A company whose license plate readers have been installed in several Connecticut municipalities is the subject of a newly filed federal lawsuit alleging they violate the Fourth Amendment.
The Institute for Justice (IJ), a nonprofit, public interest law firm, recently filed a lawsuit against the city of Norfolk, Virginia on behalf of residents Lee Schmidt and Crystal Arrington who find it “downright creepy” that 172 license plate readers installed across the city as part of a contract with Flock Safety “follow them as they go about their days, noting where they are and when, and storing their movements in a government database for any officer to see.”
The lawsuit alleges that Flock Safety’s system violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless searches.
License plate readers installed by Flock Safety were also the subject of controversy in Colchester, Connecticut, and have also been installed in other towns in the state.
The Lawsuit
Flock Safety’s website advertising its products, which it sells as a means to eliminate crime in a community, brags about its ability to surveil communities “24/7.” It’s exactly this that Schmidt and Arrington object to.
“Unlike a police officer posted at an intersection, the cameras never blink, they never sleep, and they see and remember everything. Every passing car is captured, and its license plate and other features are analyzed using proprietary machine learning programs, like Flock’s ‘Vehicle Fingerprint.'” the lawsuit notes.
This, according to the lawsuit, creates a trackable database, where data is retained for thirty days, that allows anyone who can access the database to not only see where a car was on a given day but also to track and map any given driver’s movement, regardless of whether they’ve been accused of a crime or are the subject of a police investigation.
The lawsuit also notes that Norfolk’s police chief has bragged about how complete the camera’s coverage is, reportedly stating “it would be difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere.” The city also has plans to add an additional 65 cameras, according to the lawsuit.
While Norfolk police’s policy reportedly limits access to use of the database for law enforcement policy, the lawsuit alleges there is no meaningful way to enforce this. Accessing the database requires watching an orientation video and creating login credentials.
And, more significantly, accessing the database does not require a warrant.
“No officer ever has to establish probable cause, swear to the facts in a warrant application, and await the approval of a neutral judge. The cameras take photographs and store the information of every driver that passes them–suspect or not. The photographs and information are then available to any officer in the City to use as they see fit, for the next 30 days. And if City officials download the photos and information during that 30-day window, there are no meaningful restraints on how long they can hold them or how they may be used.” the lawsuit states.
Another of the lawsuit’s concerns is that Flock Safety also maintains a centralized database, allowing anyone with access to track a license plate beyond a single community.
“[e]ven after a driver leaves the City, officers can potentially keep following them in the more than 5,000 communities where Flock currently has cameras. Likewise, any person with access to Flock’s centralized database can access the City’s information, potentially without the City even knowing about it.” the lawsuit notes.
This, according to the lawsuit, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It calls Flock Safety’s ability to track a person’s movement over 30 days a search and argues that because the city allows officers to access this information without a warrant and at any time for any reason, the searches are unreasonable.
Flock Safety Makes Inroads in Connecticut
A number of Connecticut towns are among the 5,000 across the country where Flock Safety license plate readers have been installed. Atlas of Surveillance, a website maintained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that uses open-source research to document technologies police are using, identifies 21 police departments in the state that have installed or budgeted funds for the use of license plate readers. Not all have contracts with Flock Safety.
Through contracts with police departments, Flock Safety has license plate readers in Cheshire, Darien, New Canaan, and Southington.
A number of towns, but not all, where Flock Safety cameras are installed have publicly available information on information that has been collected through a “transparency portal” maintained by the company.
In Cheshire, which has 12 cameras, 276,583 vehicles have been identified in the past 3o days, as of October 22. Of those hundreds of thousands of records, just 495, or 0.17 percent of captured vehicles, were flagged through the National Crime Information Center and the Amber alert systems, the two “hotlists” the license plate readers are programmed to identify. According to Cheshire’s policy with Flock Safety, “hotlist hits” must be identified by humans before action is taken. There have been 282 searches of Cheshire’s data in the past 30 days, as of October 22.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
The title is deceptive “ license plate readers found in CT violate 4th Amendment”, when in the article, it says there is a lawsuit still pending.
“Lawsuit: license plate readers found in CT violate 4th Amendment”
It really comes as no surprise to me that the State of Corrupticut would use license plate readers that violate the US Constitution. This state needs to change the license plate from reading ‘Constitution State’ to read the ‘ We Shred the Constitution in thos state’. All in the interesr of money safety really has little to do with it. If these readers and cameras were really a safety issue then why did our legislature just allow the sale after Cannibis. It’s all about the money and only the money in Connecticut.
The atty general recently said that hunting rifles are not protected by the CT Constitution. The communists are here
To clarify, it was Associate Attorney General Joshua Perry. He made $168,920 last year.
Read about his statements, here: https://insideinvestigator.org/hunting-guns-protection/
Why don’t they just make it a law that anybody that’s legally able to carry a weapon should that way there everybody’s carrying a weapon for self-defense that should deter a lot of people and carrying out any kind of mass shooting
When they were installed, THE TOWNS who installed them didn’t know about this controversy in Virginia. In fact, it hasn’t been proven to violate anything since it has not been ruled on in Virginia or any state for that matter. Your jumping to conclusions shows you believe in guilty until proven innocent, and very likely strictly a political statement on your part rather than a statement of fact since you condemned the state when only a half dozen cities/towns have cameras from this company.
The only people that have to worry are the criminals and people who violate the laws. It is a great police tool that makes this country safe.
No no. This is garbage. This lawsuit needs to set a healthy precedent or this practice is going to open a huge door for the government to chip away at our privacy more and more. Fingers crossed this is declared unconstitutional.
When they were installed, THE TOWNS who installed them didn’t know about this controversy in Virginia. In fact, it hasn’t been proven to violate anything since it has not been ruled on in Virginia or any state for that matter. Your jumping to conclusions shows you believe in guilty until proven innocent, and very likely strictly a political statement on your part rather than a statement of fact since you condemned the state when only a half dozen cities/towns have cameras from the company.
Really. And no gov’t in existence ever saw the people as the threat.
“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~Benjamin Franklin
Please shut up. To quote Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
This is another example of “big brother” coming true. What can be done about this? I was stopped after being read or scanned..How may I receive more information on the lawsuit?
There is already a D.O.T. camera system that covers the same, or more than, this surveillance system, at no extra charge. The police can, with a warrant and a real person, utilize this system to do the same thing, minus the program that tracks every vehicle and it’s entire journey throughout their system.
Here’s the problem, say you park somewhere to use your phone because you’re a responsible driver, unbeknownst to you some criminal activity happens near you and you flee that scene for your own safety. Well, the police look through this system and there’s your car fleeing the scene of a crime. Doesn’t matter you had nothing to do with it, you were in the area. Now, the police are wasting money going after you and not the actual perpetrators simply because it’s easier to track where you went. Or, your pulled over for some other traffic violation, they decide to check this system that puts you at ‘the scene’ of something else that you have no real idea about, now they’re harassing you about something you don’t know, calling you a liar for not admitting to whatever they are accusing you of. Because that’s how the police treat people, like they are already guilty, instead of innocent until proven guilty by a court.
That is the difference. The D.O.T. system can do everything this Flock system can with more work than queuing a program. The D.O.T. camera system requires a warrant to access, while the Flock system only needs you to make an account with them, no warrant required. And that is exactly why the Flock system is a violation of the 4th amendment and the D.O.T. system is not.
There is already a camera system in place, we don’t need to waste money on a system that makes it easier for corrupt police to use against everyone, regardless of an actual crime being committed, traffic violations are civil not criminal.
And this ‘if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about ‘ mentality is complete nonsense when the police, using public funds to operate, are hiding what happens to the officers who are guilty of crimes themselves.
Does anyone know what happened to the cop who was in uniform, in police cruiser, on duty drunk, crashed into someone and fled the scene? Why should the police have more privacy than the public? Don’t want the public to know where an officer lives, should be obvious, a police officer lives at the police station, not their own personal address.
Better yet also. In an free democracy why does the gov’t feel the need, or ever have the authority to create classified info. Or redact info from documents. So as an citizen of this great country, I figure every taxpayer can now if accused of criminality, do an self audit or internal investigation on themselves. To even out the field.
You do realize that every time you travel a toll highway, this happens. Every E Z Pass user is tracked. Travel tge Mass Pike and have your plate tracked. Now you complain???
It doesn’t track people. It tracks vehicles. No rights are being violated. If you don’t want your car to be photographed, don’t drive it.
Every single person is carrying a tracking device wherever they go. Why is this any different?
It’s all fine and dandy until the police which we all know abuse power, starts tracking women that they desire correct? Or using it for personal gain to track someone they don’t like…hmmm
Ultimate power will always turn ugly, history proves that fact over and over again.
Fairfield’s Chief of Police and top detective just got caught covering for a Norwalk wife beating cop. Whistle blower cop fired, Chief Wifebeat Coverup and Detective Quid Pro Quo still have their jobs. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/fairfield-asks-judge-to-toss-discrimination-retaliation-lawsuits-filed-by-former-detective/ar-AA1z51Ew
Warrantless data access is the difference. Just because you have legit cops in your town doesn’t mean everyone does:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/fairfield-asks-judge-to-toss-discrimination-retaliation-lawsuits-filed-by-former-detective/ar-AA1z51Ew
Until they start tracking your girlfriend huh?
Your vehicle has all of your personal information that associated to DMV (Name, Address, DOB, SS#, Auto Ins company name, etc). When scammers/hackers steal your identity you wonder how it happens to you.
So that plate being read does not return to an individual. Just an vehicle. And yet there are countless state and federal employees with ultra dark tinted windows and dark tinted plate covers. Wonder why.
it’ll never fly in court. unfortunately, police do not have to have previously established probable cause in order to legally follow you… and accessing a database that contains info about where someone was on a particular date and time is no different than asking an actual officer with a particularly good memory about it, whom could’ve been at the intersection that one or more of these cameras are installed at… also, there was no search. i regret to inform you that your law suit is invalid.
It is an right of privacy. Why do they need all this data. I’m sure it is only for our benefit being such trustworthy people want it so badly
There is no expectation of privacy in a public space. The cameras are not tracking a person; they are tracking a vehicle.
I don’t think this a violation of the 4th at all. I feel this is an important step to securing the safety of the communities involved. A few months ago my families car was involved in a hit and run. If my community had the information I’m sure the perpetrator would’ve been caught with his busted bumpers.
Not to mention the countless other ways your car and license plate can be tracked. From parking at a shopping Plaza to ringdoorbell and tolls booths. At what point do we draw the line?
We draw the line at this point. This is unregulated government surveillance. This is why we need citizen oversight of our powers that be. And this is a great example of the proper use of the media, to call attention to something going on behind most people’s curtain of awareness. Good job on this article whatever your opinion of the situation.
Do you have E Z Pass? Do you travel any toll road that no longer has booths? Your vehicle/plate is being photographed. Do you have a GPS? Your location is known! People making a mountain out of a mole hill so they can make a political statement. A q±?
Whenever the civil servants overstep their authority. Which is constantly.
I think this is a great asset to help law enforcement and protecting society if you are clean and a good citizen nothing to fear unless you have criminal tendencies
Criminal tendencies. You must be an gov’t employee.
Why in Colchester and New Canaan but not in Hartford where it’s actually needed?
Have you been to Lilly white conservative Colchester ? 😂 They fear the evil hordes of Waterford, New London and Norwich invading their little hamlet of upper class safety aka predominantly white, upper class Trumpers who hate anything that doesn’t look, act and think like they do ! And your remark about Hartford “needing them” says a lot about you as well !
So you reveal yourself as a liberal Trump hater! Kinda reveals your prejudicial mind set doesn’t it. Not everything comes down to one person!
So you reveal yourself as a liberal Trump hater! Kinda reveals your prejudicial mind set doesn’t it. Not everything comes down to one person! It’s not a political consideration, it’s about rights!
Please stay out of my life. There is no need for this surveillance unless a crime has been committed. It’s creepy to think someone is watching you all the time, just in case a crime is committed. I interact with my local police several times a month but they don’t follow me around and to my house.
Do you travel toll roads, use GPS on your phone or car? You are being tracked. Your location is known. You don’t complain about being tracked that way? When you use a credit card, your location is known. Wow. Who knew??? Lol.
None of that available to cops with zero effort. This is a straw man argument and lacks integrity. But, since you are a believer in cops, here’s the models of integrity we have: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/fairfield-asks-judge-to-toss-discrimination-retaliation-lawsuits-filed-by-former-detective/ar-AA1z51Ew
This wouldn’t be a TERRIBLE overreach if it required a search warrant to access the database. If a vehicle is identified at a crime scene, that should be probable cause for the warrant. Google actually has a system like this that allows officers WITH A WARRANT to geofence the area of a crime and request the people that were there at the time.
Has anyone heard of the blade runners in the United Kingdom that deal with this and take down the cameras so they don’t have the ability to track people this is what we need to do in the United States so they cannot track and intimidate and violate our rights on apologetically it’s time to unapologetically take back our rights and do what we need to do to protect them which in my opinion is blade run the s*** out of those cameras!
Smart… break the law because you don’t want law enforcement to have the ability to protect you. The only oeople who shoukd be concerned are criminals. Continue using GPS on your phone or in your car.
Are you going to do away with those?
We the citizen need these technologies to track all gov’t workers.
No violation.
The police an get your movements from your phone movement.
A license plate reader is a great tool when searching fore a vehicle used in a crime
Stupid lawsuit and no violation of search.
Do you travel toll roads, use GPS on your phone or car? You are being tracked. Your location is known. You don’t complain about being tracked that way? When you use a credit card, your location is known. Wow. Who knew??? Lol.
As an advocate for transparency and accountability, the author of this article needs take a second look at her reporting.
First, the lawsuit is filed, and not settled, in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Second, the article simply lists a number of cities in the State of Connecticut where these cameras are used.
Based on the content of this article, the title “License plate readers found in CT violate 4th amendment” is an opinion. So, this is an OpEd by an “advocate.” The only established facts in the article are that several cities in Connecticut and 5000 across the country have these cameras.
Oh, and a lawsuit has been filed.
But nothing has been found to “violate” any part of the Constitution, yet.
This article could have been so much more informative on the discussion of whether information (photos) captured in the public sphere (publicly owned streets) are subject to Constitutional protections (the very reason I chose to click on the article.)
I would like to be informed on this subject, not swayed.
Hey Neil – thank you for reading Inside Investigator and writing in. I’ll come to Katherine’s defense here as someone who had a role in creating this headline. At no point is a claim made that the matter is settled. The headline importantly includes “Lawsuit:” at the beginning, similar to how other headlines have read “Report: CT economy lagging behind the country.” (9.7.23) to indicate where the claim is coming from and what relevant question is being raised for the reader to consider. This is a follow-up to previous reporting on Colchester’s dispute over the use of Flock Safety, linked in the article and the filing of this lawsuit is relevant to hundreds of thousands of Connecticut residents who live in or drive through communities where this technology is in use. We are happy to answer any other questions and appreciate the feedback about what elements of this topic you would like us to consider in future coverage. Thank you!
You sound like a broken record.