WTF? (What the Flock?)

One of the most talked-about topics I’ve seen recently is the rise of the modern surveillance state, particularly the widespread use of License Plate Readers (LPRs). I’ve come across compelling arguments both in support of and against this technology. Some advocates rely on weak arguments such as, “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide,” which oversimplify legitimate privacy concerns.

As a police officer in a department that has invested millions of dollars into Flock Safety’s LPR system, I’ve had the opportunity to see firsthand how the technology works and how it is actually used in day-to-day policing. In this article, I’ll break down what Flock is, address some of the common Fourth Amendment concerns surrounding LPRs, and examine whether the public safety benefits truly outweigh the potential privacy costs.

Flock Safety is a for-profit, third-party company best known for its License Plate Reader (LPR) technology, although its platform extends well beyond license plate recognition. In addition to LPR cameras, Flock offers live-streaming security cameras, drone-based surveillance solutions, and audio detection technology designed to assist law enforcement and public safety agencies.

The primary purpose of Flock’s LPR system is to help law enforcement solve crimes more efficiently. Using artificial intelligence, the system allows officers to search for a suspect vehicle using anything from a complete license plate to a broad vehicle description: such as the make, model, color, or distinguishing features. The software then returns matching vehicles in chronological order from cameras within a selected geographic area.

I’ve used Flock extensively in my own work and have seen both its strengths and limitations firsthand. It has helped me identify suspects in hit-and-run crashes, locate shoplifting and robbery suspects, and even develop probable cause in several DWI investigations. When used appropriately, it can dramatically reduce the time it takes to generate investigative leads that otherwise might never have been discovered.

I also have firsthand experience with Flock’s Drone First Responder (DFR) program. My department currently operates two Flock drones that are piloted by department personnel. These drones can be deployed to the location of a 911 call, sometimes arriving before officers are dispatched, to provide real-time situational awareness.

The drones have proven valuable in a wide range of incidents, including disturbances, stranded motorists, missing persons, and other calls where an aerial perspective can help officers make more informed decisions before arriving on scene. Depending on how an agency configures the system, Flock’s automation features can even launch a drone automatically in response to certain calls for service, allowing it to begin gathering information while officers are still en route.

Having watched these drones in operation, I was genuinely surprised by the quality of the cameras. From several hundred feet in the air, they are capable of zooming in far enough to read license plates and capture facial details with remarkable clarity. I have not personally been involved in a case where that level of capability was necessary, but knowing the technology exists, and seeing it perform in real time, was eye-opening.

Before deciding whether Flock raises legitimate Fourth Amendment concerns, it’s important to first understand what the Fourth Amendment actually protects. In law enforcement, it’s arguably one of the most important constitutional provisions we apply on a daily basis.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. As a general rule, when no recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies, law enforcement must obtain authorization from a judge before conducting a search; typically in the form of a search warrant. In my experience, warrants are highly specific. They must clearly identify what is being searched, the legal basis for the search, and, when applicable, what evidence officers are authorized to seize.

One of the most common arguments made by critics of Flock and other forms of government surveillance is that mass collection of vehicle data is, by its very nature, an unreasonable search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. The concern is that the government should not be able to continuously monitor the movements of millions of law-abiding citizens without individualized suspicion or judicial oversight.

I think that concern deserves to be taken seriously.

Even if you have nothing to hide, the idea of living in a society where your movements can be cataloged and analyzed by the government is understandably unsettling. Flock isn’t simply taking a photograph and immediately discarding it. The system can identify travel patterns, determine when multiple vehicles are traveling together, record the locations and times those vehicles were seen, and retain that information for a period of time. Other Flock products, such as its live camera systems, can also capture high-resolution images that may reveal facial features and monitor pedestrian activity in an area.

From a privacy standpoint, it’s easy to understand why many people view this as government overreach.

As someone who has personally benefited from the technology in criminal investigations, I have mixed feelings. I’ve seen cases solved more quickly because of Flock, and I’ve seen victims receive justice who otherwise may not have. At the same time, I think it’s fair to ask whether this level of data collection and long-term retention is truly necessary. That question deserves an honest discussion rather than dismissing concerns with clichés like, “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.”

Before taking a firm position on Flock or any other surveillance technology, I think it’s worth asking yourself a few questions:

– Are you concerned about the amount of information your smartphone collects? Modern phones can record your location history, search history, app usage, contacts, calendars, photos, browsing activity, advertising identifiers, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connections, and, depending on your settings and the apps you use, much more.

– Do you share personal information with AI platforms or online services? Whether it’s asking an AI for advice, uploading family photos, or generating viral AI portraits, you’re voluntarily providing data to companies that process and store that information according to their policies.

– What are your thoughts on patrol vehicles equipped with license plate readers? Police agencies have been using vehicle-mounted LPRs for well over a decade, yet they rarely generate the same level of public discussion as fixed camera networks.

– Do you regularly post photos of yourself, your family, or your daily life on social media? Many people unknowingly reveal where they live, where they work, who they’re with, where they vacation, and what their daily routines look like. Even if your account is private, information shared online isn’t always limited to the audience you intended.

– Finally, do you believe law enforcement should be able to use publicly available information such as social media posts, public records, or commercial databases, during a criminal investigation?

The reality is that most of us have been generating digital footprints for years. Government surveillance is only one piece of a much larger ecosystem of data collection. Technology companies, advertisers, app developers, data brokers, and social media platforms all collect enormous amounts of information about our habits, interests, and movements.

As a police officer, I’ve used publicly available information during criminal investigations. If a suspect posts incriminating photos on a public social media account or openly shares information relevant to an investigation, it would be difficult to justify ignoring it. The same principle applies to many publicly accessible databases that investigators have lawfully relied on for years.

I’m not asking these questions to argue that Flock is automatically justified or that privacy concerns are overblown. Rather, I think they’re important because the conversation often focuses exclusively on government surveillance while overlooking the vast amount of personal information people voluntarily share with private companies every day. If we’re going to have an honest discussion about privacy, government surveillance, and the Fourth Amendment, we should examine the entire landscape… not just one piece of it.

So, the elephant in the room is this: Does Flock Safety, by itself, violate the United States Constitution?

It’s important to separate two different questions: Is it constitutional? and Is it good public policy? Those are not always the same thing. When courts analyze whether something violates the Constitution, the focus is on legality… not whether people find it morally right or wrong.

Under current Fourth Amendment doctrine, the answer is generally no. The reason is that people ordinarily do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in what they knowingly expose to the public. If you’re driving on a public roadway, your license plate, the make and model of your vehicle, and your location are all visible to anyone who happens to be there; including other motorists, pedestrians, or police officers.

Think about how often you’re recorded without giving it a second thought. Walk into a grocery store, a gas station, a bank, or virtually any retail business, and there’s a good chance security cameras are documenting your movements. Those cameras aren’t there because the business is curious about your day. They are there to deter crime, protect customers and employees, and provide evidence if a crime occurs.

The same legal principle generally applies. A reasonable person would expect that activities conducted in public may be observed or recorded. Because of that, courts have historically held that merely observing or recording what is already exposed to public view does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment search.

That doesn’t end the conversation, however. The more difficult question isn’t whether a single camera can record a passing vehicle… it’s whether a vast network of cameras, combined with artificial intelligence, long-term data retention, and the ability to reconstruct a person’s movements over time, changes the constitutional analysis. That’s where the legal debate becomes much more interesting, and it’s the question courts have increasingly begun to grapple with.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, depending on your perspective… the intersection of artificial intelligence and mass surveillance is still largely uncharted legal territory. To my knowledge, there is no controlling Supreme Court case that directly addresses the constitutionality of AI-assisted public surveillance systems like Flock in the context of criminal investigations. License plate readers themselves have existed for years, but the combination of nationwide camera networks, artificial intelligence, and the ability to rapidly analyze enormous amounts of data is a much newer development.

Interestingly, license plate readers have been around for well over a decade with relatively little public attention. Today, however, companies like Flock have become the center of a much larger conversation. I can’t spend five minutes on social media without seeing someone passionately defending or condemning the technology.

So, where do you stand?

Benjamin Franklin is often credited with saying:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Do you believe Flock represents the kind of government intrusion Franklin warned about? Or is it simply another investigative tool, no different in principle than security cameras, fingerprints, or DNA databases?

What do you think Flock’s primary purpose is? Is it fundamentally a crime-fighting tool, or do you believe it’s part of something much larger involving mass data collection and long-term tracking? And perhaps the hardest question of all: if someone you loved became the victim of a violent crime, would you want investigators to use every lawful tool available, including Flock, to identify the person responsible?

I don’t pretend to have all the answers.

Professionally, I’ve seen Flock produce real results. I’ve used it to identify suspects involved in local crimes, locate vehicles connected to investigations, and identify impaired drivers before they had the opportunity to seriously injure or kill someone. Those are tangible benefits that are difficult to ignore.

At the same time, I understand why people are uneasy about expanding surveillance capabilities and the growing role of artificial intelligence. Those concerns are legitimate, and they deserve serious discussion rather than dismissal.

There have also been officers who have abused access to systems like Flock for personal reasons. That conduct is inexcusable. When public officials misuse investigative tools, they violate the public’s trust, and they should be held accountable. The existence of abuse, however, does not necessarily mean the technology itself has no legitimate place. We don’t abandon medicine because some doctors commit malpractice, eliminate public education because some teachers behave unethically, or abolish policing because some officers break the law. We punish the individuals responsible while continuing to improve oversight, accountability, and safeguards.

If you’ve made it this far, you might assume I’m firmly in the pro-Flock camp. I have more of a neutral stance, however I’d be lying if I said it hasn’t come in handy more often than it hasn’t.What I do know is that the technology works, and that’s what makes this conversation so difficult.

Recently, I helped apprehend a suspect with a $500,000 bond warrant for child sodomy. How did we find him? By searching the license plate associated with his vehicle and using Flock data to narrow down its location. Within a short time, we were able to take a dangerous child predator into custody.

That isn’t some sort of outwardly success story. I could point to hundreds of examples from my medium-sized police department where Flock has helped identify violent offenders, locate stolen vehicles, solve hit-and-runs, and provide leads that otherwise may not have existed. Ignoring those results would be just as irresponsible as ignoring the legitimate privacy concerns that come with the technology.

The real question isn’t whether Flock is effective because it clearly is. The question is whether the public safety benefits justify the privacy tradeoffs. That’s a conversation worth having, and reasonable people can disagree… civilly of course.

It’s also important to understand what Flock is and what it isn’t. The average officer isn’t sitting behind a screen monitoring the daily movements of random citizens. Flock is typically used as an investigative tool after a crime has occurred or when officers are looking for a specific vehicle connected to a case. If an officer abuses that authority to unlawfully monitor someone, they should be held accountable. The answer to misuse is oversight and accountability… not pretending the technology doesn’t save lives or help put dangerous criminals behind bars.

What I support is holding offenders accountable and helping victims receive justice. Flock is one tool that has helped me do that. Whether the broader implications of AI-driven surveillance ultimately justify the privacy tradeoffs is a much more difficult question… one I’m not convinced anyone has fully answered yet.

Based solely on my own experience, I’ve seen far more positive outcomes than negative ones. But I also recognize that my experience as a police officer represents only one perspective. The constitutional, ethical, and societal questions surrounding surveillance technology are bigger than any single investigation, agency, or opinion. As these technologies continue to evolve, the law and the public will ultimately have to decide where the line should be drawn.

Thanks for reading!