Flock camera lawsuit to proceed in Norfolk
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.
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 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
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
NNPD hosts 3rd annual Gun Violence Awareness Walk at City Center
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (WAVY) – The police department is hosting the third annual 'Gun Violence Awareness Walk' at City Center Wednesday evening. The walk comes after a string of violence police are hoping to get the public more involved. NNPD hosts 2nd annual Gun Violence Awareness Walk The walk is a way for people to allow themselves to talk to each other about how tired they are about gun violence. In its third year, it's a way for people who call Newport News home a chance to take back the community after recent shootings in the city. One man was seriously hurt at a shooting on Traverse Road, and one woman was killed near the intersection of 27th Street and Wickham Avenue — both at the end of May. As a long time resident of Newport News, James Perrin said he is happy the police are getting involved with the community to stop the violence. 'They patrol around like they are supposed to. But you still got a lot of young people out here doing those sneaky stuff at night,' said Perrin. Dozens of people will walk around the fountains at City Center wearing orange, the symbolic color for gun violence awareness. At 6 p.m., police, city leaders and community members will walk and talk about the collective commitment they have to end gun violence. 'This event serves not only as an important reminder of the seriousness of gun violence both in our community and nationwide, but also as a celebration of our community's commitment to developing lasting solutions to this critical issue,' said Chief of Police, Steve Drew. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
SWAT Raid Fallout: McKinney Ordered To Compensate Homeowner
A ruling years in the making affirms property rights in a case previously reported by The Dallas Express. A federal judge has ordered the City of McKinney to pay nearly $60,000 in damages to a woman whose home was destroyed during a 2020 SWAT standoff—despite her having no connection to the fugitive inside. Vicki Baker, a cancer patient and retired grandmother, was preparing to relocate to Montana when police descended on her property. The SWAT team was pursuing her former handyman, who had barricaded himself inside her McKinney home. 'I told them, 'Please don't destroy my house,'' Baker recalled to NBC 5. They did anyway. What followed was a five-year legal battle in which the city refused to pay for the $60,000-plus in property damage, forcing Baker to dip into her retirement savings just to make the home livable again. With the help of the Institute for Justice, Baker took the city to court, arguing that government agents who destroy private property—regardless of motive—should be held financially accountable. 'We're trying to establish that even if the government is acting for a legitimate reason, they must compensate property owners for what they destroy,' said attorney Jeffrey Redfern. The city previously offered a partial settlement, but Baker refused, pushing for full compensation and a broader legal precedent. Last week, a federal judge agreed and ordered McKinney to pay $59,656.69. City officials told NBC 5 they are 'evaluating options for appealing the ruling.' Baker, now retired and living on Social Security, says she fought not just for herself but for others who might one day find themselves in her position. 'It was disastrous for me, but what if it were a single mom with no savings? Someone has to stand up,' she said. The ruling could signal a growing trend of courts reining in unchecked government immunity when innocent citizens bear the cost of public safety operations.
