In a significant ruling this week, a federal judge determined that a Tulsa, Oklahoma sheriff’s deputy infringed upon a woman’s Fourth Amendment rights by utilizing Flock Safety to look up her license plate without a warrant. According to reports from 404 Media, while the decision does not establish binding legal precedent, it marks one of the earliest instances where a federal court has declared a Flock search unconstitutional.
Judge Sara Hill stated that the deputy lacked any legitimate justification for the query beyond the fact that the vehicle in question bore California license plates. Consequently, the evidence gathered during the subsequent vehicle search—allegedly including 91 pounds of methamphetamine—must be excluded as the fruit of an unlawful search, Judge Hill wrote.
Beyond the specifics of this case, the judge issued a broader critique of warrantless database inquiries. Hill argued that passively cataloging an individual’s movements over extended periods, even in public spaces, raises serious constitutional concerns. She characterized the system as “indiscriminate mass surveillance,” noting that it differs from the targeted location tracking examined in the Supreme Court case Carpenter v. United States. Instead, she described it as a tool that continuously records all vehicles passing network-connected cameras and provides that data to law enforcement on demand.
This judicial decision aligns with growing opposition to Flock Safety from across the political spectrum. Several jurisdictions, including Florida and Texas, have announced plans to discontinue the technology. Additionally, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the Block Flock Act on Friday, which seeks to prohibit federal agencies from employing automated license plate readers like Flock.
Flock CEO Garretty Langley has advocated for a middle ground between privacy and public safety, recently offering an apology to women stalked by officers using the system. Amidst the backlash and cancellations, the company has reportedly provided voluntary buyouts to reduce its workforce.
Mass surveillance isn’t new, but calling it out by name matters. Hopefully, other judges follow this lead instead of ignoring it.
I’m surprised this hasn’t happened sooner. Flock cameras are literally everywhere now. When does the next ruling happen?
Wait, so 91 pounds of meth got tossed because of one warrantless query? That’s a steep price for civil liberties, but I guess it’s the law.
Finally, a court recognizes that convenience doesn’t override constitutional rights. This is huge for privacy advocates everywhere.