Without a doubt, Flock Safety is a big company right here in the United States, and there are so many who are using their security systems, especially cameras, like businesses, homeowners, and even police departments. But the thing is, you must have recently heard of their name pop up in the Flock Safety ALPR Virginia Lawsuit, right? Well, just keep on reading the details, and you’ll find out that the concerns raised in this lawsuit are very genuine.
What’s This Lawsuit in Norfolk, Virginia About?
Well, there is this couple that comes all the way from Norfolk, and they are the ones to go on about this lawsuit. First is Lee Schmidt, a retired veteran, and Crystal Arrington are working in the health sector. The camera of Flock recorded Lee’s car 526 times between February and July 2023, and Crystal’s car 849 times. That is, on average, being looked into 4-6 times daily, would you like that if someone had an eye on you this many times a day?
A $2.2 million contract was inked between Norfolk and Flock, stipulating the maintenance of cameras until 2027. Even then, 176 cameras were set up across the city. Police records show the system getting accessed 200,000 times. Schmidt and Arrington joined the Institute for Justice, claiming in a lawsuit that such continued monitoring without warrants violates the Fourth Amendment. The demand is very simple: Shut down the cameras and erase the data.
Federal Access and Privacy Concerns
Well, from the get-go, Flock Safety initially claimed it did not work with federal agencies. However, in 2024, it admitted to running a pilot program for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). This meant that federal agents could access local license plate data. In 2025, Flock announced it would halt federal access, but there remains a loophole: local police can still provide access to federal agencies.
The Institute for Justice warns that without strict regulations or warrants, there lies the possibility of abuse. And there are past cases of police officers abusing similar systems for their own purposes or to pass information to other agencies, such as ICE.
Why This Isn’t Just a Virginia Issue
A number of cities across the country have Flock cameras. Getting in the way of speed cameras, these systems record every car that passes. And it is not like they only capture the number plates, nah, they’re cameras, so they have other details like the type of vehicle, the shape, the color, even whatever stickers the owners have pasted on the bumper. Like every little detail.
It is more like they’re making a digital fingerprint of your car, well, at least that’s what it seems like at first. Civil liberties groups have dubbed it mass surveillance. A federal judge in the Norfolk case even said that “a reasonable person could think” this is a privacy violation.
Immigration Enforcement in Virginia
Surely, Flock came out saying that their data is not supposed to be used for immigration enforcement, but that claim didn’t hold long because there was clear evidence of this data being used in Fairfax, Chesterfield, Isle of Wight, Loudoun, and Stafford counties. For, of course, integration-related searches. Just so you know, the logs showed terms such as “ICE fugitive,” “DHS case,” and “CBP.”
Where Things Stand
The case being brought is a current one in federal courts, with no settlement yet reached. Hence, a judge permitted the lawsuit to proceed. That would mean the court sees serious constitutional issues over mass license plate tracking.
In the event Schmidt and Arrington win, the decision may have a transformative effect, instead of ALPRs not just in Virginia but elsewhere in the U.S.