One Man Shot 4 Flock Cameras. Another Man Blocked Them With a Sign on Sidewalk. Only One Is Lawful.
The short version: Mumford Law contrasts a candidate who shot up four Flock cameras with a 77-year-old who blocked one with a pool skimmer — only one of those is a winning legal strategy.
Our Take
Credit to Mumford Law for laying out the split-screen so clearly: Adam Lee Heimerman allegedly emptied a magazine into four Flock cameras and picked up four felony vandalism charges for his trouble, while 77-year-old Carl Gunn in St. Petersburg just... stands on a public sidewalk holding a sign and a pool skimmer over the lens. One guy handed the state an easy prosecution and torched any Fourth Amendment argument he might have had. The other guy is doing textbook, camera-ready First Amendment protest that's much harder to touch.
We get the impulse behind Heimerman's approach — these cameras are junk science dragnets that scan every plate on the road, log your movements, and hand that data to whoever Flock decides to share it with, cops included, no warrant required. But rage doesn't scale, and a felony record doesn't stop a single other camera from scanning the next car that drives by. Gunn's sidewalk stand-off, annoying as it may be to whoever installed that pole, is exactly the kind of visible, lawful friction that gets neighbors asking questions and city councils nervous about bad press.
That's the fight that actually spreads: public pressure, open-records requests, city council votes, and yes, plain old civil disobedience that doesn't hand prosecutors a gift. If you want to know whether Flock or another ALPR vendor is already logging your plate, check our camera map, and if you're ready to push back the way that actually works, our take-action guide is the place to start.
This is DeFlock The USA’s original commentary. The video above is the work of MUMFORD LAW, published on YouTube — full credit to the creator.