In an age when it seems every house has a Ring-style doorbell, every business has closed circuit cameras both inside and out, it seems almost futile to argue that drivers shouldn’t expect to go through a digital license plate line-up every time they leave their driveways.

Yet two modern day Don Quixote-types are saying just that. They’ve filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that Norfolk’s ubiquitous Flock license plate cameras violate the 4th Amendment.

Need a refresher?

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

According to The Richmond Times-Dispatch “Norfolk resident Lee Schmidt and Portsmouth resident Crystal Arrington filed the lawsuit in federal court Monday in Norfolk. The plaintiffs argue the Flock Safety camera system — dozens of city speed cameras that automatically snap pictures of license plates and upload them to a online database — amounts to a search and requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.

“I don’t like the government following my every movement and treating me like a criminal suspect when they have no reason to believe I’ve done anything wrong,” said Lee, a 42-year-old Navy veteran, in a news release.”

In 2001 I wrote against the installation of facial-recognition cameras along Virginia Beach’s Atlantic Avenue, arguing that they essentially put every passerby in a digital police line-up. Gripped by 9-11 hysteria, the city council installed them to catch terrorists.

Several years later the cameras were quietly scrapped. Not one single person had been identified as a terrorist or even a wanted felon. Yet hundreds of thousands of tax dollars had been squandered on that scheme.

At the time, former journalist Kent Willis, president of Virginia’s ACLU warned about government snooping.

“Broadly speaking, we are becoming a surveillance society,” he said in another publication. “While we may have concerns about private business using surveillance cameras, when government with its great power is the one doing the surveillance, we should worry. There is a long history of governments using the information they gather.” 

He was right.

Norfolk’s system, installed last year, is more comprehensive than mere face recognition cameras along busy sidewalks.

“Norfolk installed 172 automatic license plate reading cameras in mid-2023. The cameras automatically snap pictures of license plates and use machine learning to upload vehicle details into an online database. Any police department with a Flock subscription can then access that information without a search warrant if approved by Norfolk police.”

The legal case was filed by the Institute for Justice, which, according to the Times-Dispatch, specializes in civil liberties cases. The plaintiffs argue that in the use of these cameras has been abused in other states by unscrupulous police.

One can only imagine what mischief rogue cops engaged in with this information.

“Following someone’s every move can tell you some incredibly intimate details about them, such as where they work, who they associate with, whether or not they’re religious, what hobbies they have and any medical conditions they may have,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Robert Frommer in a news release. “This type of intrusive, ongoing monitoring of someone’s life is not just creepy, it’s unconstitutional.”

I’m not a lawyer and have no idea if the courts will decide that these cameras violate the constitution.

Creepy, though? Absolutely.