Federal judge rules Tulsa deputy's warrantless Flock search violated Fourth Amendment
U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill ruled that a Tulsa County deputy's search of the Flock license plate database for a driver's travel history was an unconstitutional search, and suppressed the evidence that followed. The ruling is not binding precedent.
1 / 2
The story, neutrally told
Mixed · 2U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill ruled that a Tulsa County sheriff's deputy violated the Fourth Amendment when he used Flock license plate reader technology to look up a driver's travel history without a warrant. Washington ExaminerR “A federal judge has ruled that a Tulsa County sheriff’s deputy violated the Fourth Amendment when he used Flock license plate reader technology” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ TechCrunchN “A federal judge ruled this week that a Tulsa, Oklahoma sheriff’s deputy violated a woman’s Fourth Amendment rights” Read at TechCrunch ↗ Right · 1According to the Washington Examiner, Deputy Freddie Alaniz followed Melisa Kyle after seeing her California plates, searched Flock for the vehicle and got a month of location data showing more than 50 sightings across multiple states. Washington ExaminerR “The search gave Alaniz access to a month of location data showing more than 50 sightings of the vehicle across multiple states.” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ Right · 1He then stopped her for following another vehicle too closely and allegedly failing to signal lane changes, questioned her, detained her for a drug-sniffing dog after she refused a search, and arrested her after officers searched the car. Washington ExaminerR “Alaniz then detained her for a drug-sniffing dog, which alerted to the vehicle.” Read at Washington Examiner ↗
Mixed · 2The outlets differ on what was found: the Washington Examiner says marijuana, while TechCrunch says the deputy allegedly discovered 91 pounds of meth. Washington ExaminerR “arrested Kyle after finding marijuana” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ TechCrunchN “where he allegedly discovered 91 pounds of meth” Read at TechCrunch ↗ Mixed · 2Hill found the initial traffic stop was objectively reasonable, but held that the Flock search was unconstitutional. She said the deputy had "no apparent reason" for it other than the California plate, and that he should have obtained a warrant. Washington ExaminerR “Hill found that Alaniz had an objectively reasonable basis for the initial traffic stop but concluded that the subsequent ALPR search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ TechCrunchN “"no apparent reason" for the search” Read at TechCrunch ↗ Mixed · 2She ordered all evidence obtained after the Flock search suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree", saying the government identified no adequate exception to the exclusionary rule. Washington ExaminerR ““Because the government does not identify any adequate exception to the exclusionary rule,” she wrote” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ TechCrunchN “must be suppressed as the fruit of a poisonous tree” Read at TechCrunch ↗
Mixed · 2Hill wrote that Flock is "a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance" that, unlike the targeted phone tracking in Carpenter v. United States, collects information on all vehicles passing any network-connected camera and serves it to law enforcement on demand. Washington ExaminerR ““This is a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance,” Hill wrote.” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ TechCrunchN “It is not targeted on a single individual, as in [Carpenter v. United States” Read at TechCrunch ↗ Right · 1She acknowledged that people generally have no expectation of privacy on public roads, but said technology has changed matters since the Supreme Court's 1983 Knotts decision. She warned of a "dragnet" and said it is not hard to imagine drones tracking every vehicle in a city, while also noting ALPR's "remarkable benefits". Washington ExaminerR ““More than 40 years have passed” since the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in United States v. Knotts”““No doubt, ALPR technology comes with remarkable benefits that the Court cannot ignore,” she wrote.” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ Mixed · 2Neither the Supreme Court nor the 10th Circuit has definitively resolved the question, and most courts that have considered it have found ALPR use is not a search. TechCrunch, citing 404 Media, says the ruling sets no binding precedent but is one of the first federal rulings finding a Flock search unconstitutional. Washington ExaminerR “most courts that have considered the issue have found that ALPR use does not constitute a search” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ TechCrunchN “this ruling does not create a binding precedent, but it is one of the first times that a federal judge has ruled that a Flock search is unconstitutional” Read at TechCrunch ↗
Mixed · 2TechCrunch places the ruling amid growing criticism of Flock: it says local and state governments including in Florida and Texas have said they will stop using it, Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced the Block Flock Act on Friday to bar federal agencies from using such readers, and Flock has reportedly offered voluntary buyouts. The Examiner links it to a Senate hearing that Flock-linked tech CEOs skipped. TechCrunchN “on Friday, Senator Bernie Sanders — a Democrat from Vermont — introduced the Block Flock Act”“reportedly offered voluntary employee buyouts” Read at TechCrunch ↗ Washington ExaminerR “Senators unload on Flock surveillance cameras after tech CEOs skip hearing” Read at Washington Examiner ↗
Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on. The pill in front of each says where its sources sit: Left, Centre or Right when one side supplies at least half of them, Mixed when they are evenly split. The number is how many outlets it cites.
Left0 outlets
No left outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.
Centre1 outlet
- Framing
- Tech-industry angle placing the ruling within a widening, cross-partisan backlash against Flock.
- Emphasis
- That the ruling is non-binding but among the first of its kind, Sanders's bill, government cancellations, and Flock's CEO and buyouts.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Gives less detail on the stop and the judge's finding that the traffic stop itself was valid; does not note that most courts have held ALPR use is not a search.
- Charged language
- “indiscriminate mass surveillance”“growing chorus of Flock critics”
- For example
-
“Hill joins a growing chorus of Flock critics from across the political spectrum.” — TechCrunch
“this ruling does not create a binding precedent” — TechCrunch
Right1 outlet
- Framing
- Legal-news account that identifies the judge as a Biden appointee and walks through the stop, search and reasoning, including that most courts have found ALPR use is not a search.
- Emphasis
- Case facts, the judge's reasoning and quotes on dragnet and drone surveillance, and the unsettled state of the law.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Does not mention the Block Flock Act, local government cancellations or Flock's response.
- Charged language
- “dragnet”“a Biden appointee”
- For example
-
“U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill, a Biden appointee” — Washington Examiner
“warning that the system risks creating a nationwide “dragnet” of mass surveillance” — Washington Examiner
What every side reports
- Judge Sara E. Hill found the deputy's Flock search of a woman's plate violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Evidence obtained after the search was suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
- Hill called Flock a form of indiscriminate mass surveillance.
Where accounts differ
-
What officers found in the car
- Centre
- TechCrunch: the deputy allegedly discovered 91 pounds of meth.
- Right
- Washington Examiner: officers arrested Kyle after finding marijuana.
Sara E. Hill person
Wrote that Flock collects data on all vehicles and serves it on demand, so a warrantless search of it violates the Fourth Amendment, while acknowledging ALPR's benefits.
“But the Fourth Amendment requires courts to draw a line when the cost is too great.”” — Washington Examiner
Flock Safety organisation
Per TechCrunch, its CEO has called for a compromise between privacy and safety and apologised to women stalked by officers using the system; it has reportedly offered voluntary buyouts. No comment on the ruling is reported.
“has called for a “compromise” between privacy and safety” — TechCrunch
Left0 articles
No coverage yet.
Centre1 article
-
Federal judge calls Flock ‘indiscriminate mass surveillance’
Mixed Presents the ruling as part of a broad political and commercial backlash against Flock, with a promotional tie to an interview with its CEO.
Right1 article
-
Judge rules Flock cameras violate the Fourth Amendment
Neutral Detailed legal account of the ruling and the underlying stop, noting the judge's appointing president and that most courts disagree.
- 3 Oct 18:02 First Washington ExaminerR Judge rules Flock cameras violate the Fourth Amendment
- 3 Oct 20:33 +2h 31m TechCrunchN Federal judge calls Flock ‘indiscriminate mass surveillance’
Times are when each article was published, or when we first saw it if the outlet gave no time.