Consumer Rights Wiki

Flock license plate readers: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Beanie Bo (talk | contribs)
confirmed, Administrators
907 edits
Beanie Bo (talk | contribs)
confirmed, Administrators
907 edits
Line 54: Line 54:


==Legal challenges==
==Legal challenges==
===Norfolk federal lawsuit===
In February 2025, Chief Judge Mark S. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Norfolk's motion to dismiss a landmark Fourth Amendment lawsuit. The case involves two residents whose vehicles were tracked 526 times in 4.5 months and 849 times over the same period, figures revealed in a September 2025 court filing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399|title=Virginia police used Flock cameras to track driver 526 times in 4 months, lawsuit says|work=NBC News|date=2025-09-18|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> Norfolk installed 172 Flock Safety cameras in 2023 at a cost of $430,000-$516,000 annually. Police Chief Mark Talbot stated the goal was making it ''"difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere."''<ref name="norfolk" />


===Constitutional challenges===
Judge Davis's ruling relied on ''Carpenter v. United States'', the 2018 Supreme Court decision requiring warrants for historical cell phone location data. The court found Norfolk's ALPR network "notably similar" to the surveillance the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional. However, courts remain divided. In November 2024, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne in the same district denied a motion to suppress Flock evidence, holding that three vehicle snapshots don't constitute "persistent surveillance" requiring a warrant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://valawyersweekly.com/2024/11/11/mosaic-theory-rejected-flock-camera-evidence-does-not-violate-fourth-amendment/|title='Mosaic theory' rejected: Flock camera evidence does not violate Fourth Amendment|website=Virginia Lawyers Weekly|date=2024-11-11|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>
Multiple lawsuits challenge Flock's warrant-less surveillance as violating Fourth Amendment protections. In ''Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department'', the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that persistent aerial surveillance violated reasonable expectations of privacy.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department |url=https://www.eff.org/document/fourth-circuit-ruling-leaders-beautiful-struggle-v-baltimore-police-department |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref> Legal experts argue this precedent applies to Flock's ground-based network creating similar comprehensive tracking capabilities.{{Citation needed}}


Norfolk, Virginia residents filed suit in 2023 arguing the city's 172 Flock cameras constitute mass surveillance without probable cause. The lawsuit cites ''Carpenter v. United States'', where the Supreme Court ruled that persistent location tracking requires a warrant.<ref name="norfolk" /> A federal judge allowed the case to proceed, rejecting the city's motion to dismiss.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67689711/leaders-of-a-beautiful-struggle-v-baltimore-police-department/ |url-status=usurped |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=CourtListener}}</ref>
Virginia state courts show similar disagreement. Norfolk Circuit Court Judge Jamilah LeCruise granted a suppression motion in May 2024, finding that the breadth of Flock cameras covering Norfolk requires a warrant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant|title=Virginia Judge Rejects ALPR Evidence Without Warrant|website=Government Technology|date=2024-05-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Yet three other Norfolk circuit court judges denied similar motions in 2024.


===State legislation===
===State regulatory landscape===
Several states have enacted restrictions on ALPR use. Illinois prohibits law enforcement agencies from sharing ALPR data with other jurisdictions in relation to a person's immigration status.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Public Act 103-0540 |url=https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/publicacts/103/PDF/103-0540.pdf |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Illinois General Assembly}}</ref> New Hampshire requires a three-minute purge of data from ALPR use with the exception of ongoing investigations. <ref>{{Cite web |title=261:75-b Use of Number Plate Scanning Devices Regulated. |url=https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/title-xxi/chapter-261/section-261-75-b/ |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=New Hampshire General Court}}</ref>  
Only 16 states have enacted any form of ALPR regulation as of 2024 according to University of Michigan research.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/news/2023/automated-license-plate-readers-widely-used-subject-abuse|title=Automated License Plate Readers widely used, subject to abuse|website=University of Michigan|date=2023|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Virginia enacted House Bill 2724 in 2025 creating annual reporting requirements.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://vscc.virginia.gov/Annual%20Reports/2024%20VSCC%20Annual%20Report%20-Law%20Enforcement%20Use%20of%20ALPR.pdf|title=2024 VSCC Annual Report - Law Enforcement Use of ALPR|website=Virginia State Crime Commission|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Illinois Public Act 103-0540 explicitly prohibits use for reproductive healthcare punishment and immigration investigations.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/103/103-0540.htm|title=Public Act 103-0540|website=Illinois General Assembly|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>
 
Illinois prohibits law enforcement agencies from sharing ALPR data with other jurisdictions in relation to a person's immigration status.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Public Act 103-0540 |url=https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/publicacts/103/PDF/103-0540.pdf |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Illinois General Assembly}}</ref> New Hampshire requires a three-minute purge of data from ALPR use with the exception of ongoing investigations. <ref>{{Cite web |title=261:75-b Use of Number Plate Scanning Devices Regulated. |url=https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/title-xxi/chapter-261/section-261-75-b/ |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=New Hampshire General Court}}</ref>  


California’s SB 34 requires public agencies using ALPR systems to implement usage and privacy policies as well as limits to data sharing. <ref name=":3">{{Cite web |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB34 |title=SB-34 Automated license plate recognition systems: use of data |work=California Legislative Information |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> However, enforcement remains inconsistent, with a 2020 state audit finding widespread non-compliance.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/index.html |title=Automated License Plate Readers |work=California State Auditor |date=13 Feb 2020 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>
California’s SB 34 requires public agencies using ALPR systems to implement usage and privacy policies as well as limits to data sharing. <ref name=":3">{{Cite web |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB34 |title=SB-34 Automated license plate recognition systems: use of data |work=California Legislative Information |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> However, enforcement remains inconsistent, with a 2020 state audit finding widespread non-compliance.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/index.html |title=Automated License Plate Readers |work=California State Auditor |date=13 Feb 2020 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>
Retrieved from "https://mirror.consumerrights.wiki/w/Flock_license_plate_readers"