Flock, like a firearm, is a tool. It can be used for good or bad. The machinery is not evil, it just is. The handler is good or evil.
The latest crisis of the week is the use of the Flock camera system, and the misuse by some officers. Some background, the Flock Safety Company was formed in 2017, and since has deployed over 120,000 cameras in over 6,000 cities nationwide. Among other services, it scans license plates, pinpoints their locations and stores this data online. This information is accessible to law enforcement agencies that have a contract with the company. Flock is not linked to National Crime Information Center (NCIC) data or other government databases, and has no knowledge of the vehicle’s owner, criminal history, etc.
The most obvious use for this system is a stolen vehicle. Someone wakes up and his car is missing, a law enforcement officer (LEO) can run the plate through Flock. If it was scanned by a camera, the officer knows where it was at certain times, which gives a clue for follow on investigation. More serious examples are hit and run accidents, or kidnapping cases.
Again, Flock does not have the registration information of a vehicle. If a LEO runs a plate and gets a hit (location on a camera), Flock will still not have an idea who owns the vehicle. Now the issue comes up, is this an infringement on your right to “privacy?” I put the word privacy in scare quotes because it’s not in the constitution, although the term “private property” is.
The courts have handled similar issues, cumulating this past summer with Chatrie v. United States. After a 2019 credit union robbery, the investigator requested Google hand over geospatial data for every phone within 150’ of the credit union. Using this information, detectives identified Okello Chatrie, who was later convicted of the crime. Chatrie sued saying it was an unreasonable search and should require a warrant. The Supreme Court agreed. In the 6-3 ruling, Justice Elene Kagan wrote, “an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.”
Do people have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in a database of vehicle locations? That will be going up the courts, I would argue no. I am a patrol officer in the Houston area. As I drive on the public street and I run a license plate, showing an expired registration, warrant on someone, etc., have I violated someone’s expectation of privacy?
The courts have already ruled on this matter, you do not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” with a car license plate. If you have stolen a car and the license plate is listed as stolen, do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy now? No, the stolen hit on the plate check is probable cause for initial detention and arrest.
As the issue is working its way through the courts and at some point a decision will (hopefully) clarify the issue. But I find one thing curious. Why is this the crisis of the week this week? I’ve seen some of my Vast Left Wing Conspiracy friends on social media calling this the latest abuse of the rights of the people by law enforcement. Why now?
Mother Jones (as radical as it gets) posted how “dozens” of officers nationwide have been investigated, charged or lost their jobs for abusing the system. From some of the cases I’ve seen, some LEOs did abuse the public trust (e.g., used the system to track their old girlfriends) and needed to be terminated. So the process is working, i.e., accusations are being handled, investigated, LEOs disciplined. But let’s keep this in perspective.
Resembles the lie put out by the Obama regime of countless young black men being gunned down by cops for the crime of being black? Now it’s countless cops tracking their old girlfriends to terrorize them. Back to Mother Jones, they are reporting “dozens of officers have been disciplined, or terminated, for abusing the system.” I grant them, one LEO abusing this system is too many. But this is, to say the least, overgeneralizing. The United States has approximately 800,000 full-time law enforcement officers (federal, state and local). Assume a dozen “dozens” have abused the system (144). Then say it’s over ten times that, 1,500. That would be 0.001875% of the LEOs out there. Not exactly a crime wave of epic proportions.
Also LEOs have access to much more sensitive information. I run a license place and I will get a name, an address and possibly a driver’s license number. I run a name and date of birth, in seconds I can (depends on your criminal record) have a good hunk of your adult life. That is only for official use, and abusing it will get a LEO in serious trouble.
But why now are the usual suspects of the VLWC going after Flock now? Could it be enemies of this country are not happy crime has declined as it has the last two years? Could they be afraid Flock is used in deportation of illegal aliens (Flock does not contract with ICE, but many agencies that do cooperate with them)? Or is it the usual suspects want to start another line of attack against law and order in general?
I recall the wisdom of Auric Goldfinger in the Bond movie Goldfinger. “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.” I’m seeing weak politicians run from a system they supported, and it will hinder law enforcement. Seeing the alignment of multiple left-wing groups (and some libertarian ones), I think we’re in the enemy action phase. Hopefully this can be cut off before a radical judge or jury destroys a very useful system. No question, if a cop abuses it, they must be held to account. But ask yourself, when your daughter was the one kidnapped and taken away in your car, what will you be concerned about?
Michael A. Thiac is a retired Army intelligence officer, with over 23 years experience, including serving in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the Middle East. He is also a retired police patrol sergeant, with over 22 years’ service, and over ten year’s experience in field training of newly assigned officers. He has been published at The American Thinker, PoliceOne.com, and on his personal blog, A Cop’s Watch.
Opinions expressed are his alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of current or former employers.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA