Lawsuit Argues Warrantless Use of Flock Surveillance Cameras Is Unconstitutional

A civil liberties group has filed a lawsuit in Virginia arguing that the widespread use of Flock's automated license plate readers violates the Fourth Amendment's protections against warrantless searches. 404 Media reports: "The City of Norfolk, Virginia, has installed a network of cameras that make it functionally impossible for people to drive anywhere without having their movements tracked, photographed, and stored in an AI-assisted database that enables the warrantless surveillance of their every move. This civil rights lawsuit seeks to end this dragnet surveillance program," the lawsuit notes (PDF). "In Norfolk, no one can escape the government's 172 unblinking eyes," it continues, referring to the 172 Flock cameras currently operational in Norfolk. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and has been ruled in many cases to protect against warrantless government surveillance, and the lawsuit specifically says Norfolk's installation violates that. [...]
 
The lawsuit in Norfolk is being filed by the Institute for Justice, a civil liberties organization that has filed a series of privacy and government overreach lawsuits over the last few years. Two Virginia residents, Lee Schmidt and Crystal Arrington, are listed as plaintiffs in the case. Schmidt is a Navy veteran who alleges in the lawsuit that the cops can easily infer where he is going based on Flock data. "Just outside his neighborhood, there are four Flock Cameras. Lee drives by these cameras (and others he sees around town) nearly every day, and the Norfolk Police Department [NPD] can use the information they record to build a picture of his daily habits and routines," the lawsuit reads. "If the Flock Cameras record Lee going straight through the intersection outside his neighborhood, for example, the NPD can infer that he is going to his daughter's school. If the cameras capture him turning right, the NPD can infer that he is going to the shooting range. If the cameras capture him turning left, the NPD can infer that he is going to the grocery store. The Flock Cameras capture the start of nearly every trip Lee makes in his car, so he effectively cannot leave his neighborhood without the NPD knowing about it." Arrington is a healthcare worker who makes home visits to clients in Norfolk. The lawsuit alleges that it would be trivial for the government to identify her clients. "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," a Flock spokesperson said. "Appellate and federal district courts in at least fourteen states have upheld the use of evidence from license plate readers as Constitutional without requiring a warrant, as well as the 9th and 11th circuits. Since the Bell case, four judges in Virginia have ruled the opposite way -- that ALPR evidence is admissible in court without a warrant."
<a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Lawsuit+Argues+Warrantless+Use+of+Flock+Surveillance+Cameras+Is+Unconstitutional%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F10%2F22%2F2342258%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F10%2F22%2F2342258%2Flawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/10/22/2342258/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed
 at Slashdot.

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/10/22/2342258/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed