Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 10/05/2026 6:06:30 AM PDT by Twotone
A federal judge threw out drug evidence after ruling a sheriff’s deputy violated the Fourth Amendment by pulling a month of a driver’s location history from Flock’s camera network without a warrant.
U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill granted Melisa Kyle’s motion to suppress and ruled the warrantless search of automated license plate reader data unconstitutional, according to the ruling. The drug prosecution against Kyle sits in the Northern District of Oklahoma.
Tulsa County Deputy Freddie Alaniz began trailing Kyle’s Mazda SUV for no reason beyond its California plate, according to the ruling. He queried the Flock system for her plate before he observed any traffic violation. The search logged her car more than 50 times across multiple states in a single month.
Hill upheld the traffic stop as valid at its start, according to the ruling. Her objection centered on what came next. Alaniz lacked reasonable suspicion to hold Kyle after he returned her license. The extended detention became unlawful.
Hill’s second ground addressed the Flock search itself. She ruled that reconstructing a month of Kyle’s movements breached her reasonable expectation of privacy. The search carried no warrant and no probable cause. The decision did not outlaw the technology outright.
Hill described the system as “a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance” in the opinion. “Freedom from persistent, dragnet-style surveillance while in public is not a foreign concept in our society, and it is a reasonable expectation that society already accepts,” she wrote.
A Flock spokesperson rejected the decision in a statement to The Hill. “The ruling goes against the overwhelming weight of authority in similar cases across the country, including multiple recent decisions in Oklahoma, and we expect it will be appealed and ultimately overturned,” the spokesperson said. The company said the order sets no controlling precedent. Flock was not a party to the criminal case, according to Law Commentary.
Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis each moved over the past two months to restrict it. Several local governments have also canceled their Flock contracts.
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York introduced legislation to bar federal agencies from using the systems. The bill would freeze federal grants that help local police buy the technology.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“Hill upheld the traffic stop as valid at its start...”
A warrant could have been obtained easily...............
as long as the flock cameras are installed somewhere in public view no warrant would ever be required.
no one has the expectation of privacy on a public road or sidewalk.
The data was Flock’s, a private company.
It willingly handed the data over to the police.
I am amazed to find a female federal judge with a modicum of sanity.
He did so with no reasonable articulable suspicion of any crime being committed.
Then why can't I access that data? If it's funded with public money and it's public info, I want to search it at will.
What is the difference between putting up cameras around town and hiring 1,000 policemen to stand on every street corner in town and taking down your movements as your drive around town?
In both cases you are driving on public streets with no expectation or right to privacy, and in both cases your movements in those public spaces are being monitored and recorded without a warrant. The only difference is the cost of paying the salaries of the policemen vs the cost of installing and maintaining the cameras.
One difference is the ALPR systems keep track of your movements throughout the country. Prior travel has no relevance to a traffic stop.
Oops, screwed up the italic.
“no one has the expectation of privacy on a public road or sidewalk.”
Eh, they can’t pull dragnet style sweep up of cell phone records in an area (which includes 99.99% innocent people); this is the same idea.
OR was he stalking her?
Honestly, I still haven't made up my mind on flock cameras but you're right. People confuse privacy with public anonymity.
the government indiscriminately surveilling citizens is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment
This morning, a Honda Civic was featured on a Pennsylvania State Police Interstate highway Amber-Alert billboard on I-81 north of Hazleton. I’d seen a Honda Civic matching the description speeding Southbound. (Dialing
9-1-1, as the Amber-Alert line went unanswered).
A Flock camera would’ve been more timely, faultless and faster. AI helped, but took valuable time away from subsequent searching...
I think so too
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.