Are Flock cameras legal?

7 min readGuide

There is no single yes or no. Most courts that have ruled, including a federal court in Norfolk, Virginia, in January 2026, held that police use of plate readers is not a Fourth Amendment search. On October 1, 2026, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled that one deputy's warrantless Flock search was unconstitutional, and some states now set their own limits.

Owning a camera and searching its data are different questions

Start with what is being challenged. Can an agency put a plate reader on a pole? State law and permits govern that, as the New Hampshire and Florida examples below show. Whether police need a warrant to search the stored record of where a car has been is a Fourth Amendment question. That's where the recent court fights are.

A ruling against one Flock search does not order cameras taken down. A ruling for a city does not approve every search, either. Cameras owned by homeowner associations or stores raise separate questions, covered in our HOA guide. This page is not legal advice. Your answer depends on your state, the agency and how it used the data.

Is it legal to avoid Flock cameras? · HOA cameras and police access

Court rulings on plate readers so far

These are the decisions that matter most for Flock as of October 4, 2026. Only Supreme Court rulings bind every court. None of the Supreme Court cases listed here involved a plate reader. The Oklahoma opinion notes that neither the Supreme Court nor the Tenth Circuit has decided whether police use of plate-reader data is a search.

Scroll horizontally to compare all columns.

Rulings checked October 4, 2026
Court and dateCaseWhat it heldBinding?
U.S. Supreme Court, 1983United States v. KnottsUsing a radio beeper to help follow a car on public roads was not a search.Yes, though later rulings read it narrowly
U.S. Supreme Court, June 22, 2018Carpenter v. United StatesGetting at least seven days of a phone's cell-site location records is a search, and police generally need a warrant.Yes, for phone records
Three Oklahoma federal trial courts, Aug. 2025 to Jan. 2026United States v. Acosta, Brown and SchogginsPlate-reader use was not a Fourth Amendment search, as the Kyle opinion describes them.No
Skagit County Superior Court, Wash., Nov. 6, 2025City of Sedro-Woolley et al. v. RodriguezFlock camera images are public records under Washington's Public Records Act.No, a county trial court
U.S. District Court, E.D. Va., Jan. 27, 2026Schmidt v. City of NorfolkNorfolk's Flock cameras did not invade a reasonable expectation of privacy. Judgment for the city.No, on appeal at the Fourth Circuit
U.S. Supreme Court, June 29, 2026Chatrie v. United StatesGetting a suspect's Google Location History was a search. Whether the warrant was valid went back to the Fourth Circuit.Yes, for phone location data
Federal jury in San Antonio, Sept. 28, 2026Alek Schott's suit against Bexar CountyFound the county violated his Fourth Amendment rights in a stop that, per SA Current, began with a Flock flag. Awarded $76.No, a jury verdict
U.S. District Court, N.D. Okla., Oct. 1, 2026United States v. KyleA deputy's warrantless lookup in Flock and a second plate-reader system was a search. Evidence suppressed.No, one trial judge

What the Oklahoma judge decided

On October 1, 2026, U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill granted a motion to suppress in United States v. Kyle, a drug case in the Northern District of Oklahoma. A Tulsa County sheriff's deputy saw a car with California plates, looked up the plate in Flock and a second plate-reader system, then followed the car. Judge Hill found that the out-of-state plate was the only reason for the lookup.

The search returned more than 50 sightings across several states over a month. Judge Hill held that the lookup was a Fourth Amendment search conducted without a warrant or probable cause. She called the network "a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance." She also found that the deputy held the driver too long without reasonable suspicion. She suppressed the evidence on both grounds.

Kyle decides this case. It does not bind other courts. The opinion itself says nearly every court to consider the issue has found that plate-reader use is not a search, including three Oklahoma federal courts. Flock was not a party to the case. The company told 404 Media it expects an appeal.

Opinion and order, United States v. Kyle (PDF) · 404 Media's report on the ruling

Schmidt v. City of Norfolk is the case to watch

Lee Schmidt and Crystal Arrington, represented by the Institute for Justice, sued Norfolk, Virginia over its Flock network. On January 27, 2026, the federal court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the city. It held that the cameras did not invade a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit as No. 26-1227. On April 20, 2026, the ACLU, the ACLU of Virginia and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a brief asking the court to reverse. The United States and Virginia filed briefs supporting the city. The docket shows the case tentatively set for argument during the court's December 8 to 11, 2026 session.

The Fourth Circuit hears appeals from Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Its decision would set precedent for federal courts in those states. The Oklahoma ruling cannot do that.

Fourth Circuit docket, No. 26-1227 · ACLU case page and amicus brief

What the Supreme Court has said about tracking

In United States v. Knotts (1983), the Court held that using a radio beeper to help police follow a car on public roads was not a search. Carpenter v. United States (2018) reached a different result for phone records: getting at least a week of cell-site location records is a search, and police generally need a warrant first. According to 404 Media, courts that upheld warrantless plate-reader searches have leaned on Knotts. Challengers point to Carpenter.

On June 29, 2026, the Court decided Chatrie v. United States. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for five justices. Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with the result. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett dissented. The Court held that police conducted a search when they obtained a robbery suspect's Google Location History through a geofence warrant. It sent the question of the warrant's validity back to the Fourth Circuit.

Chatrie is a phone case, and its reasoning cuts both ways for plate readers. The majority stressed that phone data follows people into homes and doctors' offices. It called Knotts a poor fit partly because the tracking in that case stayed on public roads. Plate readers record cars passing cameras. But the Court also warned about police picking any slice of time from an all-encompassing database, close to how Judge Hill described a Flock search. She cited both Carpenter and Chatrie.

Chatrie v. United States opinion (PDF) · Carpenter v. United States opinion (PDF)

State rules and the Ban Flock Act

New Hampshire's law, RSA 261:75-b, limits plate readers to listed purposes, such as stolen cars and wanted or missing people. Plate records must be purged within three minutes unless a read led to an arrest, a citation or protective custody, or matched a missing-person or wanted alert. Every inquiry must be logged for audit.

Florida's Department of Transportation issued Engineering and Operations Memorandum 26-01 on August 31, 2026. The memo revoked local police approvals for plate readers on state highway right-of-way and gave agencies 30 days to remove them. It also stopped new approvals. TechCrunch reported that Gov. Ron DeSantis had called the technology "out of control" days earlier.

In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott ordered state agencies to pause funding for Flock cameras in late August 2026, The Texas Tribune reported. His spokesperson said most city funding for the cameras comes from the federal government.

In Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Jeff Merkley and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released the Ban Flock Act on October 2, 2026. It would bar federal agencies from using plate readers or their data, cut certain federal grants to state and local governments that use them, and let people sue the federal government. It is a bill, not a law.

New Hampshire RSA 261:75-b · FDOT memorandum 26-01 (PDF) · Florida and Texas restrict plate readers · Ban Flock Act explained

Washington: Flock images are public records

On November 6, 2025, Skagit County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Neidzwski ruled that Flock camera images from Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley are public records under Washington's Public Records Act. The cities had argued that the data became public records only when an agency pulled them from Flock's cloud. Judge Neidzwski wrote that the images were "created and used to further a governmental purpose."

The Washington ruling came from a county trial court, not an appeals court. And it didn't get the requester his footage. EFF reported that the cities let the images auto-delete while reviewing his request. Records access is a separate legal question from the Fourth Amendment, but it determines how much the public can learn about a local system.

Can the public access Flock footage? · Request Flock audit logs

See the cameras near you

The live map is free and needs no account.

Open the live map

Questions people ask

Are Flock cameras unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court has not decided the question. Most courts have found that plate-reader use is not a Fourth Amendment search. On October 1, 2026, a federal judge in Oklahoma held that one warrantless Flock search was unconstitutional. That ruling does not bind other courts.
What is the Flock camera lawsuit in Norfolk?
Schmidt v. City of Norfolk challenges Norfolk, Virginia's Flock network under the Fourth Amendment. A federal judge ruled for the city on January 27, 2026. The appeal, No. 26-1227, is tentatively set for argument at the Fourth Circuit in December 2026.
Does Chatrie v. United States apply to license plate readers?
Not directly. Chatrie held that obtaining a phone's Google Location History is a search. Courts still have to decide how that reasoning fits cameras that record cars. The Oklahoma judge relied on it.
Did the Oklahoma ruling ban Flock cameras?
No. Kyle found one deputy's search unlawful in one criminal case and suppressed the evidence. It did not order any camera removed or any agency to stop using Flock.
Are Flock camera images public records?
In Washington, a Skagit County trial court said yes in November 2025. Check your own state's records law. Our public-access guide explains how to ask.
Is this legal advice?
No. This page summarizes public rulings and laws as of October 4, 2026. For a question about your own case, talk to a lawyer licensed in your state.

Related guides

Does Flock share data with ICE? · Is it legal to avoid Flock cameras? · Can the public view Flock camera footage? · How to request your city's Flock audit logs · Why are Flock cameras controversial? · All guides · Live camera map · Get the app

Sources

FlockDetour is independent and is not affiliated with or endorsed by Flock Safety or any surveillance vendor.