Where the argument is actually being decided.

Chatrie v. United States — Supreme Court geofence ruling with disputed application to ALPRs

The Court held that searches of cell phone location history are Fourth Amendment searches requiring a warrant, rejecting the government's argument about the incapacity of short-term location information to reveal private matters. Attorneys quoted say the reasoning — focused on a technology's overall capabilities rather than a specific use — could apply to ALPR networks.

The other side Flock's position is that the ruling is categorically different from licence plate recognition. No court has applied it to plate readers in a published decision.

Source · The Record (Recorded Future News) · read it

Tan v. City of San Jose — Institute for Justice Fourth Amendment suit over a Flock-supplied network

Plaintiffs Tony Tan, Scott West, and Colin Wolfson sued the City of San Jose over roughly 474 Flock Safety cameras capturing more than 360 million photographs annually, retained 30 days and accessible to thousands of government employees across California. The claim is warrantless mass surveillance under the Fourth Amendment.

The database has been searched more than 4,000 times in the last 30 days

— The Institute for Justice, in its case materials

The other side Active litigation, no ruling. Flock is not named as a defendant.

Source · Institute for Justice · read it

Javorsky v. Flock Group, Inc. — California class action naming Flock directly

Daniel Javorsky and Anthony Mayor, represented by Gibbs Mura, sued Flock Group Inc. on behalf of a putative class, alleging violations of California's ALPR Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.90.5 et seq.), negligence, invasion of privacy under the California Constitution Art. I § 1, intrusion upon seclusion, and Unfair Competition Law violations. Counsel cited 1.6 million out-of-state searches of the San Francisco PD database in seven months and over 1 million outside searches of Los Altos's database.

The collection of a license plate number, location, and time stamp over multiple time points can identify not only a person's exact whereabouts but also their pattern of movement.

— The complaint

The other side These are unproven allegations. Flock said it takes privacy, legal compliance and data security extremely seriously and will vigorously defend itself.

Source · Complaint (PDF) · read it

Schmidt v. City of Norfolk — summary judgment for the city; appeal pending in the Fourth Circuit

Two Norfolk residents, represented by the Institute for Justice, challenged the city’s 176 Flock cameras under the Fourth Amendment. Their vehicles were photographed 475 and 325 times respectively over four months in 2025. The district judge held the system does not violate the Fourth Amendment, distinguishing the Supreme Court’s cell-site decision on the ground that the cameras capture discrete images rather than continuous movement. The plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit, where the case is undecided.

An individual scan of a license plate … does not invade any privacy interests.

— Judge Davis

The other side The appeal is undecided. The United States filed in support of the city, arguing Americans lack a reasonable expectation of privacy on public roads.

Source · Courthouse News Service · read it

California Attorney General sued El Cajon over out-of-state ALPR sharing

AG Rob Bonta sued the City of El Cajon alleging it knowingly and repeatedly shared ALPR data with law enforcement agencies in 27 other states in violation of SB 34, which bars sharing ALPR data with federal and out-of-state agencies.

When information about Californians leaves the state, we no longer have any say over how it is used or shared.

— Attorney General Rob Bonta

The other side These are allegations in a pending civil action. El Cajon has contested the Attorney General's interpretation.

Source · California Office of the Attorney General · read it

Schmidt v. City of Norfolk — federal government intervenes on the city's side

The United States filed a statement of interest in the IJ-backed challenge to Norfolk's 176 Flock cameras, submitted by U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, defending warrantless ALPR surveillance. The government's position is that no American can reasonably expect privacy on public roads. IJ also maintains a parallel federal case in San Jose.

These cameras collect massive amounts of data about ordinary people's movements, data that can be mined to reveal habits, patterns, and behaviors.

— The Institute for Justice

The other side The government's position is that no American can reasonably expect privacy on public roads.

Source · Institute for Justice · read it

Eva Pizzarelli v. Town of Cumberland — $750,000 false-arrest suit (Rhode Island)

After a fleeing vehicle eluded a stop, an officer described the driver as a "white, middle-aged woman, with red hair." Police used Flock footage and Facebook searches to identify Eva Pizzarelli, who was arrested during an unrelated traffic stop and held over six hours. Charges were dismissed. She sued in U.S. District Court for false arrest, malicious prosecution and negligence, seeking $750,000. The town denies the claims and asserts qualified immunity.

Now that I see you in person, I am 1,000% sure it was you.

— The officer allegedly told her

The other side The town denies the claims and asserts qualified immunity. The allegations are unproven.

Source · North Carolina Lawyers Weekly · read it

Plate reads used to build a reason to search a car

Court records show deputies tracked a man’s vehicle on Flock cameras travelling between Wisconsin and Michigan, then coordinated a traffic stop on his return. The criminal complaint cited the travel pattern itself as grounds for suspicion.

The vehicle travels to Michigan frequently which is a known source State for Marijuana as it is legal there.

— The criminal complaint

The other side A bail-jumping charge was dismissed; he was convicted only of marijuana possession.

Source · 404 Media · read it

Norfolk Circuit Court suppressed warrantless Flock evidence in a criminal case

Judge Jamilah LeCruise suppressed evidence obtained from Flock cameras without a warrant in a firearm robbery prosecution, reasoning by analogy to GPS tracking and citing *United States v. Jones* (2012) and *Carpenter* (2018).

what we have is a dragnet over the entire city.

— Judge LeCruise

The other side The Commonwealth's Attorney disagreed, called the system a game changer, and planned to appeal. This is a single trial-court ruling, not binding precedent.

Source · Government Technology · read it