Lawsuit: City cameras make it impossible to drive anywhere without being tracked
A lawsuit in Norfolk, Virginia, challenges automated license plate readers for violating the Fourth Amendment, claiming warrantless surveillance. Plaintiffs seek to ban the cameras and delete collected data.
Read original article
A lawsuit has been filed against the city of Norfolk, Virginia, challenging the use of automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras, which the plaintiffs argue violate the Fourth Amendment by enabling warrantless surveillance. The Institute for Justice represents residents Lee Schmidt and Crystal Arrington, who claim that the extensive network of 172 cameras makes it nearly impossible to drive without being tracked. The lawsuit seeks to declare the city's surveillance practices unlawful and to prohibit the operation of the cameras, as well as to require the deletion of all data collected. The plaintiffs argue that the cameras create a detailed record of their movements without any expectation of privacy. Flock Safety, the company providing the cameras, contends that their use does not constitute a warrantless search since license plates are visible in public. The lawsuit references a previous ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court, which deemed persistent aerial surveillance unconstitutional. The plaintiffs express concerns about the intrusive nature of the surveillance and the lack of restrictions on police access to the data. The city defends the cameras as a means to enhance public safety while maintaining that they respect citizen privacy.
- A lawsuit against Norfolk claims its ALPR cameras violate the Fourth Amendment.
- The plaintiffs argue the cameras enable warrantless surveillance of drivers.
- Flock Safety defends the legality of its cameras, stating they do not constitute a search.
- The lawsuit references a Fourth Circuit ruling against persistent aerial surveillance.
- Concerns are raised about police access to extensive tracking data without warrants.
Related
Grand Jury Finds Sacramento Cops Illegally Shared Driver Data
The Sacramento County Grand Jury found illegal driver data sharing by the Sheriff's Office and Police Department, violating state law. Recommendations include compliance with the Attorney General's guidance and public disclosure of ALPR policies. Organizations like EFF and ACLU advocate for enforcement of privacy laws.
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.
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.
2 comments> The appeals court "struck down an aerial surveillance program precisely because it created record of where everyone in the city of Baltimore had gone over the past 45 days," the lawsuit against Norfolk said
The cases are principly different. A car's registration technically belongs to the state. It's the state's license plate and it's essentially illegal to drive on public streets anonymized. Meanwhile, the aerial surveillance program was tracking at the individual level on private property.
I think it would be hard to overturn precedence here, but as a compromise it might be nice to make it mandatory to log and record all of the queries police departments make in such a system. There are enough cases of bad actors and abuse here (like the officers using it to search for ex-lovers). Make it so that any searches done on the database are available by a FOIA request, and that officers could be at risk of abuse of authority. Just like they would be if they issued a BOLO for personal reasons.
Related
Grand Jury Finds Sacramento Cops Illegally Shared Driver Data
The Sacramento County Grand Jury found illegal driver data sharing by the Sheriff's Office and Police Department, violating state law. Recommendations include compliance with the Attorney General's guidance and public disclosure of ALPR policies. Organizations like EFF and ACLU advocate for enforcement of privacy laws.
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.
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.