### Fourth Amendment Lawsuit Questions Norfolk’s Deployment of Automated License Plate Readers
A legal action initiated against Norfolk, Virginia, is sparking serious debates regarding the deployment of automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras and their effects on privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs, represented by the **Institute for Justice**, contend that the city’s broad application of these cameras represents warrantless surveillance, infringing on the constitutional rights of residents. This lawsuit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, aims to stop the utilization of these cameras and calls for the removal of all data gathered through the system.
#### The Surveillance Setup in Norfolk
Norfolk, home to about 238,000 inhabitants, has established a network of 172 ALPR cameras supplied by **Flock Safety**, a firm focused on surveillance technology. These cameras photograph every vehicle that travels through their field of view, capturing license plate details and other identifiers, such as car color and model, which are then recorded in a database. The system is built to monitor vehicles throughout the city and beyond, as Flock Safety operates in more than 5,000 communities across the nation.
As per the lawsuit, this array of cameras renders it almost impossible for locals to navigate the city without being monitored. The plaintiffs assert that this degree of surveillance breaches constitutional norms, permitting the warrantless gathering and retention of personal information, which can be accessed by law enforcement without sufficient cause or judicial oversight.
#### Legal Context and the Fourth Amendment
The lawsuit references current legal precedents, including a 2020 verdict by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the matter of *Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department*. In that instance, the court determined that continuous, warrantless aerial surveillance via drones in Baltimore violated the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The plaintiffs in the Norfolk lawsuit argue that the city’s operation of ground-based ALPR cameras is effectively comparable to the aerial surveillance deemed unconstitutional in Baltimore.
The lawsuit demands a ruling declaring Norfolk’s employment of ALPR cameras as a violation of the Fourth Amendment and requests a permanent injunction barring the city from running these cameras. Furthermore, the plaintiffs seek a court order for the obliteration of all images and data amassed by the system.
#### Flock Safety’s Position
Although not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, Flock Safety has stood by the legality of its technology. In a statement, the company referenced Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which it claims largely validates the use of ALPR cameras. Flock asserts that courts have regularly ruled that photographing vehicles in public areas does not equate to a warrantless search due to the absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning a vehicle’s exterior or license plate.
Flock also highlighted verdicts in at least 14 states, including decisions made by the Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, which have affirmed the constitutionality of ALPR systems. The company contends that license plates are issued by the government explicitly to identify vehicles in public, and capturing photographs of them does not breach privacy rights.
#### The Plaintiffs’ Stresses
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, **Lee Schmidt** and **Crystal Arrington**, are both regular drivers in Norfolk and the nearby Portsmouth, which also employs Flock cameras. Schmidt, a retired Navy veteran, alongside Arrington, a certified nursing assistant, argue that the relentless surveillance is profoundly intrusive and diminishes their privacy. Arrington expresses particular concern regarding the effect on her elderly clients, whose movements could also be monitored while she transports them to appointments in Norfolk.
The lawsuit underscores the risk of misuse of the ALPR system, pointing to instances in other states where law enforcement officials have exploited the technology. In Kansas, a police chief tracked his ex-girlfriend’s vehicle over 200 times in just four months using Flock cameras. In California, multiple police departments were found to have breached state laws by distributing ALPR data to agencies nationwide.
#### The Technology Underpinning Flock’s ALPR System
Flock’s ALPR technology is driven by sophisticated machine learning algorithms, which the company identifies as “Vehicle Fingerprint” technology. This system not only records license plate numbers but also captures additional identifying characteristics of vehicles, such as bumper stickers or roof racks. These attributes are stored in a searchable database, enabling law enforcement to monitor a vehicle’s travels over time and across different jurisdictions.
The plaintiffs maintain that this extent of surveillance generates a comprehensive record of every driver’s movements, accessible to law enforcement with minimal effort. The lawsuit alleges that Norfolk’s police chief has boasted about the system’s capabilities, asserting that “it would be difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere.”
#### Privacy vs. Public Safety
The city of Norfolk has defended its application of ALPR cameras, asserting that the system aims to bolster public safety while safeguarding citizen privacy. In
