Lawsuit Argues Warrantless Use of Flock Surveillance Cameras Is Unconstitutional
A federal lawsuit in Virginia challenges the constitutionality of Flock surveillance cameras, claiming they violate the Fourth Amendment by enabling warrantless tracking and infringing on individual privacy rights.
Read original article
A civil liberties organization has filed a federal lawsuit in Virginia challenging the constitutionality of the warrantless use of Flock surveillance cameras, which are automated license plate readers (ALPRs). The lawsuit, initiated by the Institute for Justice, argues that the extensive network of 172 Flock cameras in Norfolk violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The plaintiffs, Lee Schmidt and Crystal Arrington, claim that the cameras allow law enforcement to track their movements without a warrant, effectively infringing on their privacy rights. Schmidt, a Navy veteran, asserts that the data collected can reveal his daily routines, while Arrington, a healthcare worker, fears that her clients could be identified through the surveillance. The lawsuit references a recent ruling by the Fourth Circuit of Appeals that deemed persistent, warrantless drone surveillance unconstitutional, suggesting a precedent for the case against Flock. The Norfolk police chief acknowledged the pervasive nature of the cameras, stating it is difficult to drive anywhere in the city without being captured on video. The lawsuit highlights concerns about the balance between law enforcement tools and individual privacy rights, emphasizing that constitutional protections should not be compromised for perceived safety benefits.
- A federal lawsuit in Virginia challenges the use of Flock surveillance cameras as unconstitutional.
- The lawsuit claims the cameras violate the Fourth Amendment by enabling warrantless tracking of individuals.
- Plaintiffs argue that the surveillance infringes on their privacy and can reveal personal routines.
- The case references a precedent ruling against warrantless drone surveillance.
- The Norfolk police chief acknowledges the extensive reach of the camera network.
Related
FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build a Car Surveillance Network
FedEx partners with Flock Safety for AI car surveillance network, sharing feeds with police. Concerns raised by activists over transparency and mass surveillance implications. Flock's customers include Kaiser Permanente. FedEx declines partnership details.
Federal Appeals Court Finds Geofence Warrants Are Categorically Unconstitutional
The Fifth Circuit Court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing the need for specific targeting in searches to protect individual privacy rights and referencing the Carpenter ruling.
US appeals court rules geofence warrants are unconstitutional
A federal appeals court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, citing Fourth Amendment violations. This decision contrasts with a similar ruling in the Fourth Circuit, raising privacy concerns.
US appeals court rules geofence warrants are unconstitutional
A federal appeals court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, citing Fourth Amendment violations. The decision raises privacy concerns and contrasts with a recent Fourth Circuit ruling.
You Do Have Some Expectation of Privacy in Public
The EFF asserts that individuals in the U.S. have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public, emphasizing the need for warrants for accessing sensitive tracking data amid advancing surveillance technologies.
2 commentsI would argue this would be one of the last bastions to keep total knowledge out of their hands, if they have it all then there is no longer an excuse for anything to go unsolved.
I guess maybe the only precedents we already have are how fbi knows about hacks but wont tell companies until they "feel like it" which is a real bad start to all this
Related
FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build a Car Surveillance Network
FedEx partners with Flock Safety for AI car surveillance network, sharing feeds with police. Concerns raised by activists over transparency and mass surveillance implications. Flock's customers include Kaiser Permanente. FedEx declines partnership details.
Federal Appeals Court Finds Geofence Warrants Are Categorically Unconstitutional
The Fifth Circuit Court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing the need for specific targeting in searches to protect individual privacy rights and referencing the Carpenter ruling.
US appeals court rules geofence warrants are unconstitutional
A federal appeals court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, citing Fourth Amendment violations. This decision contrasts with a similar ruling in the Fourth Circuit, raising privacy concerns.
US appeals court rules geofence warrants are unconstitutional
A federal appeals court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, citing Fourth Amendment violations. The decision raises privacy concerns and contrasts with a recent Fourth Circuit ruling.
You Do Have Some Expectation of Privacy in Public
The EFF asserts that individuals in the U.S. have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public, emphasizing the need for warrants for accessing sensitive tracking data amid advancing surveillance technologies.