Institute for Justice sues Norfolk over Flock license plate reader surveillance
The Institute for Justice filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Norfolk, Virginia, alleging that its network of 172 Flock automated license plate reader cameras violates the Fourth Amendment by enabling warrantless surveillance of drivers' movements and routines. The lawsuit argues that the AI-powered cameras make it functionally impossible for residents to drive without their movements being tracked and stored in a database.
What happened
The Institute for Justice filed a federal lawsuit in Virginia against the City of Norfolk over its deployment of 172 Flock automated license plate reader cameras.
The lawsuit alleges that the cameras enable warrantless surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment, allowing the Norfolk Police Department to track citizens' movements and infer their daily routines and habits.
Reported impact
One plaintiff, Lee Schmidt, stated that four Flock cameras near his neighborhood capture the start of nearly every trip he makes, making it impossible to leave without the Norfolk Police Department potentially knowing about it.
The lawsuit claims that the camera network 'makes it functionally impossible for people to drive anywhere without having their movements tracked, photographed, and stored in an AI-assisted database.'
Index analysis
Flock cameras have been deployed in more than 5,000 communities across the United States.
Images are stored in a database for 30 days before deletion but can be downloaded and preserved indefinitely within that window.
Governance controls
In a prior Virginia case, a judge ordered evidence from a Flock camera suppressed because of Fourth Amendment concerns, with the judge noting that 'it would not be difficult for mistakes to be made tying law-abiding citizens to crime due to the nature of the Flock system.'
Flock Safety stated that '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,' citing support from appellate and federal district courts in at least fourteen states.
Classification
Sources and evidence
This record was researched and written by the Index, based on the following original reporting.