By: Lauren McLane
- Introduction
Think about your morning commute. How many turns do you take? At what point do you merge onto the highway? How many times a week do you grab a coffee at the Dunkin’ drive-through?
The little intricacies of commuter life are not especially intimate. Thousands of people share the road from one city to another. If you look into the Nissan Altima to your right, you might catch a glimpse of the driver’s destination from their GPS. A quick, harmless intrusion from a stranger is an accepted reality of public roadways. But if that same stranger tailed you from your home garage to your company’s parking lot, suddenly all those observable moments seem deeply personal. Any unwanted intrusion becomes a complete invasion of privacy.
In 2023, the Delaware Help Initiative donated four automatic license plate reader (“ALPR”) cameras to the city of Wilmington, Delaware.[1] ALPRs, as the name would imply, are cameras that capture images or videos of license plates.[2] But ALPRs are not solely capturing license plates. These cameras also document distinguishable features of the car—its make and model, as well as any broken windows, dents, or cracks.[3] While ALRPs are not designed to capture details of a car’s interior,[4] it has the capability to do so.[5] Typically, these cameras are mounted on utility poles, traffic lights, street signs or other structures surrounding roadways.[6]
Only three years after the ALPRs were installed in Wilmington, those same cameras were removed.[7] But in a press release from Councilwoman Yolanda McCoy, she clarified that the city would continue to utilize ALPRs.[8] Just not from Flock Safety.[9]
II. What is Flock Safety?
Flock Safety (“Flock”) is a private security company that specializes in ALPRs, drones, and other surveillance technology.[10] It was created in 2017 by co-founders Garrett Langley, Paige Todd, and Matt Feury.[11] To them, the pitch was simple: surveillance cameras help police solve crimes.[12] But that hasn’t stopped the general public from viewing the technology as the next step in mass surveillance à la Big Brother.[13]
This fear is not unfounded. One officer was arrested after he searched up his ex-girlfriend “. . . and her daughter roughly 600 times.”[14] A sheriff’s office in Texas used an ALPR to track a woman who had allegedly taken an abortion pill.[15] In 2020, several law enforcement agencies used ALPRs to identify protesters.[16] In response to misuse of the cameras, Flock co-founder Paige Todd suggested this technology is revealing police corruption, rather than enabling it.[17]
According to CEO Garrett Langley, anyone who’s against ALPR technology is uninformed,[18] those who threaten the company are “terrorists,”[19] and the pushback comes “. . . from the same activist groups who want to defund the police, weaken public safety, and normalize lawlessness.”[20] A cursory look at Flock’s website will reveal similar scare tactics employed to pitch the technology, including statistics on the death rate of abducted children and abysmal police clearance rates.[21]
Undeterred, opponents to the technology have not only campaigned to get ALPRs removed but have attempted to surveil the surveillance.[22] Some have taken to tearing down the cameras or finding creative ways to cover the lens.[23] But if an end to ALPRs is what the people want, the best path forward is found in the Fourth Amendment.
III. Does the Fourth Amendment Apply to Flock Cameras?
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.[24] Generally speaking, the Fourth Amendment applies only to the government. However, if a private company acts as an instrument or agent of the government, the Fourth Amendment may apply.[25] This depends on the extent to which the government knew about, acquiesced in, or encouraged the company’s conduct, as well as the purpose underlying the conduct.[26] If its purpose is to assist the government, then the company is considered a state actor, and the Fourth Amendment is implicated.[27]
Flock is a private company; there’s no denying that. The question is: what is Flock’s purpose in capturing ALPR footage, and to what extent does the government encourage its collection?
The company’s marketing makes it very clear that Flock’s primary function is to assist police in crime-solving.[28] Over 5,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide contract with Flock Safety—making up almost half of Flock’s overall customer base.[29] Clearly, Flock Safety’s business model is reliant on its appeal to law enforcement.
Determining whether the government encouraged a private company’s actions is slightly more nuanced. In Chatrie v. United States, the Supreme Court held that “[p]olice officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google . . . .”[30] There, police obtained the defendant’s location information from Google; a third-party, private company.[31] The police didn’t compel Google to gather that data, they only demanded access to it and benefited from its collection.[32] Similarly, law enforcement agencies don’t compel Flock to collect ALPR footage, they only contract with Flock to obtain that footage. But considering the widespread use of Flock camera data among law enforcement, the government unequivocally encourages its collection and benefits from it.[33] Thus, there is a strong case to be made that Flock acts as an agent of the government.
Once the private company is established as an instrument or agent of the government, the next step in a Fourth Amendment inquiry is to determine whether a search was conducted. A search occurs if the government intrudes upon an area in which the individual displays an actual expectation of privacy, and that expectation of privacy is one that society recognizes as objectively reasonable.[34]
Certainly, there seems to be a growing number of citizens that consider this technology to be an invasion of privacy.[35] But is their expectation of privacy on public roadways objectively reasonable?
The Third-Party Doctrine is the biggest hurdle in finding Flock camera surveillance to be a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Third-Party Doctrine holds that where information is voluntarily exposed to a third party, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore no search for Fourth Amendment purposes.[36] While the Supreme Court previously held that the movements of a person traveling by car on public roads were voluntarily exposed to third parties, it acknowledged that “more sweeping modes of surveillance,” even on public roadways, may implicate “different constitutional principles.”[37]
For instance, a search warrant based on probable cause is generally required for law enforcement to obtain records of cell-site location information tracking an individual’s movements.[38] Essentially, the Court found that cell-site location information is not voluntarily exposed because cell phone use is necessitated by modern society.[39] But are our travels on public roadways any more voluntary than the data we incidentally share with cell towers? Just as modern life necessitates cell phone use, so too does it necessitate driving.[40]
Even leaving behind the argument that driving is as necessary as cell phone use, the pervasiveness of ALPR cameras is relevant to the idea of voluntary exposure. “Flock Safety has more than 120,000 cameras set up on roads across the US that scan license plates billions of times every month.”[41] An individual may expose his movements by driving on public roadways, but he certainly doesn’t expect every leg of his journey to be documented and available to law enforcement.
Flock’s data retention policies implicate yet another constitutional principle regarding an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Historically, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.”[42] Subsequently, the Supreme Court confirmed that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his long-term movements.[43]
Currently, Flock recommends to its customers a seven-day data retention period.[44] This is only a recommendation. Chris Colwell, the Senior Vice President of Customer Experience at Flock clarified that “. . . the [actual] retention window is set by your contract and local rules, not by Flock.”[45] The website does not mention a mandatory limit to how long the data is retained. The explosion of ALPR technology has easily outpaced federal legislation, leaving only a handful of state statutes addressing the issue of data retention.[46]
Theoretically, in a jurisdiction with no guardrails on data retention, police can track an individual’s route all day, every day, over any period of time. All without a warrant.
IV. Conclusion
The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged that change in technology leads to change in its opinions.[47] As the privatized surveillance market continues to expand,[48] such a change is necessary.
About the Author
Lauren is a third-year law student at Delaware Law School and Manuscript Managing Editor for Volume 52 of the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law. She is currently serving as a Wolcott Fellow to Magistrate Mitchell in the Court of Chancery. She spent the last two summers clerking with the Delaware Office of Defense Services. Following graduation, Lauren will be clerking for Judge Conner in the Sussex County Superior Court.
[1] Elizabeth Worthington, Wilmington removes Flock cameras as debate over license plate readers grows, 6abc (Aug. 10, 2026), https://6abc.com/post/wilmington-delaware-removes-flock-cameras-debate-license-plate-readers-grows/19658091/.
[2] Kristin Finklea & Dave S. Sidhu, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF13068, Automated License Plate Readers: Background and Legal Issues (2025).
[3] Electronic Frontier Foundation, Automated License Plate Readers, Sᴛʀᴇᴇᴛ Lᴇᴠᴇʟ Sᴜʀᴠᴇɪʟʟᴀɴᴄᴇ, https://sls.eff.org/technologies/automated-license-plate-readers-alprs (last visited Sept. 16, 2026).
[4] What Do Flock Cameras Actually Capture?, Flock Safety, (May 22, 2026) https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/what-do-flock-cameras-actually-capture (“The system is intended to identify visible vehicle details, not to collect biometric information or monitor individuals.”).
[5]Electronic Frontier Foundation, supra note 3.
[6] Finklea & Sidhu, supra note 2. There are other kinds of ALPR cameras, including cameras mounted on vehicles or strapped to law enforcement officers. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Automated License Plate Readers Market Survey Report (2025).
[7] Worthington, supra note 1.
[8] Press Release, Wilmington City Council, Councilwoman Yolanda McCoy Encourages Wilmington Residents to Stay Informed Following Decommissioning of Flock License Plate Cameras (Aug. 5, 2026).
[9] Id.
[10] Flock Safety Product Hub, Flock Safety, https://www.flocksafety.com/products (last visited Sept. 17, 2026).
[11] The Entrepreneurs of Scheller: How Paige Todd Went From Yellow Jacket to Flock Safety Founder, Georgia Tech Scheller Coll. of Bus. (Dec. 15, 2025), https://www.scheller.gatech.edu/news/2025/entrepreneurs-of-scheller-paige-todd.html.
[12] Catherina Gioino, Meet Flock, the $8 billion startup backed by a16z and Tiger facing growing backlash against surveillance capitalism, Fortune (Aug. 24, 2026), https://fortune.com/2026/08/24/flock-8-billion-startup-backed-a16z-tiger-surveillance-camera/ (“Flock CEO Garrett Langley told Fortune that the company was started to solve crimes.”).
[13] See generally Max Zahn, Flock cameras trigger nationwide backlash over privacy concerns, police abuse, abcNews (Sept. 1, 2026) https://abcnews.com/US/flock-cameras-trigger-nationwide-backlash-privacy-concerns-police/story?id=136084771; Ayden Runnels, Gov. Abbott blocks state agencies from spending money on Flock cameras, The Texas Tribune (Aug. 28, 2026), https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-greg-abbott-flock-cameras-order-state-money/; Sanya Mansoor, Their cities dropped Flock surveillance cameras. They’re still being watched, The Guardian (Aug. 20, 2026), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/20/flock-cameras-surveillance.
[14] Drew Harwell, Douglas MacMillan & Aaron Schaffer, How rogue officers turned a nationwide camera network into a tool for stalking, Wash. Post (Aug. 2, 2026), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/08/02/how-police-officers-used-vast-network-cameras-spy-their-exes/.
[15] Dave Maass & Rindala Alajaji, Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation., Eʟᴇᴄᴛʀᴏɴɪᴄ Fʀᴏɴᴛɪᴇʀ Fᴏᴜɴᴅᴀᴛɪᴏɴ (Oct. 7, 2025), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it (Documents revealed that the investigation was a “‘death investigation’ of a ‘non-viable fetus,’” with “the reason in the search log [reading]: ‘had an abortion, search for female.’”).
[16] Angel Diaz & Rachel Levinson-Waldman, Automatic License Plate Readers: Legal Status and Policy Recommendations for Law Enforcement Use, Brennan Ctr. for Just. (2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/automatic-license-plate-readers-legal-status-and-policy-recommendations#footnote_0_4gn5WbboK1k1iQsowGQMqyNw2L-5gUFC-YavKcwvTw_1.
[17] See Andrew Zucker, The Flock Founders Say Their Cameras Would’ve Solved the Nancy Guthrie Case, Vanity Fair (Aug. 14, 2026), https://www.vanityfair.com/story/flock-founders-interview-privacy-stalking?srsltid=AfmBOoqUruJpscOLDRi7L91WzlwVuMwbDQ8T7aFhSl4Mha7SLxVTzD7Z (When asked about police officers using Flock technology to stalk ex-partners, Todd said, “I think they probably were [stalkers] before, but now our tool is actually making it very clear that that’s happening.”).
[18] Meg Anderson, Amid intense backlash, people are vandalizing Flock surveillance cameras, ɴᴘʀ (Aug. 21, 2026) https://www.npr.org/2026/08/21/nx-s1-5931849/amid-intense-backlash-people-are-vandalizing-flock-surveillance-cameras (In reference to people vandalizing Flock cameras, Langley said, “I don’t think that they’re being given the level of information they should . . . .”)
[19] Thomas Brewster, AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America, Forbes (Sept. 3, 2025), https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/. Though Langley “later tried to walk [this comment] back.” Brady Brickner-Wood, Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit, New Yorker (Sept. 9, 2026), https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/flock-wants-a-closely-surveilled-world-with-no-exit.
[20] Jay Stanley, Flock CEO Goes Ballistic on Critics as More Americans Question Mass Driver Surveillance, ACLU (Jan. 16, 2026), https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/tracking-alpr-cameras/flock-ceo-goes-ballistic.
[21] What Is Flock?, Flock Safety, https://www.flocksafety.com/what-is-flock (last visited Sept. 12, 2026).
[22] DeFlock, https://deflock.org/ (last visited Sept. 16, 2026) (“DeFlock is an open-source project that maps license plate readers across the US.”).
[23] See Mary Whitfill Roeloffs, Investigations And Vandalism Of Flock Cameras Surge As ‘Surveillance State’ Concerns Escalate, Forbes (Aug. 27, 2026) https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/08/27/investigations-and-vandalism-of-flock-cameras-surge-as-surveillance-state-concerns-escalate/; Anderson, supra note 18; T.M. Brown, Flock cameras are getting mobbed, CNN (July 30, 2026) https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/30/us/flock-camera-vandalism-protests-cec.
[24] U.S. Const. amend. IV.
[25] Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 614 (1989).
[26] Id.
[27] Id. at 615–616.
[28] See generally Flock Safety, https://www.flocksafety.com/ (last visited Sept. 17, 2026); Gioino, supra note 12. (“Flock CEO Garrett Langley told Fortune that the company was started to solve crimes.”); Brewster, supra note 19.
[29] City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution, Flock Safety, https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution (last visited Sept. 17, 2026) (“[M]ore than 5,000 law enforcement agencies and more than 6,000 communities have chosen Flock Safety as their trusted partner.”).
[30] Chatrie v. United States, 146 S. Ct. 2193, 2196 (2026).
[31] Id. at 2201.
[32] Id.
[33] Drew Harwell ᴇᴛ ᴀʟ., Americans have turned against police cameras that track license plates, new survey shows, Wash. Post (Aug. 28, 2026) https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/08/28/americans-turn-against-license-plate-readers-privacy-concerns-grow/ (“Nearly 40 percent of the nation’s roughly 18,000 law enforcement agencies have contracts with Flock . . . .”).
[34] Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967).
[35] Harwell ᴇᴛ ᴀʟ., supra note 33.
[36] Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 744 (1979).
[37] See Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 306 (2018) (quoting United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 281–84 (1983)).
[38] Id. at 316.
[39] Id. at 315.
[40] “45% of Americans have no access to public transportation.” Am. Pub. Transp. Ass’n, https://www.apta.com/news-research/about-the-industry/public-transportation-facts/ (last visited Sept. 17, 2026).
[41] Mansoor, supra note 13.
[42] United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 430 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring).
[43] See Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 310 (2018) (“A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.”); see also Jones, 565 U.S. at 430 (“We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark.”) (Alito, J., concurring).
[44] Garrett Langley, Flock Updates Privacy, Accountability, Security, and Transparency Safeguards, Flock Safety (Aug. 13, 2026), https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-guardrails-address-lpr-privacy-concerns-and-police-transparency.
[45] Chris Colwell, How Does Flock Handle License Plate Data Deletion?, Flock Safety Blog (June 2, 2026) https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/how-does-flock-handle-license-plate-data-deletion.
[46] See Kristin Finklea, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IN12735, Federal Legislation and Oversight of Law Enforcement Use of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) (2026);
Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures, Automated License Plate Readers: State Statutes (Feb. 3, 2022), https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/automated-license-plate-readers-state-statutes.
[47] Chatrie, 146 S. Ct. at 2211; Jones, 565 U.S. at 427 (Alito, J., concurring).
[48] “The company has now expanded into video, gunshot detection, drones, and AI-powered search software. The company confirmed to Fortune that over half of new revenue is non-license-plate readers.” Gioino, supra note 12.
Leave a Reply