Flock Cameras and The Fourth Amendment
Since the dawn of this country, the safety of its citizens has been a high priority of the government. Yet, what if this safety threatens to break the constitutional rights of citizens. On thousands of street corners, utility poles, and highway exits are these small cameras watching everyone's movement. These devices were introduced and implemented by security company Flock Safety. This network of cameras has expanded over 4,000 cities in 42 states, and around 120,000 cameras installed. Contrasting to traditional traffic cameras, Flock cameras utilize advanced artificial intelligence (AI). This means that they analyze every car even to the smallest detail rather than only analyzing the license plates. Law enforcement agencies operate using these cameras, often helping them solve crimes like car theft and amber alerts much quicker than before. However, this extensive surveillance continues to grow, which could threaten the protections ensured by the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment ensures protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, essentially in simpler terms; what you do in public cannot be private. In the Supreme Court case United States v. Knotts (1983) police officials used a radio beeper to track k a suspects car while they drove. The court ruled that this did not violate the Fourth Amendment, stating that a person traveling on the streets had no expectation for privacy. Their conclusion was that any bystander or officer could have seen them, justifying their ruling. However, as technology advances this court ruling becomes more complicated. An officer watching differs greatly from AI watching the movements of people.
Aknowledging this shift in technological advancement, the court created the “Mosaic Theory”. This theory was established in the court case Carpenter v. United States, arguing that a single snapshot of a car on a public road isn’t bad, but collecting thousands of photos over a long period of time could be an invasion of privacy. Similar to how tiles form a mosaic pattern, location and data information could reveal a lot about a citizen. In the Carpenter ruling the court established that the government requires a search warrant for cell phone record, they had also stated that tracking allows an intrusive amount of surveillance. Comparatively, when police utilize Flock cameras, they see everywhere the vehicle has been. Analyzing Flock data can reveal where a person lives, where they work, and mostly every aspect of their life. This amount of surveillance breaks a citizen’s expectation for privacy.
Although, the introduction of AI into the surveillance landscape has left a realm of gray area to be examined. Courts are deeply divided in regards to the use of Flock databases and searching them without a warrant. Early 2026, the court case Schmidt v. Norfolk, ruled that 176 Flock cameras did not violate Fourth Amendment protections. Contrastingly, many legal scholars argue that Flock cameras have real legal consequences which could be devastating. Most of the data stored within this database belongs to law abiding citizens. When data is stored at such a massive scale human misuse and technological errors start to become prevalent. The software can easily mix up numbers, letters, etc. These errors have caused officers to conduct traffic stops, and in some extreme cases pull over innocent families at gunpoint because their vehicle was falsely considered stolen. Additionally, Flock cameras require to include a reason of why they are searching the database, although, the system can be easily bypassed. Dozens of officers across the country have been suspected of stalking people using these cameras.
This network of cameras presents itself as a powerful technological tool, fundamentally changing privacy law. To preserve the protections in the Fourth Amendment, courts must establish a clear standard. Whenever law enforcement wants to search a person, they MUST present a probable cause and acquire a search warrant. Without this boundary the privacy of millions of people could be at risk.
Bibliography
Hofer, B. (2026, February 1). ALPRs and the Fourth Amendment: What Schmidt v. City of Norfolk Gets Wrong. Secure Justic. https://secure-justice.org/blog/alprs-and-the-fourth-amendment-what-schmidt-v-city-of-norfolk-gets-wrong
Marlow, C. (n.d.). Flock's Cameras Remain Civil Liberties Threat Despite Updates. ACLU. Retrieved August 31, 2026, from https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/tracking-alpr-cameras/despite-new-updates-flocks-creepy-cameras-remain-major-civil-liberties-threat
Roberts, J. G. (n.d.). Carpenter v. United States. Oyez. Retrieved August 31, 2026, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402