Unlimited supervision? Federal lawsuit challenges herd safety cameras

A federal lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice against the city of Norfolk, Virginia, challenging the city’s widespread deployment of Flock Safety Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) cameras.

The lawsuit alleges that the city’s installation of more than 170 cameras on public roads constitutes an unconstitutional, unauthorized surveillance program that monitors every motorist, raising questions about digital privacy and government overreach.

Flock Safety’s different approach to ALPR technology

Flock Safety, the company whose ALPR systems are at the center of this lawsuit, differs from traditional ALPR providers in several ways. Traditional ALPR systems generally focus on reading license plates using infrared cameras and entering this information into central databases.

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

However, this detailed data collection raises concerns about long-term monitoring and data retention. The lawsuit claims that these cameras, which are designed to retain data for extended periods of time, allow law enforcement officers to effectively monitor residents’ movements and activities without individualized suspicion. Plaintiffs argue that this aggregated data creates a detailed historical record of each vehicle, which infringes on privacy rights.

Privacy and legal implications

The lawsuit highlights several issues associated with Flock Safety’s ALPR systems:

• Data Retention and Ownership: Flock Safety emphasizes that the data belongs to its customers, whether they are law enforcement agencies or private organizations such as homeowners associations. While Flock does not claim ownership of the data, it stores it on its secure cloud servers, leaving retention policies and access control 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 processed and protected by different law enforcement agencies, HOAs and companies.
• Profiling and discriminatory useCritics worry that ALPR systems, especially those with advanced data collection capabilities, could be deployed disproportionately in certain neighborhoods, leading to excessive surveillance and potential profiling of minority communities. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has expressed concern that ALPRs like Flock’s could contribute to surveillance bias if not carefully regulated.
• Tracking and historical data recording: Flock’s systems collect and store a rich data set that can be used to trace a vehicle’s history over time. Such detailed data raises legal questions about whether prolonged warrantless surveillance violates Fourth Amendment protections, especially when public movements are aggregated and analyzed to reveal patterns and connections.

Law enforcement perspective

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 claims its technology has helped improve crime resolution rates in numerous jurisdictions and emphasizes its use as a tool to enhance public safety. However, the reliability of these claims has been questioned.

Proponents of ALPR technology argue that it plays a crucial 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.

Legal precedents

The federal lawsuit against Virginia’s use of Flock Safety’s ALPR network is based on critical legal precedents from Carpenter v. United States and Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police. Both cases have had a significant impact on 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 warrantless access to Historical Cell Location Information (CSLI) constitutes a search. The Court recognized that aggregating digital location data over time provides 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 expanded Carpenter’s privacy concerns to other forms of persistent surveillance. In this case, the court found that the Baltimore Police Department’s ongoing aerial surveillance program violated the Fourth Amendment. The court highlighted the potential for creating a “mosaic” of an individual’s activities through long-term, unwarranted monitoring, even if each individual observation was publicly visible.

Balance between privacy and public safety

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

On the other hand, law enforcement officials and proponents of ALPR technology emphasize that this technology plays a critical role in improving public safety and solving crimes. They argue that, when used with proper supervision, these systems provide valuable investigative leads and contribute to crime reduction efforts.

As this case progresses, 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, strong oversight, and continued dialogue between legal experts, policymakers, and the public.

Flock Safety has been contacted for comment, but no response has been received at time of publication.