Under Surveillance: Constitutional Concerns Surrounding Flock Cameras

How would you feel if every time you left your house, cameras were tracking every detail of your vehicle and exactly where you were going? This is a reality in many communities nationwide as “Flock Safety” cameras continue to gain popularity among police departments and private business owners. These cameras are touted for reducing crime and aiding police departments in unsolved cases. However, there are questions surrounding the constitutionality of the new technology. 

Flock Safety was founded in 2017 by three Georgia Tech alumni and has since become one of the fastest-growing companies in Atlanta. Their cameras can now be found in 4,000 cities across 42 different states. This includes North Carolina communities like Raleigh, where the police department installed 25 cameras in 2023. Within only 6 months of installation, the cameras assisted police officers in making 41 arrests.

The cameras work by taking a picture of a vehicle when it passes by. From the picture, it collects data about the vehicle such as the license plate number, color, and model. It can even track more subtle characteristics such as the bumper stickers on the car or whether the car has a roof rack. This data is then transferred to the Flock database where it can be accessed by Flock customers such as law enforcement agencies. The data is stored for up to 30 days after the information is first logged. 

Police departments have touted this new technology as allowing them to solve numerous cases and find stolen cars. The CEO of Flock claimed that the devices help police departments solve about 2,200 crimes per day. However, it is not only police departments who are relying on this new tech. Homeowners associations and private companies are also customers of Flock and are able to tap into their immense network of data. All of this leaves around 70 percent of the population under the coverage of Flock’s cameras.

While there are undeniably many benefits to police departments that come with this technology, many feel uneasy about constantly being watched without permission. To make matters worse there is no way to opt out of having your vehicle data and location history tracked by Flock. Anyone who drives past their cameras, whether they are a criminal or not, will have their data tracked and stored. This raises serious constitutional questions, including whether police officers should be required to obtain a warrant before accessing Flock’s Data. The Fourth Amendment protects an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. If the government seeks to intrude on this privacy, they must obtain a warrant supported by probable cause. 

How much privacy are students and faculty willing to surrender in the name of safety?

Conversely, the Supreme Court has held that police may take pictures of individuals’ license plates and compare them to their database without a warrant. This is because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when driving on a public road. Despite this, there has been somewhat of a trend in the Court’s decisions towards increased Fourth Amendment rights. One example is the 2018 case, Carpenter v. United States. In this case, the Court ruled that in order to obtain location data from cell phones, police were required to obtain a warrant. Part of this decision was due to the breadth of the data collected by cell phones which could track people’s locations at all times. This decision could lead to problems down the road for Flock. While it applies to a different technology, it would not be a far step in reasoning for the Court to rule that Flock’s system is overly and indiscriminately tracking individuals. 

In late 2022, an occurrence exhibited just how dangerous this technology can be when placed in the wrong hands. A member of the Kechi Police Department in Kansas, was arrested for using the Flock camera system to stalk his former wife. The system was able to show who exactly was illegally using the Flock system because it tracks who is using the system and what they use it for. Even so, it is easy to see this instance replicated in the future, further adding to the privacy concerns surrounding the technology. 

UNC entered into a contract with Flock in February to install 23 license plate readers across campus. This comes after Flock was initially denied the necessary license to conduct business in the state in 2023. Since then, Flock has been able to partner with a licensed third party and is now able to move forward with their contract with UNC. Flock is expected to install 23 license plate readers across campus, totaling over 200 thousand dollars between the cost of equipment and annual fees. There is little doubt that this technology will help the UNC police department solve crimes around campus and the Chapel Hill community. The question becomes, how much privacy are students and faculty willing to surrender in the name of safety?

Conner Martin

Conner attended the University of South Carolina for college where he majored in Risk Management. His hobbies include fishing, tennis, and watching sports. After law school, he is interested in a career in employment law.