The Freeman reported that a law firm representing Waukesha County and its municipalities asked a federal court to throw out a lawsuit over police searches of Flock Safety's database of vehicle location information. The firm also asked the court to pause the case.
Who is suing, and who is defending?
The plaintiffs include NoCams Muskego, a newly formed local group, and Pete Karas, one of its cofounders. Karas is also the Green Party candidate for Wisconsin secretary of state. He says his work with the group is separate from his campaign. Oconomowoc resident Donavan Haidinger and Citizens Defending Liberty are also plaintiffs.
The defendants are Muskego, Oconomowoc, New Berlin, Mukwonago, Waukesha, Delafield, Hartland, Brookfield, Menomonee Falls, Elm Grove, Pewaukee and Waukesha County. The law firm is Crivello, Nichols & Hall.
The Freeman says NoCams Muskego had not responded to the firm's news release as of Wednesday afternoon.
What is the motion asking for?
The firm moved the case to federal court because the claims arise under the U.S. Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment. It then filed a motion to dismiss, saying the constitutional claims lack merit.
It also asked the federal court to hold the Wisconsin case while a related Illinois case moves through the appeals process. That case, Scholl v. Illinois State Police, involves a similar Fourth Amendment challenge to plate recognition technology. A federal district court dismissed it, and it is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments on Sept. 29.
The firm says the Illinois attorney general and the U.S. solicitor general argued that the practices in that case are not a Fourth Amendment search.
What is the firm arguing?
Attorney Samuel C. Hall Jr., managing partner of Crivello, Nichols & Hall, said in the release that plate recognition "has become an important investigative tool for law enforcement." He said it gives leads in serious crimes, missing person cases and stolen vehicle cases.
Hall said the lawsuit should be separated from the policy debate. "This lawsuit seeks to recast that policy debate as a constitutional question," he said. Courts that have considered similar challenges, the firm says, have treated plate reader sightings on public roads differently from the broad tracking the U.S. Supreme Court addressed in Carpenter v. United States and Chatrie v. United States.
The firm also argues that a ruling that plate reader use is subject to the Fourth Amendment could affect investigations and raise questions about convictions in which plate reader data was used.
What changes for drivers?
Nothing in the lawsuit has been decided. The case is at the motion stage, and the defendants are asking for dismissal. The Freeman does not say how many cameras each defendant operates or whether any of them has changed how it uses them during the case.
The lawsuit concerns police searches of Flock data, so it matters to drivers in the defendant communities. To see where plate readers are near you, check the camera map. For background on how the readers work, read how plate readers work.
What happens next?
The federal court has to decide whether to dismiss the case and whether to pause it. The Seventh Circuit has yet to rule in the Illinois case. The Freeman does not give a date for either decision.