Unknown Observation: The Danger of Modern Surveillance
Writer: Breya Dudley
Editors: Andrew Lehnhardt, Steven Carredano Mendez, Bryce Presley
Individual privacy is a right expected by individuals, held in careful balance between outright freedom and government regulation. Now more than ever, privacy is in jeopardy. Average citizens move about their daily lives, and those movements are tracked by cameras on almost every corner. One device like this, Flock cameras, is an automated license-plate reading systems which capture vehicle features and stores them in a universal law enforcement database. But what happens when this data is accessed illegally or in a way that impedes freedom for citizens? The founding fathers wrote the Constitution with individual freedom in mind, and there have been several amendments added that expanded that freedom. Individuals possess a right to privacy, and flock cameras directly violate that right.
To understand the connection between privacy and surveillance, one must decide what privacy means in the constitution. The Fourth Amendment asserts that people have the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” unless probable cause is found. 6 Searches cannot be conducted on a whim, and a warrant must be in the possession of law enforcement before suspicions can be acted upon. The Constitution also states that a right not enumerated in the document does not automatically cease to exist. 7 The founding fathers did not discuss impartial surveillance because it did not exist at the time the Constitution was drafted, but that does not mean it is constitutional. In Katz v. United States, 1967, an individual’s private conversation in a phone booth was unknowingly recorded without his consent. The FBI argued that Katz was speaking in a public place, but the Court held that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. They emphasized the Fourth Amendment’s protection of “people, not places”. 4 This decision established the reach of constitutional privacy and the government’s inability to intrude on an area where privacy is reasonably expected. The constitution does establish a right to privacy, with several boundaries that must be abided by.
Because the Constitution does institute a right to privacy, it must be decided whether individuals actually possess that right. Based on the Fourth Amendment discussed above, privacy rights are strongest when government action intrudes on the home, private communication, or prolonged records of a person’s movements. 6 Privacy in public areas is complicated because individuals can reasonably assume that their actions are perceived by others. In United States v. Jones (2012), a case was heard discussing a department’s placement of a GPS tracking device on a car for twenty-eight days. 5 The court held that prolonged surveillance could reveal personal details about someone’s daily life. This record likely included their residence, their job, and many other private locations. In a similar case, Carpenter v. United States, the court held that in order to obtain substantive location data from a cell phone, a warrant was needed. 1 Allowing law enforcement to access that kind of location data gives a very detailed and effortless way to trace the movements of individuals. However, certain data, like a passing license plate at a point in time, is considered public display, and courts have often treated a single observation as public information, as opposed to private data. This creates an important distinction between individual, separate pieces of information and a large collection of data, which can be pieced together to paint a picture of personal life. Privacy is important because it protects an individual's right to personal choices without fear of constant government monitoring. Flock cameras call this privacy into question and may denigrate First Amendment protections.
The issue with Flock cameras becomes apparent when there is a cross-jurisdictional database that can be searched and referenced by anyone with access. Seeing a car in passing is very different from tracking its movements across a period of days or weeks, and this tracking creates legitimate concerns. CNN reports one case where officer Josue Ayala used Flock cameras to learn the location of his romantic partner and her ex over 50 times in February. 2 A few months later, one of the detectives who investigated Ayala was also arrested for misusing the system, and secretly installing a GPS on a person’s vehicle. 2 Officers are aware of the consequences of illegally obtaining records from Flock, but they continue to engage in questionable surveillance for personal reasons. There is no legal explanation for the stalking of citizens by law enforcement, and Flock cameras leave the information at their fingertips. High Times news wrote of a case where a man was flagged by police for repeated travel to Michigan, a state where cannabis is legal. This man would later be arrested, and his arrest record would mention cannabis possession. However, this man was originally stopped for other charges unrelated to cannabis possession. Investigators looked at the pattern of his travels captured by Flock cameras and wrote the inference into the arrest record. 3 When data tracked over weeks to months is used to decipher personal decisions, lines between enforcement and abuse may be crossed. These instances of mass tracking differ greatly from ordinary observation, and this is where the constitutional violation occurs. Safeguards should be implemented, such as required warrants for prolonged tracking, strict retention limits, and restricted access to extensive databases.
The Supreme Court has not yet heard a case involving Flock cameras, which creates a lack of national precedent to rely on. The Fourth Amendment cases discussed, however, provide a strong argument that certain uses of these systems violate a citizen’s expected individual right to privacy. The question is not whether the cameras can capture the road, it's whether they can map the movement of an individual. Modern technology can greatly improve police work, and there have been cases where the Flock cameras assisted in catching stolen cars or citizens who were on the run. These cases, however, were a minority in which warrants were obtained before searches began. While the requirement of warrants may slow investigations, it is an important step in protecting individual privacy.
Individuals have a right to constitutional privacy as defined previously, even if this right is not explicitly stated. Modern surveillance creates concern when it is used to paint detailed pictures of the personal lives of individuals. A single license-plate image may not violate the constitution, but the prolonged capturing of images becomes much more questionable. Flock cameras can assist in investigations, but this improved police work should not mean uninhibited surveillance. Warrants for long-term tracking and restrictions on database access can ensure safety and privacy for all law-abiding citizens.
Carpenter v. United States. 585 U.S. 296 (2018).
CNN. “Inside the Growing Police Use and Misuse of Flock’s License-Plate Reader Cameras.” July 26, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/26/us/flock-cameras-surveillance-abuse.
Hasse, Javier, and Camila Berriex. “Stoners Warned Us About Flock Cameras. Turns Out It Wasn’t Paranoia.” High Times, August 11, 2026. https://hightimes.com/news/flock-cameras-cannabis-surveillance-legal-weed-states/.
Katz v. United States. 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S 400 (2012)
U.S. Const. Amend. IV.
U.S. Const. Amend. IX.
