A Growing, Bipartisan Chorus Says Flock Cameras Violate the Fourth Amendment

Retired U.S. Air Force Col. Rob Maness didn't mince words on X this week, telling followers that governments using Flock license plate reader cameras are "breaking the law" and that the system violates the Fourth Amendment. Maness is not a constitutional lawyer, and he's said as much himself. But a fast-growing, cross-partisan list of elected officials, advocacy groups and now the U.S. Supreme Court's own recent signaling suggests he's far from alone.

A Louisiana Lawmaker Makes It Official

The argument has already reached the Louisiana Legislature. State Rep. Danny McCormick has proposed a bill that would ban Flock and other license plate reader cameras statewide, arguing the technology amounts to a warrantless search. According to KNOE, McCormick said, "I don't believe innocent people should be tracked on their day-to-day routine." He said the government should need a warrant to track citizens and called it a strict Fourth Amendment violation, pointing to how the technology could have been misused to track the public during the COVID-19 pandemic. McCormick said the bill already has more public support than almost anything else he's proposed.

A Republican Wave in Congress

McCormick isn't alone among elected Republicans making the constitutional case. Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett has introduced a bill banning federal agencies from purchasing or funding Flock cameras, which he calls unconstitutional. Speaking to WZTV, Burchett said law enforcement needs tools to address threats, "but taking our constitutional rights is not on the table."

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie is pushing companion legislation to withhold federal funding from agencies that use the cameras. And Indiana Rep. Marlin Stutzman is now drafting his own bill after, according to Slay News, police used Flock's network to track his vehicle to his own home during a traffic stop. Stutzman warned that "millions of law-abiding Americans are also being swept into a massive surveillance system."

Democrats and Local Governments Are Pushing Back, Too

The opposition isn't confined to one party. Fifteen Michigan Democratic lawmakers sent a letter demanding the state's transportation department cease contracts allowing federal agencies to install license plate readers on state property, NewsNation reports. Connecticut state Sens. Bob Duff and James Maroney publicly called for a statewide pause on new installations and are planning 2027 legislation to tighten regulation. Washington state Sen. Yasmin Trudeau has introduced a bill to sharply limit who can access Flock data and to ban the cameras near protests, health facilities, schools and houses of worship. Locally, Davidson County, North Carolina, commissioners are set to vote Aug. 24 on the future of their own Flock program after resident complaints, joining a list of at least 23 jurisdictions nationwide that have already canceled or rejected Flock contracts.

The Legal Fight Underneath the Politics

Beneath the political momentum is an active courtroom battle. The civil liberties law firm Institute for Justice is suing over warrantless use of Flock's network, arguing that it is "functionally impossible for people to drive anywhere without having their movements tracked." Sen. Ron Wyden has separately revealed that ICE, the U.S. Secret Service and the Navy's criminal investigative division have all accessed Flock's nationwide camera network.

The most-watched case remains Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, where Virginia residents argued the city's blanket Flock network amounted to a warrantless search under Carpenter v. United States, the 2018 Supreme Court ruling that established a reasonable expectation of privacy in long-term movement data. The suit survived an early motion to dismiss, but a federal judge ultimately ruled for the city in January, finding no constitutional violation. That ruling is now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. A Quinnipiac law professor told NBC Connecticut that courts so far have narrowly ruled Flock's use does not cross a constitutional line — but the question remains far from settled.

A Supreme Court Wildcard

Complicating matters for Flock is a fresh Supreme Court ruling that didn't even mention license plate readers by name. In Chatrie v. United States, the justices sent back a case over a geofence data request, with the majority holding that people have a constitutionally protected privacy interest in their location history, even when it's held by a third party. Civil liberties attorneys say the decision, and the ACLU's own reading of it as reinforcing Fourth Amendment protection over location data, could give defense attorneys new footing to challenge warrantless ALPR searches going forward.

Flock has consistently rejected the constitutional argument. Founder and CEO Garrett Langley told The Drivecast the issue is "pretty cut and dry," maintaining courts have consistently found the company's cameras don't constitute a warrantless search.

An Unsettled Question, Now Before Courts, Congress and Statehouses

What was once a niche activist talking point is now a live question working through Congress, at least four statehouses, a pending federal appeal and, indirectly, the U.S. Supreme Court itself. Whether that adds up to a Fourth Amendment violation is still for the courts to decide — but the list of people willing to say so out loud, from a decorated Louisiana colonel to sitting members of Congress in both parties, keeps growing.

Sources:

KNOE — Lawmaker proposes license plate detecting cameras

Fox17 — Congressman criticizes Flock cameras

Northeast Times — Massie proposed federal funding ban

Slay News — Stutzman moves to crack down on Flock

NewsNation — Flock cameras face growing bipartisan backlash

Yahoo/MyNorthwest — New bill would regulate Flock cameras in WA

Fox8 WGHP — Davidson County pushes for Flock camera ban

Business & Human Rights Centre — Flock mass surveillance concerns

Newsweek — Flock Camera Controversy: What Does the Constitution Say?

NBC Connecticut — Do Flock cameras violate the Fourth Amendment?

Truthout — SCOTUS ruling could be bad news for Flock

ACLU — Statement on Supreme Court location-data ruling

The Drive — Flock CEO Garrett Langley interview