Flock cameras and the Fourth Amendment: the court cases

Only real decisions here, linked to the documents. Courts are still working this out, and the outcome can depend on how many cameras there are, how long data is kept, and how it's searched.

Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (Flock, Virginia)

Two residents, represented by the Institute for Justice, sued in October 2024, arguing that Norfolk's warrantless use of its Flock cameras violated the Fourth Amendment (Virginian-Pilot). On January 27, 2026, U.S. District Judge Mark S. Davis granted the city summary judgment. The order found that operating 176 cameras in 75 clusters "does not constitute a search," because they did not capture "the whole" of a person's movements. It also noted that courts have "almost uniformly" held that ALPR photos and database queries are not searches. The plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit (No. 26-1227; docket). As of June 2026 it had not ruled, per Recording Law. We'll update this when it does.

Commonwealth v. McCarthy (Massachusetts, 2020)

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that four fixed ALPRs on the two bridges to Cape Cod didn't produce a detailed enough "mosaic" of movements to be a search. It also said widespread ALPR use, with enough cameras in enough places, could invade a reasonable expectation of privacy and require a warrant.

United States v. Martin (E.D. Va. 2024): a Flock query

Police searched a Flock database and found three images of the defendant's car over 30 days. The court held that wasn't a Fourth Amendment search, because isolated snapshots in public didn't reveal the whole of his movements (summary and opinion excerpts; 753 F. Supp. 3d 454).

Commonwealth v. Church (Va. Ct. App. 2025)

In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed a Norfolk trial court's order suppressing evidence found with Flock camera data, concluding no warrant was required (opinion, No. 0737-25-1). Unpublished opinions aren't binding precedent.

United States v. Yang (9th Cir. 2020)

Investigators queried a private ALPR database (Vigilant's LEARN) for a rental SUV. The Ninth Circuit held Yang had no reasonable expectation of privacy because the rental was overdue, so it didn't decide whether ALPR database searches are searches. Judge Bea concurred, reasoning the single record didn't reveal "the whole of [his] physical movements" (opinion).

Pending: Elser v. Flock Group, Inc. (D. Colo., filed Oct 2026)

A proposed class action against Flock filed in federal court in Colorado (docket; Axios). These are allegations only. Nothing has been decided.

The background: Carpenter v. United States (2018)

Both cases turn on the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning about long-term location tracking in Carpenter, which held police generally need a warrant for historical cell-phone location records (585 U.S. 296). The Norfolk plaintiffs argued a citywide camera network is similar; the district court disagreed (Recording Law).

What this means locally

So far, courts haven't required warrants for ALPR networks like these, so most limits come from state laws and local policy. That's why council votes and records requests matter. Start with your state page or take action.

Not legal advice. Know of another ALPR decision? Send the citation.