License plate reader bill clears the House, but privacy concerns persist
Flock Safety cameras capture license plates. (Photo courtesy of Flock Safety)
Virginia lawmakers are moving to regulate automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) for the first time, but privacy advocates warn that the legislation could expand surveillance rather than rein it in.
The House of Delegates passed a proposal Tuesday that would impose rules on the use of ALPRs, a technology that has become widely adopted by law enforcement, private businesses, and homeowner associations but has largely operated in a grey legal area.
House Bill 2724, sponsored by Del. Charniele Herring, D-Alexandria, seeks to limit how police can use the data collected by the cameras and restrict how long it can be stored. It also authorizes the Virginia Department of Transportation to issue permits for ALPR installation along the state's highways.
The legislation follows growing concerns over the potential misuse of the technology. In Norfolk, residents have filed a federal lawsuit arguing that ALPR cameras violate their Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. In another troubling case, a mother and children were held at gunpoint after being mistakenly identified as driving a stolen car based on an ALPR alert.
While Herring's bill is meant to create safeguards around ALPR use, critics argue it actually paves the way for a major expansion of surveillance across Virginia.
Justice Forward Virginia founder Brad Haywood took to social media this week to accuse Herring of pushing legislation that benefits private companies selling ALPR systems rather than protecting civil liberties.
Haywood said Herring was 'passing it off as 'regulation' when she knows full well that it gives Flock Safety 60,000 more miles of highways on which to install its Big Brother cameras.'
Flock Safety, one of the leading manufacturers of ALPRs, has aggressively marketed its cameras nationwide, partnering with police departments and private entities to expand their use.
With Herring's bill now headed to the Senate, it is likely to face continued scrutiny and pushback.
When lawmakers examined ALPR regulations last year, Sen. Danny Diggs, R-Yorktown, defended the technology and its use to law enforcement from his perspective as a former sheriff.
Meanwhile, Sen. Lashrecse Aird, D-Petersburg, raised concerns about potential misuse, warning that ALPRs could disproportionately impact people of color.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information
On a Friday night in March 2023, Sean Horan called 911 to report that Michael Mendenhall, who runs a staffing agency out of a converted townhouse on Blake Street in Denver, had threatened him with a baseball bat. Based on nothing more than Horan's one-sided account of a confrontation at Mendenhall's townhouse, police officers arrested Mendenhall for felony menacing. To support that charge, Detective Nicholas Rocco-McKeel obtained a search warrant by repeating what another officer told him Horan had said. During the ensuing search of the townhouse, police seized the baseball bat as evidence. Prosecutors dropped the case against Mendenhall less than a week later, and it is not hard to see why: Horan's account of what had happened was inconsistent and improbable. But police never returned the bat, which was a valuable collector's item because it was signed by players at the 2021 Major League Baseball All-Star Game in Denver. That purloined bat is at the center of a case that aims to overturn a controversial 1960 Supreme Court precedent allowing home searches based on hearsay. Mendenhall argues that the warrant authorizing the search of his property was invalid under the Fourth Amendment because it relied on thirdhand information rather than Rocco-McKeel's personal knowledge. "The Fourth Amendment must be enforced in its entirety," says Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents Mendenhall. Although "the Fourth Amendment bans reliance on second-hand information," she says, "the courts have read that requirement out of the Constitution. We're fighting to bring back the original understanding of this very important protection." Issuing a warrant "is no trivial thing," a brief that Mendenhall recently filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit notes. "Warrants authorize armed government agents to seize persons or comb through their most private spaces. Warrants authorize the government to employ violence to accomplish these goals. There is hardly ever a situation in which the individual is more powerless before the State than when its agents arrive armed with a warrant." Although no one was injured in Mendenhall's case, briefs supporting his appeal note that the consequences of hearsay-based warrants can be lethal, as illustrated by the 2020 death of Breonna Taylor. The circumstances that led to the search of Mendenhall's townhouse suggest the hazards of allowing police invasions of private property based on secondhand information. Around 10 p.m. on March 10, 2023, according to Mendenhall's brief, he was "relaxing after work at the townhouse with a friend when he heard women screaming and a man yelling just outside his front door." Concerned for the women's safety, Mendenhall grabbed his commemorative bat and "opened the door to investigate." He saw "a strange and shabbily dressed man," later identified as Horan, sitting on the stoop of the townhouse with two dogs and "yelling at a group of women." When Mendenhall asked Horan to leave, the brief says, Horan "refused and threatened to call the police." He followed through on that threat after Mendenhall went back inside. When four police officers arrived at the townhouse around 11 p.m., Horan, who lived about 50 miles away, told them he was taking a walk when he stopped to rest on Mendenhall's stoop. Although Horan was carrying a gun, he said he had felt threatened by Mendenhall and wanted to press charges. "Rather than asking follow-up or clarifying questions," Mendenhall's brief says, "the officers went to Mr. Mendenhall's townhouse and arrested him as soon as he opened the door, securing him in handcuffs and taking him to a squad car across the street." The officers called Rocco-McKeel, telling him what Horan had said. Without talking to Mendenhall, the detective regurgitated that account in an affidavit that he submitted to Denver County Court Judge Renee A. Goble, who issued a search warrant at 12:34 a.m. on March 11. Horan never testified before Goble, submitted an affidavit, or otherwise swore to the facts underlying the allegations against Mendenhall. And Rocco-McKeel, who wrote the affidavit, "neither observed any of the relevant facts nor personally spoke to Mr. Horan," the 10th Circuit brief notes. He "merely repeated what another officer said Mr. Horan had said." All of that was fine under the Denver Police Department's operations manual, which says officers may "rely upon information received through an informant, rather than upon direct observation, to show probable cause" for a search warrant. It was also fine under Jones v. United States, a 1960 case in which the Supreme Court approved the search of an apartment based on an unnamed informant's report that the tenant was involved in drug dealing. That decision, the Institute for Justice argues, is inconsistent with the text and history of the Fourth Amendment, which says "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation." Until Jones, that requirement generally was understood to mean that warrants could be issued only based on the affiant's firsthand knowledge of the relevant facts, as opposed to the unsworn claims of another person who was never subjected to judicial scrutiny. That understanding, Mendenhall's brief argues, jibes with British and American common law, was reflected in a long series of court decisions, and "continued virtually without question for over 160 years." In Jones, however, the Supreme Court disregarded the Fourth Amendment's Oath or Affirmation Clause, focusing instead on what was required to show probable cause. That decision "addressed neither the constitutional text nor the overwhelming weight of authority," Mendenhall's brief says. "Under a proper interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, Denver's express policy of permitting warrants to be issued without oath or affirmation supporting probable cause is unconstitutional. But for Jones, Denver would be liable to Mr. Mendenhall for its unreasonable search and seizure of his property." In February, U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer predictably concluded that Jones barred Mendenhall's civil rights lawsuit against the city and county of Denver. Mendenhall's lawyers acknowledge that the 10th Circuit likewise is bound by that precedent. Mendenhall "brought this case to overturn Jones and reestablish the vital role that the Oath or Affirmation Clause was intended to play in protecting the rights enshrined in our Constitution," the Institute for Justice says. "He concedes that this Court is bound by Jones and must affirm the district court's decision granting Denver's motion to dismiss. Mr. Mendenhall files this brief, however, both to preserve this issue for further review by the U.S. Supreme Court and in the hopes of persuading the members of this panel that they, too, should call on the Supreme Court to restore the constitutional protection that Jones improperly erased." In a brief supporting Mendenhall's appeal, five law professors argue that "the text and Founding-era understanding of the Fourth Amendment require that a warrant be supported by admissible witness testimony." They add that "cases decided shortly after ratification confirm that hearsay is not a proper basis for issuing a warrant." Two other briefs underline the hazards of hearsay-based warrants. The National Police Accountability Project and the Law Enforcement Action Partnership note that warrants based on secondhand information, typically from confidential sources who have incentives to lie or exaggerate, "routinely result in wrong house raids," which "present significant danger to residents of the home and officers executing the warrant," often resulting in "civilians and police being seriously injured or killed." That danger is starkly illustrated by the March 2020 raid that killed Breonna Taylor. Louisville, Kentucky, police broke into Taylor's apartment late at night based on a search warrant obtained by Detective Joshua Jaynes, who claimed a U.S. postal inspector had informed him that her ex-boyfriend, a suspected drug dealer named Jamarcus Glover, had been receiving packages at her address, which Jaynes suggested might contain drugs or drug money. It turned out that Jaynes never spoke directly with the postal inspector, who said there was nothing suspicious about the packages. But that revelation came too late for Taylor, who died in a hail of bullets after her new boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired at the invading officers, whom he mistook for violent criminals. Walker was initially charged with attempted murder of a police officer, but prosecutors dropped that case two months later, implicitly conceding that he had a strong self-defense claim. "No drugs, money, or contraband were found in Ms. Taylor's apartment during or after the raid," notes a brief that Walker submitted in support of Mendenhall's appeal. "Mr. Glover himself later confirmed that Ms. Taylor had no involvement in his drug trade, explaining that the only packages he ever had sent to her address contained clothes and shoes that we was afraid would be stolen if sent to the house where he stayed." Taylor's senseless death "reflects not only a catastrophic failure of the warrant process, but also a foreseeable consequence of Jones," Walker's brief argues. "By allowing magistrates to issue warrants based on hearsay, Jones removed the requirement that a declarant appear in court, swear to the truth of their statement, and be subjected to questioning, and replaced it with a framework that lends itself to fabrication." Thanks to Jones, "officers seeking a warrant but lacking probable cause—like Detective Jaynes—may now be motivated to enhance their own affidavits by inventing conversations with third-party declarants," the brief notes. "And, because Jones requires no oath or appearance from those declarants, the reviewing judge must rely entirely on the affiant's secondhand account of what a declarant allegedly said and why he/she should be believed. Not only does the magistrate have no opportunity to evaluate the declarant's demeanor, consistency, or basis of knowledge, but also, more fundamentally, the magistrate effectively has no way to verify whether the declarant even exists or ever even made the statements attributed to him/her. The result is a system in which wholly fabricated claims can serve as the basis for intrusions into our most private spaces." That brief was joined by Anjanette Young, another victim of a raid based on secondhand information. On a Thursday evening in February 2019, a dozen Chicago police officers, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, burst into Young's apartment. Young, who was changing out of her work clothes, was caught "completely naked and exposed." She was handcuffed in that state, feeling utterly humiliated, for 10 minutes while the officers vainly searched her apartment for an armed felon. "It quickly became apparent that the information they had received from the informant was bad," the brief says. "They were at the wrong apartment." Young "should never have had to endure the invasive and degrading raid that was conducted on her home," the brief adds. "When presented with a warrant application that relied entirely on an unverified tip from an informant, the magistrate judge who issued the warrant had a constitutional obligation to probe the basis for the officer affiant's assertions—e.g., by asking whether the informant's claims were corroborated and what, if anything, law enforcement had done to verify them. While it is unclear whether the magistrate ever spoke with the informant, the fact that he issued the warrant at all—given the apparent lack of any attempt by officers to verify the informant's tip—is highly suggestive of a lack of any meaningful consideration." Jones encourages such lax oversight, the brief argues: "The magistrate judge is no longer able to meaningfully perform [his] constitutional role. Denied access to the declarant, the judge cannot assess his/her credibility firsthand. Instead, the affiant alone decides which facts to include and which to withhold, effectively filtering the evidence and shielding the judge from any information that might undermine the affiant's narrative….The Fourth Amendment demands more than this system of magisterial rubber-stamping that Jones has engendered." The post Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information appeared first on
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
ICE gained backdoor access to nationwide license plate camera network: report
[Source] Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has allegedly obtained informal access to a nationwide network of automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras by working through local police departments, despite lacking a direct contract with surveillance technology provider Flock Safety. The alleged findings Data obtained from the Danville, Illinois Police Department documents more than 4,000 searches of Flock's artificial intelligence-powered camera system between June 1, 2024, and May 5, 2025, that contained immigration-related terms in search justifications, according to a 404 Media investigation. The records show local and state police departments performed database queries citing reasons such as 'immigration,' 'ICE,' 'ICE+ERO' and 'illegal immigration' across multiple states. The scale of access appears significant: When Dallas police conducted searches labeled 'ICE+ERO' on March 6, for instance, the queries accessed 6,674 separate camera networks containing 77,771 individual devices. Law enforcement agencies from Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia reportedly performed such searches, with those specifically marked 'immigration' appearing only after Trump's January 2025 inauguration. Trending on NextShark: Flock Safety reportedly operates over 40,000 cameras in more than 5,000 communities, automatically capturing license plates, vehicle colors and models for 30-day storage periods, with police typically searching this data without obtaining warrants or court approval. What authorities are saying Local officials have strongly disputed the allegations. Danville Police Chief Chris Yates emphasized his department's adherence to Illinois statutes that forbid using ALPR data for immigration enforcement purposes. Meanwhile, Danville Mayor Rickey Williams Jr. declared that 'what is being alleged is not happening.' Trending on NextShark: Other law enforcement agencies, however, have acknowledged conducting searches that assisted federal investigations. Multiple Illinois police departments reportedly confirmed they conducted searches to assist federal agencies informally. Deputy Chief Andrew Perley of Glencoe, Illinois, described one instance as 'an informal request from Homeland Security Investigations into a criminal matter aside from immigration.' Missouri State Highway Patrol officials clarified that although their search reason was documented as 'immigration,' the actual lookup 'was related to a traffic stop with indicators of possible human trafficking,' according to the agency. Flock Safety maintained that customers 'own and control 100% of the data collected by their Flock systems and choose who to share data with,' while stating that their technology has helped locate over a thousand missing persons. Broader implications The controversy comes amid expanding federal immigration enforcement efforts and ongoing legal challenges to surveillance practices. Legal challenges to warrantless ALPR searches are reportedly underway, with the Institute for Justice arguing these practices violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. Trending on NextShark: These allegations also coincide with the Trump administration's efforts to expand local police involvement in immigration enforcement through the 287(g) program, which permits ICE to delegate immigration authority to local departments, and a January executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security and ICE to authorize qualified local officers to perform immigration-related duties. This story is part of The Rebel Yellow Newsletter — a bold weekly newsletter from the creators of NextShark, reclaiming our stories and celebrating Asian American voices. Subscribe free to join the movement. If you love what we're building, consider becoming a paid member — your support helps us grow our team, investigate impactful stories, and uplift our community. ! Trending on NextShark: Download the NextShark App: Want to keep up to date on Asian American News? Download the NextShark App today!
San Francisco Chronicle
17 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘Who controls the present controls the past': What Orwell's ‘1984' explains about the twisting of history to control the public
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Laura Beers, American University (THE CONVERSATION) When people use the term ' Orwellian,' it's not a good sign. It usually characterizes an action, an individual or a society that is suppressing freedom, particularly the freedom of expression. It can also describe something perverted by tyrannical power. It's a term used primarily to describe the present, but whose implications inevitably connect to both the future and the past. In his second term, President Donald Trump has revealed his ambitions to rewrite America's official history to, in the words of the Organization of American Historians, ' reflect a glorified narrative … while suppressing the voices of historically excluded groups.' Such ambitions are deeply Orwellian. Here's how. Author George Orwell believed in objective, historical truth. Writing in 1946, he attributed his youthful desire to become an author in part to a ' historical impulse,' or ' the desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.' But while Orwell believed in the existence of an objective truth about history, he did not necessarily believe that truth would prevail. Winners write the history During World War II, the Nazis broadcast reports on German radio describing nonexistent air raids over Britain. Orwell knew about those reports and wrote: 'Now, we are aware that those raids did not happen. But what use would our knowledge be if the Germans conquered Britain? For the purposes of a future historian, did those raids happen, or didn't they?' The answer, Orwell wrote, was, 'If Hitler survives, they happened, and if he falls, they didn't happen. So with innumerable other events of the past ten or twenty years. … In no case do you get one answer which is universally accepted because it is true: in each case you get a number of totally incompatible answers, one of which is finally adopted as the result of a physical struggle. History is written by the winners.' As Orwell wrote in ' 1984,' his final, dystopian novel, 'Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.' Power, Orwell appreciated, allowed those who possessed it to create their own historical narrative. It also allowed those in power to silence or censor opposing narratives, quashing the possibility of productive dialogue about history that could ultimately allow truth to come out. The Ministry of Truth The desire to eradicate counternarratives drives Winston Smith's job at the ironically named Ministry of Truth in '1984.' The novel is set in Oceania, a geographical entity covering North America and the British Isles and which governs much of the Global South. Oceania is an absolute tyranny governed by Big Brother, the leader of a political party whose only goal is the perpetuation of its own power. In this society, truth is what Big Brother and the party say it is. The regime imposes near total censorship so that not only dissident speech but subversive private reflection, or 'thought crime,' is viciously prosecuted. In this way, it controls the present. But it also controls the past. As the party's protean policy evolves, Smith and his colleagues are tasked with systematically destroying any historical records that conflict with the current version of history. Smith literally disposes of artifacts of inexpedient history by throwing them down 'memory holes,' where they are 'wiped … out of existence and out of memory.' At a key point in the novel, Smith recalls briefly holding on to a newspaper clipping that proved that an enemy of the regime had not actually committed the crime he had been accused of. Smith recognizes the power over the regime that this clipping gives him, but he simultaneously fears that power will make him a target. In the end, fear of retaliation leads him to drop the slip of newsprint down a memory hole. The contemporary U.S. is a far cry from Orwell's Oceania. Yet the Trump administration is doing its best to exert control over the present and the past. The Trump administration has taken unprecedented steps to rewrite the nation's official history, attempting to purge parts of the historical narrative down Orwellian memory holes. Comically, those efforts included the temporary removal from government websites of information about the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb over Hiroshima. The plane was unwittingly caught up in a mass purge of references to 'gay' and LGBTQ+ content on government websites. Other erasures have included the deletion of content on government sites related to the life of Harriet Tubman, the Maryland woman who escaped slavery and then played a pioneering role as a conductor of the Underground Railroad, helping enslaved people escape to freedom. The administration also directed the removal of content concerning the Tuskegee Airmen, the group of African American pilots who flew missions in World War II. In these cases, public outcry led to the restoration of the deleted content, but other less high-profile deletions have been allowed to stand. Over the past several months, many of Trump's opponents have bemoaned the fecklessness of the Democratic Party in mounting an effective opposition to the president's agenda. Critics on the right and even some on the left denounced as little more than a stunt New Jersey Sen. Corey Booker's marathon 25-hour speech on the U.S. Senate floor detailing the constitutional abuses of Trump's first few months. But while words are no substitute for action, in the face of a regime that is intent on stifling voices of dissent, from media outlets to law firms, to university campuses, through a combination of formal censorship and informal coercion and bullying, the act of speaking out matters. Booker's protest will be written into the Congressional Record and remain a part of the nation's contested history. So too will the meticulous recounting of the administration's constitutional abuses in publications such as The Atlantic and The New York Times. The existence of such a record allows the potential for a critical historical narrative to be written in the future. But the administration is also looking ahead. Repressing thought Current proponents of the 'anti-woke' agenda at both the federal and state level are focused on reshaping educational curricula in a way that will make it inconceivable for future generations to question their historical claims. Orwell's '1984' ends with an appendix on the history of 'Newspeak,' Oceania's official language, which, while it had not yet superseded 'Oldspeak' or standard English, was rapidly gaining ground as both a written and spoken dialect. According to the appendix, 'The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the worldview and mental habits proper to the devotees of [the Party], but to make all other modes of thought impossible.' Orwell, as so often in his writing, makes the abstract theory concrete: 'The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice' or 'This field is free from weeds.' … political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts.' The goal of this language streamlining was total control over past, present and future. If it is illegal to even speak of systemic racism, for example, let alone discuss its causes and possible remedies, it constrains the potential for, even prohibits, social change. It has become a cliché that those who do not understand history are bound to repeat it. As George Orwell appreciated, the correlate is that social and historical progress require an awareness of, and receptivity to, both historical fact and competing historical narratives.
