Who’s Watching You? The Problem With Flock Cameras | Jack Codiga for NC-12
The short version: A congressional candidate frames Flock ALPR tracking as a Fourth Amendment problem, and he's right to say warrantless movement tracking shouldn't be normal.
Our Take
It's notable when a candidate for federal office puts Flock cameras on the campaign trail instead of leaving the issue to local city council meetings where these contracts usually get rubber-stamped with zero debate. Jack Codiga's framing is the right one: this isn't about catching stolen cars, it's about whether a government-adjacent network of cameras gets to log every plate that passes, build a travel history on ordinary people, and do it all without a warrant. That's the exact question the Fourth Amendment was written to answer, and so far most jurisdictions have dodged it by pretending ALPR data is just "public" information rather than a searchable database of everyone's comings and goings.
We don't know Codiga's full policy platform or whether this clip oversimplifies the legal landscape, so we'll let the video speak for itself rather than put words in his mouth. But the core instinct — that warrantless, dragnet location tracking shouldn't be the default just because a private vendor sells it as a subscription service to police departments — is exactly the argument that's been missing from most of these debates, which tend to get bogged down in crime-stat talking points instead of constitutional ones.
Credit to Jack Codiga for putting this on camera and in front of voters. If you want to see how far this network has spread near you, check our camera map, and if you want to push back locally, our take-action page has concrete steps for showing up at the meetings where these contracts actually get decided.
This is DeFlock The USA’s original commentary. The video above is the work of Jack Codiga For Congress | US HOUSE NC-12, published on YouTube — full credit to the creator.