A federal judge ruled that a Tulsa, Oklahoma sheriff’s deputy violated a woman’s Fourth Amendment rights when using Flock Safety to search for her license plate without a warrant.
As reported by 404 Media, this ruling does not create binding precedent but is one of the first times a federal judge has ruled that a Flock search is unconstitutional.
Judge Sara Hill said the deputy should have obtained a warrant before searching the Flock database for the woman’s license plate, as he had “no apparent reason” for the search “other than the fact that [the woman’s vehicle] had a California license plate.”
The deputy used the woman’s travel history in Flock as part of justification for searching her car, where he allegedly discovered 91 pounds of meth. Judge Hill wrote that all evidence obtained after the Flock search “must be suppressed as the fruit of a poisonous tree.”
Judge Hill took broader aim at warrantless Flock database searches, writing that tracking people’s location becomes “constitutionally problematic when law enforcement can indiscriminately and passively catalog your whereabouts over an extended period of time and then use that information for any purpose whenever convenient.”
“This is a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance,” Hill wrote. “It is not targeted on a single individual, as in Carpenter v. United States. It is a tool that collects information about all vehicles that pass by any network-connected camera at all times, and it serves up the information to law enforcement on demand.”
Numerous local and state governments, including Florida and Texas, have said they will stop using the technology. Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the Block Flock Act to bar federal agencies from using automated license plate readers such as Flock.
Flock CEO Garrett Langley has called for a compromise between privacy and safety and offered an apology to women stalked by law enforcement officers using Flock. With cancellations mounting, Flock has reportedly offered voluntary employee buyouts.