant-less use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref name=":10" />

===''United States v. Martin'' (11 October 2024)===

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 ==Incidents==
 ===The FBI is accused in pending lawsut to use Flock data to "create a domestic terrorist" (February 2026)===
-in a recent reporting by LegalEagle on Youtube https://youtu.be/ZRZoGc3Wdpo?t=1138 at timestamp 18:58 Court documents are shown where Laweforcement collects 30 days of movements from Flock cameras (after the fact) in efforts to "construct the appearance the person is a domestic terrorist", the release of this footage was denied to ensure people not know where the cameras are in order to avoid them. this was in part of the ICE operation "Midway Blitz"
+in a recent reporting by LegalEagle on Youtube https://youtu.be/ZRZoGc3Wdpo?t=1138 at timestamp 18:58 Court documents are shown where Law enforcement collects 30 days of movements from Flock cameras (after the fact) in efforts to "construct the appearance the person is a domestic terrorist", the release of this footage was denied to ensure people not know where the cameras are in order to avoid them. this was in part of the ICE operation "Midway Blitz"
 ===Wrongful package theft accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (September 2025)===
 On 27 September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the robbery.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Kenney |first=Andrew |title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence |url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ |website=Denverite |date=28 Oct 2025 |access-date=7 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251028180112/https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ |archive-date=28 Oct 2025}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure." He also bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "You can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Prentzel |first=Olivia |title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence |url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ |website=The Colorado Sun |date=28 Oct 2025 |access-date=7 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251112221400/https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ |archive-date=12 Nov 2025}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating, "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Coon |first=Anna |title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft |url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ |website=KDVR |date=28 Oct 2025 |access-date=7 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251103031304/https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ |archive-date=3 Nov 2025}}</ref> Elser was compelled to compile extensive exculpatory evidence, including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor. She ultimately submitted a seven-page affidavit and a voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref name=":5" /> The summons was voided several weeks later after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing, "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued." However, the department provided neither an apology nor an explanation.<ref name=":6" />
@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 ==Lawsuits==
 ===''Schmidt v. City of Norfolk'' (18 September 2025)===
-A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months.<ref name=":9" /> The second plaintiff had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to the Norfolk Police Department in a deal costing $2.2 million, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and, at present, there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is requesting that the plaintiff's data be deleted and the cameras be turned off, arguing that these actions constitute an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and a warrant-less search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual." This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrant-less use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref name=":10" />
+A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months.<ref name=":9" /> The second plaintiff had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to the Norfolk Police Department in a deal costing $2.2 million, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and, at present, there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is requesting that the plaintiff's data be deleted and the cameras be turned off, arguing that these actions constitute an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and a warrant-less search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrant-less search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual." This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrant-less use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref name=":10" />
 ===''United States v. Martin'' (11 October 2024)===