Virginia judge rules Flock camera lawsuit may proceed
NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) — A judge ruled Wednesday that a lawsuit about Norfolk's use of license plate readers, known as Flock cameras, will go forward.
With more than 172 cameras in Norfolk, the city tried to get the lawsuit dismissed.
The Flock cameras don't just read and capture your car's license plate. They also take details of your car's make, model and color, including if your car has a roof rack, bumper sticker or any damage. These images are then stored for 30 days.
Gastonia Police plan to add additional cameras to real-time crime center
The lawsuit was filed last October by a Norfolk resident. Lee Schmidt and Portsmouth resident Crystal Arrington both are represented by the Institute for Justice. The two say these cameras violate their privacy.
'Our lawsuit alleges that that violates people's Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches. You have an expectation of privacy in the whole of your movements,' said Institute for Justice attorney Michael Soyfer.
The judge rejected the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, citing the United States Supreme Court case Carpenter v. United States, a case that states that using cell phone location to track someone's movement is a search that requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.
These cameras do not take video or get drivers for speeding or traffic violations. But in 2023, Norfolk Police Chief Mark Talbot stated it has been used to help crime, as
This also comes as 24-year-old Andrew Sharrold Williams was sentenced to a year-and-a-half for stealing an SUV that police found using flock cameras in Norfolk.
Soyfer said each camera should be thought of as a police officer.
'When you think about it, under current Supreme Court precedent, the court asks, 'What is society's expectation of privacy?' And we can look at history to try to evaluate that,' Soyfer said. 'Historically, no one thought that police would be posted at 172 locations to write down everyone who went by for 30 days at a time.'
10 On Your Side reached out to Norfolk for a statement. It reads:
In ruling not to dismiss this case on the pleadings, the court did not address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. The court's decision affords the opportunity to establish through discovery that the plaintiffs' challenge to the city's use of Flock cameras is not grounded in the facts or the law.
In Virginia, Flock cameras are not regulated. The House of Delegates passed HB2724 in hopes of changing that in its 2025 regular session.
Virginia lawmakers looking to put guardrails on use of automatic license plate readers
HB2724 limits the use of Flock cameras by law enforcement agencies to the following:
Part of a criminal investigation where there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed
Part of an active investigation that relates to a missing or endangered person, human trafficking, receiving notifications related to a missing person, a person with an outstanding warrant, a person associated with human trafficking, a stolen vehicle or a stolen license plate.
But Soyfer said that is still not enough.
'The ultimate goal is to stop the operation of this unconstitutional dragnet surveillance system,' Soyfer said.
Soyfer said they are now in the discovery phase to get all their facts. They have a pretrial conference set for Feb. 20, which will set the case schedule.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
35 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court revives suit from victims of botched FBI raid
Advertisement The couple barricaded themselves in a closet. The agents dragged Cliatt out at gunpoint and handcuffed him. They told Martin to keep her hands up as she pleaded to see her 7-year-old son, who had been asleep in another room. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up As they questioned Cliatt, he gave his address. It was different from the one for the suspected gang hideout the agents had a warrant to enter. One of the agents, Lawrence Guerra, had earlier identified the correct house, which he said looked similar and was nearby, on a different street. But on the morning of the raid, he said he went to the wrong house because he had been misdirected by his GPS device. That could not be confirmed, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court, as Guerra threw the device away not long after the raid. Gorsuch added that the agents had overlooked plenty of indications they were in the wrong place — a street sign, a house number, and a different car parked in the driveway. Advertisement The couple sued for false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and other claims but lost in the lower courts on a variety of grounds. Notably, that government officials' actions are protected from lawsuits when they perform a duty that involves discretion. The case turned on the Federal Tort Claims Act, which sometimes allows suits against the government for money notwithstanding the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which ordinarily bars such suits unless the government consents. A 1974 amendment to the law made it easier to sue over wrong-house raids after notorious ones in Collinsville, Ill., but the law is subject to a tangled series of 13 exceptions. 'If federal officers raid the wrong house, causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, may the homeowners sue the government for damages?' Gorsuch asked in his opinion. 'The answer is not as obvious as it might be.' The court clarified aspects of the analysis of when such cases are allowed and returned the case to the lower courts for further consideration. In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said 'there is reason to think' that the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, saying that Congress had amended the law in response to the Collinsville raids to allow cases like this one. Patrick Jaicomo, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, which represented the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling. 'The Supreme Court was right to let the Martin family's case move forward for the FBI's botched raid of their home,' he said in a statement. 'The court's decision today acknowledged how far the circuit courts have strayed from the purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is to ensure remedies to the victims of federal harms.' Advertisement This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
California Immigration Raids Are Hurting American Citizens Too
The Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement policies are taking a toll on more than just the undocumented aliens they are targeting. On Sunday, Cary López Alvarado, an American citizen born in Los Angeles who is nine months pregnant, was hospitalized after being released from federal custody one week before her due date. López Alvarado said she started experiencing sharp pains in her abdomen after she lost her balance when agents "shoved her" while attempting to arrest her undocumented coworkers. "I crouched down and held my belly, because I was scared they would hurt me," she told Telemundo 52, NBC's sister station in Los Angeles. López Alvarado was detained after attempting to block two masked Border Patrol agents from entering her place of work without a warrant. While performing maintenance work in a building in Hawthorne, California, on Sunday, she and her cousin—also an American citizen—opened the parking gate to allow López Alvarado's partner, Brian Najera, and another co-worker to enter. Najera and the co-worker—who are both undocumented—had been followed in a marked U.S. Customs and Border Protection vehicle. López Alvarado blocked the agents from entering the gated parking lot and captured her interactions with them on video while telling the agents: "I'm going to need you guys to leave. This is private property." Agents said the parking wasn't private property and asked López Alvarado to either show documentation that she owned the property or move out of the way. When she refused to move, the agents forced her out of the way, causing her to lose her balance. She, along with her husband, co-worker, and cousin, were subsequently arrested, during which time López Alvarado told agents her due date was June 17. "'OK, your baby is going to be born here, but you're from Mexico, right?' And I told them no," she said on NBC News. "I was born here." López Alvarado was released later that day and told by agents they would contact her at a later date about obstruction allegations. In an email sent to NBC News, Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, said, "Cary Lopez was arrested because she obstructed federal law enforcement by blocking access to a car that had two Guatemalan illegal aliens in it." She also noted that "ICE enforcement officers are facing a 413% increase in assaults," which McLaughlin says is "disgraceful." This incident illustrates how quickly interactions with federal agents can become complicated. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Whether a parking lot is considered private, and therefore requires either a valid warrant or permission for authorities to enter, depends on multiple factors. Although López Alvarado believed she was within her rights to deny federal immigration authorities entrance to a gated parking lot on private property without a judicial warrant, agents believed differently. Trump's onslaught of immigration enforcement has raised many questions regarding due process for undocumented people living in the United States. Now, the same questions are being raised for American citizens. The post California Immigration Raids Are Hurting American Citizens Too appeared first on
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Proud Boys' lawsuit is legally unsound — but DOJ will likely just surrender
The $100 million lawsuit filed by leaders of the far-right militant group the Proud Boys is legally unsound — but it has an excellent chance of success. The plaintiffs — Henry 'Enrique' Tarrio and four others — had been found guilty of seditious conspiracy and other crimes arising from their roles in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that interfered with the transition of power following Joe Biden's victory over Donald Trump in the 2020 election. The lawsuit's excellent chance of a successful outcome for Tarrio and his co-defendants-turned-co-plaintiffs rests entirely on the current Justice Department's will to defend itself, which seems non-existent judging by DOJ's recent capitulation in the wrongful death case brought by the estate of Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter shot and killed while trying to breach the House Speaker's Lobby on Jan. 6. The Babbitt case appeared weak. An investigation by the U.S. Capitol Police found that the officer had acted lawfully in shooting Babbitt, and a joint investigation by the D.C. police department and DOJ found no evidence that the officer had done anything other than act in self-defense of himself and members of Congress — who were actively being evacuated in the face of the Capitol attack at the time Babbitt climbed over a barricade and through a broken glass window to get into the Speaker's Lobby. The U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C. and the DOJ's Civil Rights Section jointly decided no criminal charges against the officer were warranted. Nevertheless, the Trump DOJ paid Babbitt's estate $5 million to settle. The Proud Boys case looks even weaker. Tarrio and the other plaintiffs are essentially re-arguing defenses they made at their trials: Their constitutional rights were violated under various theories, including due process, the right to a speedy trial and claims of unreasonable search and seizures. But one problem for them is these defenses were all rejected at trial and they were convicted and sentenced for their crimes. Bringing a civil suit for a wrongful prosecution in which the defendant(s) were convicted would be nearly impossible without that conviction being overturned on appeal. The other problem is that their case is brought primarily upon the so-called Bivens doctrine, which has fallen extremely out of favor with the courts. The doctrine arose from a 1971 Supreme Court case allowing plaintiff Webster Bivens to seek damages against federal agents for violating his Fourth Amendment rights in an illegal search and arrest. But since 1971, the Supreme Court has repeatedly denied Bivens as a remedy and federal trial courts — and appeals courts — have dismissed hundreds of lawsuits based on Bivens, which had led to the conclusion that the Bivens remedy is nearly dead. Professor Dennis Fan, a former DOJ civil attorney, told The Hill that it's 'essentially impossible' to bring a Bivens claim these days. The other basis for the Proud Boys' suit relies on the Federal Torts Claim Act to recover under a liability theory of malicious prosecution — a liability that Rupa Bhattacharyya, former director of DOJ's Torts Branch, describes as 'really, really low.' But likely outweighing all the legal hurdles for the Proud Boys' lawsuit are Trump's pardons of Tarrio and commutations of sentences for his co-plaintiffs. The pardons — not just of the Proud Boys but also of 1,600 defendants charged in the Jan. 6 attack — immeasurably complicate DOJ's potential defense against the lawsuit. The pardon and commutation language used by Trump states that it is ending 'a grave national injustice' — and during the signing ceremony, Trump described the Jan. 6 defendants as 'hostages' and said: 'What they've done to these people is outrageous. There's rarely been anything like it in the history of our country.' Tarrio also has written of his conversation with Trump at Mar-a-Lago where Trump told him that he was sorry for what President Joe Biden had done to Jan. 6 defendants and told him, 'I love you guys.' Both the language in the pardon and commutations and Trump's characterizations and apologies make a settlement nearly the only outcome. Indeed, a trial of the claims could result in the absurdity of Trump and other Trump administration officials testifying against DOJ's defense of its actions — in essence the administration testifying against itself. Nor would a judge be inclined to reject such a settlement. While theoretically a judge may refuse to accept a settlement, those instances typically involve cases that give a judge more authority over settlements. for example class actions like the Purdue Pharma opioid settlement case, in which the judge objected to a provision that would have protected the Sackler family from litigation. A settlement would have big financial consequences for taxpayers. The damage caused by the Jan. 6 attack is estimated by Congress' audit arm to be $2.7 billion, of which only $3 million was to be repaid in the form of restitution by Jan. 6 defendants. Whatever restitution was owed is wiped clean by the pardons and commutations, and the DOJ has already supported giving a refund to the defendants of any money already paid. It would also likely cause a flood of similar lawsuits from perhaps all of the 1,600 pardoned/commuted Jan. 6 defendants — which could add millions, maybe even hundreds of millions, to the tab. Such an income stream fits well with Trump's idea of creating a 'compensation fund' for pardoned Jan 6 rioters even as it would — in the words of history professor Allan J. Lichtman — send a 'horrendous message' that would legitimize 'violent insurrections.' Lichtman compared the settlements process to 'white supremacists during the Jim Crow era recasting Confederates who fought in the Civil War as 'noble.'' Essentially, the Trump administration could be creating reparations packages for Jan. 6 rioters. This article was originally published on
