A lawsuit filed against the use of surveillance technology provided by Flock Safety in Norfolk, Virginia, has been allowed to proceed after a judge decided to throw out the city’s motion to dismiss.
Without going into the merits of the case, the ruling provides a chance to use the discovery process to show whether the plaintiffs’ arguments are valid.
We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.
Originally filed in October by the Institute for Justice on behalf of two residents, the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief alleged that by installing a network of cameras and using an AI-driven database, the local authorities made it “functionally impossible” for people to drive without being tracked.
The filing refers to the practice as unconstitutional, warrantless, dragnet surveillance that runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment rules against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The cameras in question are not used to monitor traffic violations but, according to Norfolk Police Chief Mark Talbot’s statement made two years ago – “help solve crime.”
For this reason, Institute for Justice attorney Michael Soyfer believes each of Norfolk’s networked 172+ cameras “should be thought of as a police officer.”
More:Â Surveillance Nation on Trial
The motion to dismiss has been rejected based on the Carpenter v. United States Supreme Court case, which established that location tracking via cell phones can only be done with a warrant.
The Flock cameras capture license plates, a vehicle’s manufacturer, model, color, damage, and even details such as bumper stickers, while this data is retained for 30 days.
Soyfer spoke about the expectation of privacy that’s constitutionally guaranteed and how the surveillance networks of the kind addressed in the lawsuit relate to that expectation.
Not well, according to the attorney. “Historically, no one thought that police would be posted at 172 locations to write down everyone who went by for 30 days at a time,” he said.
Flock Safety is a multi-billion company that sells AI surveillance tech across the US, with law enforcement, schools, retailers, property managers, and neighborhood associations among its clients.
However, in Virginia, the use of the company’s cameras is unregulated. A recent House of Delegates bill, HB 2724, was designed to restrict the ways law enforcement is allowed to use these cameras.
But Soyfer says it falls short of what should be the objective – namely, “stop the operation of this unconstitutional dragnet surveillance system.”
