@courtneyjordan_esq: A Tulsa County deputy saw a car with a California plate, ran it through Flock, and got a month of that car’s movements. More than 50 sightings across multiple states. A federal judge just ruled that using Flock this way violated the Fourth Amendment. No warrant. No probable cause. The evidence that followed was suppressed. When the deputy ran the plate, the judge found that all he knew was that the car had a California license plate. Flock asked why he was searching. He entered “traffic violation” and “investigation.” What makes this ruling different is the scale. Nearly every court to consider ALPR technology has gone the other way. This judge said those decisions rely too heavily on a 1983 case involving a beeper hidden in one container. Flock is something very different. It can give police a continuously updated history of every vehicle caught by cameras across the network. The judge called that “indiscriminate mass surveillance.” The court’s point was simple: seeing your car on a public road is one thing. Quietly building a month long photographic history of where it has been is another. One judge. One district. The government can appeal. But for the first time in this case, a federal court in Oklahoma drew the constitutional line at pulling that kind of location history without probable cause or a warrant. United States v. Kyle, N.D. Okla., Doc. 62, Oct. 1, 2026. District court ruling, not binding on other courts, and subject to appeal. #Flock #ALPR #LicensePlateReaders #FourthAmendment #Surveillance

Courtney Jordan, Esq.

Open In TikTok:

Region: US

Saturday 03 October 2026 16:17:48 GMT