NORFOLK, Va. — A new legal challenge claims the Norfolk Police Department's use of more than 170 Flock Safety cameras infringes on constitutional rights protected by the Fourth Amendment.
On Monday, two Hampton Roads residents -- one Norfolk and one Portsmouth resident -- filed a federal complaint hoping to end the city's use of Flock Safety cameras, as well as erasing the data collected by the system.
There are more than 170 Flock cameras scattered across Norfolk, often on major street corridors like Little Creek Road. The federal complaint contends the city's use of the cameras violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment rights, which protects American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the U.S. government.
"We understand the Norfolk Police Department has good intentions, they want to reduce crime, solve crimes, and catch criminals. But our constitutional rights don’t work like that," Michael Soyfer said, a plaintiff's attorney with the Institute for Justice.
Soyfer, outside the Norfolk federal courthouse Tuesday, argued the filing is based on the concern the Norfolk Police Department can create a digital footprint of a person because of the stored movements of the driver's car, accessible for a period of up to 30 days.
Separate from a red light camera, Soyfer argued that those forms of surveillance capture specific traffic violations at specific instances, as opposed to Flock usage where citizen movements can be pieced together across an area.
“Red light cameras only snap a picture when you go through a red light, it doesn’t snap it of every car that goes past. As far as we know, the police aren’t connecting the separate red light cameras in a single database that lets them track movements. They don’t track movements, they enforce traffic law at a single intersection," Soyfer said.
"There is no speed detection, no facial recognition"
In the past year, at least one Virginia locality has used its Flock Safety camera system to assist in more than two dozen missing persons cases, according to Communications Director of Flock Safety Holly Beilin.
“License plate recognition cameras are not new. These systems have been around for a long time and because of that, courts across the country have actually picked up and addressed the fact that Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) evidence is admissible in court without requiring Fourth Amendment protections, without requiring a warrant,” Beilin said.
“A vehicle on public roadways, that's considered public information and it's not subject to Fourth Amendment oversight,” she added.
Beilin added that Flock Safety camera data is only accessed for specific criminal investigations, including missing persons cases. All systems used are tracked by an audit report that is available indefinitely even after the vehicle data itself is deleted.
"So while the images are deleted by default, irrevocably after 30 days, the audit report is available for command staff or an oversight board to actually have oversight into what is being searched on this system."
In a response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for the City of Norfolk said they do not comment on active litigation, but they stand by the cameras "enhancing" citizen safety while also protecting citizen privacy.
