By: Dominic Hwang
Sports Editor
In 1755, Founding Father Benjamin Franklin declared “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” 271 years later, in 2026, his words have taken on a life of their own. Virginia Delegate Rich Anderson, Texas Representative Keith Seif, and Pennsylvania Congresswoman Mary Scanlon, all from opposite ends of the political aisle, have all utilized this exact quotation in criticizing mass government surveillance. As surveillance companies like Flock, Motorola, and Axon gain market power, political influence, and most importantly, approval for their infrastructure across the country, Americans must ask whether catching license plates is worth the potential risk to civil liberties. The widespread use of Flock cameras without proper oversight is a clear step towards the restriction of First and Fourth Amendment rights, and all Americans should be extremely wary of conceding freedom for increased police surveillance.
Since their implementation, automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) have sparked controversy concerning their constitutionality. The main issue concerns their violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. The Fourth Amendment dictates that police must have a warrant and probable cause before any search and seizure or arrest, while the First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech. Since 2015, appeals circuits have ruled that ALPRs are not a violation due to something known as “plain view doctrine,” which dictates that anything an officer can clearly view does not require a warrant to search or seize, including vehicles in public spaces. However, in that same year, the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States that any tracking and storage of data that could identify where people are is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Flock poses three main issues to America. The first is its lack of efficacy. According to a 2025 Business Insider article, 70% of ALPR reports on a license plate are incorrect, leading police on wild goose chases. This helps explain why they have no effect on crime reduction, especially in larger areas like San Bernardino County. Furthermore, the key component of Flock’s safety pitch, their database that keeps and stores license data, even if perfectly secured and only accessible to law enforcement agencies, is still a potential violation of the precedent established by Carpenter v United States. Finally, and most concerningly, Flock is a potential First Amendment violation. Any American administration that seeks to repeal rights or track agitators antagonistic to it could potentially access this database, whether through collaboration or coercion. That tracking of non-criminal and fundamentally protected activities would be the beginning of an American police state. Therefore, as a nation, we should pressure our lawmakers and protest to prevent the blatant and unconstitutional oversight of Flock cameras in our communities.
(Sources: Business Insider, DLG Learning Center, DeFlock, Flock Safety, MDPI, Supreme Justia, Yale)