Is ALPR use constitutional? Why Flock is intentionally asking the wrong question. #GetTheFlockOut
The short version: Chad Marlow argues Flock's constitutional defense is a dodge — the real question is whether blanket ALPR surveillance should be allowed at all, not just whether courts might tolerate it.
Our Take
Chad Marlow's point cuts right to the core of the Flock debate: just because a court hasn't struck down ALPR surveillance doesn't mean it's good policy or that it respects the privacy Americans assume they have driving around their own towns. Flock Safety and the police departments that buy its cameras love to lean on "it's constitutional" as if that settles the argument. It doesn't. Plenty of things are technically legal that we'd never accept — mass surveillance is exactly the kind of thing legislatures and city councils are supposed to weigh in on, not something that should be waved through because no judge has said no yet.
This is the shell game that lets networks of thousands of plate-reading cameras creep into neighborhoods without a real public debate. "Is it constitutional" is a much lower bar than "should we be building a location-tracking dragnet on every driver, logged indefinitely, shared across agencies and sometimes with ICE or out-of-state prosecutors." Marlow is right to call that framing out for what it is: a distraction technique, not a legal argument.
If you want to see how far this has already spread, check our camera map to find Flock installations near you, and head to take action for tools to push back at your next city council meeting — because the real question was never just "can they," it's "should they."
This is DeFlock The USA’s original commentary. The video above is the work of Chad Marlow, published on YouTube — full credit to the creator.