In a landmark civil rights lawsuit, plaintiffs Lee Schmidt and Crystal Arrington, with the backing of the Institute for Justice (IJ), are suing the City of Norfolk, the Norfolk Police Department, and Police Chief Mark Talbot in Schmidt, et al. v. City of Norfolk, et al.
The plaintiffs argue that the city’s use of 172 Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs), supplied by Flock Safety, violates the Fourth Amendment by enabling the tracking of individuals’ movements without a warrant.
The cameras photograph every vehicle passing them, storing the data in a searchable database for at least 30 days. This extensive surveillance, the plaintiffs claim, facilitates warrantless government tracking of citizens’ daily activities, from visiting friends to attending medical appointments.
Schmidt, a Navy veteran, and Arrington, a healthcare professional, say the system has eroded their privacy. Both have found themselves repeatedly monitored as they go about their lives in Norfolk, where no meaningful restrictions are placed on police access to the database.
The lawsuit points out that officers do not need a warrant or probable cause to access the system, nor do they face proactive oversight on how they use the data. This creates what the lawsuit calls “dragnet surveillance,” which the plaintiffs argue is a violation of their constitutional rights.
Norfolk’s ALPR program has been expanding, with plans to add 65 more cameras, further heightening privacy concerns. These cameras are equipped with Flock’s “Vehicle Fingerprint” technology, which not only captures license plates but also identifies vehicle characteristics like make, model, and distinctive features.
This data is pooled across a national network of over 5,000 communities using Flock cameras, allowing the city to potentially track vehicles even outside its borders.
Schmidt and Arrington, represented by IJ attorneys Robert Frommer and Joshua Windham, filed the suit on October 21, 2024, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They are asking the court to permanently enjoin Norfolk from using ALPRs without a warrant and to delete the stored data. They argue that this kind of surveillance is precisely what the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent—continuous, unbridled tracking of a person’s movements over an extended period.
The case was assigned to Chief District Judge Mark S. Davis and Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard. Summonses have been issued to the City of Norfolk, Norfolk Police Department, and Chief Talbot, and motions have been filed to allow out-of-state attorneys to represent the plaintiffs in the case.
This lawsuit follows a growing national trend of legal challenges against ALPR systems, highlighting the tension between modern surveillance technology and privacy rights. Norfolk’s system, however, is notable for its scale and the lack of oversight, making this case a critical one in the ongoing debate about the balance between public safety and civil liberties.
As the case progresses, it will test the boundaries of how far local governments can go in using technology to monitor citizens without their knowledge or consent. If successful, Schmidt and Arrington’s case could set a precedent limiting government use of ALPRs across the country.
The plaintiffs are seeking an immediate halt to the program and permanent deletion of all data collected by the city’s surveillance network, which has been operational since February 2023.
For more details, you can refer to the complaint document and follow the case’s progression through The Institute for Justice’s updates.
Zach Varnell
Zach Varnell is a cybersecurity expert and advocate for privacy and individual liberty. He is a founding member of Banish Big Brother, a nonprofit dedicated to combating invasive surveillance. His insights have been featured in publications like Infosecurity Magazine, Threatpost, ZDNET, and the Washington Examiner.