Flock

Despite a Notable Victory in Oklahoma, Legal Challenges to Flock Cameras Still Face Long Odds

State and federal courts have almost uniformly ruled that searches of ALPR databases do not implicate the Fourth Amendment.

Jacob Sullum | 10.9.2026 3:50 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Flynt/Dreamstime/mpi10/IMAGO/MediaPunch/Newscom)

Last week, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled that querying a database of information collected by automated license plate readers (ALPRs) counts as a search under the Fourth Amendment. As Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown noted, that decision was welcome news for critics who argue that warrantless access to ALPR data threatens the privacy of innocent motorists across the country. But a decision that a California judge issued the following day, which dismissed a lawsuit arguing that San Jose's ALPR network violates the state constitution, is much more typical of litigation in this area, which so far has been almost uniformly unsuccessful.

The contrast between those two decisions suggests the challenges such lawsuits face as judges grapple with the implications of Supreme Court precedents involving cellphone location data. Although the relevance of those precedents might seem obvious, state and federal courts generally have perceived important differences between cellphone tracking and police use of roadside cameras that record images of passing cars.

The Oklahoma case, United States v. Kyle, stemmed from Tulsa County Deputy Sheriff Freddie Alaniz's search of a database maintained by Flock Safety, the leading ALPR supplier. Alaniz obtained historical location information for a car that had California plates, which at that point was the only grounds for suspecting the driver was involved in criminal activity. As rationales for the search, Alaniz typed "traffic violation" and "investigation," which gives you a sense of how slight the pretext for accessing ALPR data can be: When Alaniz typed those words, he had neither witnessed a traffic violation nor collected any evidence that would justify a criminal investigation.

The basis for the database search, in other words, was at best a hunch and probably closer to idle curiosity. It did not amount to reasonable suspicion, let alone the probable cause required for a warrant.

In concluding that the ALPR query violated the Fourth Amendment, U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill relied on the logic of the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States, which involved location data collected by cell sites, and its 2026 decision in Chatrie v. United States, which involved information collected by Google's Location History feature. In both cases, the Court perceived a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and an exception to the "third party" doctrine, which says people........

© Reason.com