Federal judge calls Flock 'indiscriminate mass surveillance'

Using Flock's license plate reader technology now risks evidence suppression in court.

A federal judge has ruled that a Tulsa sheriff’s deputy’s warrantless search of the Flock Safety database violated a woman’s Fourth Amendment rights. The judge, Sara Hill, stated the deputy lacked probable cause to search for the woman’s license plate in the Flock system and subsequently use that data, which led to the discovery of illegal drugs. While this ruling does not set a binding precedent, it marks an early judicial challenge to the constitutionality of using Flock’s automated license plate reader technology without a warrant. The judge characterized Flock’s system as a tool for "indiscriminate mass surveillance," capable of passively cataloging vehicle whereabouts over extended periods. This decision aligns with increasing criticism and legislative efforts against the use of such surveillance technologies by government entities.

This judicial ruling, while not a binding precedent, signals a growing legal challenge to the widespread use of Flock Safety and similar automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems. By deeming a warrantless search of Flock data unconstitutional, the decision suggests that law enforcement may need warrants to access information gathered by these cameras, even if vehicles are in public spaces. This could significantly impact how police departments utilize ALPR data, potentially limiting their ability to conduct broad, passive surveillance and requiring more targeted, warrant-based investigations.

The judge's characterization of Flock as facilitating "indiscriminate mass surveillance" echoes concerns raised by privacy advocates and several government bodies that have already moved to ban or restrict its use. This decision may embolden further legal challenges and legislative action aimed at regulating or prohibiting ALPR technology. As more legal scrutiny is applied, Flock and companies offering similar services may face increased pressure to adapt their data handling practices or face diminished adoption by public sector clients.