Automated License Plate Readers: Is 24/7 Surveillance Constitutional?
September 4, 2026
Abby Black
Originally published in "Wake Forest Matters"

Is monitoring public affairs at its core Constitutional?
The Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Flock cameras have become as ubiquitous with 24/7 surveillance as Tupperware for food storage and Kleenex for tissues. Nationwide, ALPRs are credited for faster criminal apprehensions, recovering stolen items, and locating missing persons.
On the other hand, there are frequent reports where ALPRs have enabled stalkers,(1) accidentally misidentified vehicles,(2) and were accessed for immigration enforcement purposes(3) or third-parties such as the federal government and other agencies.(4)
Since the rollout of ALPRs, multiple lawsuits have been filed regarding invasion of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, many brought by Flock Safety Lawsuit 2026(5) and the Institute of Justice.(6) However, plaintiffs have repeatedly lost in court. Scholl et al v Illinois State Police (2025) found ALPRs too dissimilar to “ankle monitors” on the argument of tracking movement.(7) The court ruled in Schmidt et al v City of Norfolk (2026) that ALPR recordings are too vague to constitute a Fourth Amendment infringement.(8)
If not by court of law, do ALPRs dismiss the Fourth Amendment’s intent? While the Framers of the US Declaration and Constitution lacked modern marvels such as searchable databases and instant communication, it is clear Americans of the 1700s valued their privacy.
In 1761, American lawyer James Otis Jr spoke in court against writs of assistance, documents authorities wielded to investigate the colonists’ private homes and persons without warrants or cause. Otis asserted that writs made judges, sheriffs, and officers tyrants. “Every man,” he argued, "prompted by revenge, ill humor, or wantonness, to inspect the inside of his neighbor’s house, may get a writ of assistance.”(9) John Adams likened writs to a haughty nation holding its people in contempt(10) and further attributed writs’ use and twice connected Otis’s court testimony to the start of the Revolutionary War, once in a letter to his wife Abigail(11) and the other to an associate.(12) Benjamin Franklin believed those who can give up their liberty for safety deserve neither.(13)
While the constitutionality of ALPR surveillance is under question, in June 2026, the Supreme Court held in United States v Chatrie that geofencing, or the mass accumulation of all cell phone data in a specific radius, constituted as an infringement of Americans’ Fourth Amendment because geofencing included cells phones whose owners were not related to the search at all; thus being investigated without a warrant. “Accordingly, a cell-phone user is not to be viewed as sharing private information with third parties—which then can be freely passed on to the government — just by doing the ordinary things cell-phone users do.”(14)
If the above is true about geofencing, then people driving a car or walking the neighborhood with no intention to share their license plate or body with ALPR third parties is also true.
So, how would ALPRs better align with the Constitution? Although active surveillance of public areas has repeatedly been ruled by courts as reasonable invasions of privacy, the access of visual and audio ALPR data with or without suspicion of criminal activity touches upon warrantless searches, which does fall under the Fourth Amendment.
On August 13, 2026, a representative from Flock appeared before the Tennessee Sullivan County Commissioners. He denied infringement of the Fourth Amendment, drawing a distinction between active tracking and logging of a single vehicle and an authorized user compiling a sequence of times when a single vehicle passed in front of cameras in multiple locations. He did relate an instance when ALPR was used to find not a suspicious van but use stored data and “convoy analysis” to track and identify vehicles near the van that may be suspicious.(15) However, the Flock representative confirmed that Flock systems require authorized users and automatic query audits, not warrants.
Have our federal, state, and local elected officials, under mandate to uphold and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights, addressed this issue?
To date, the United States Congress has not yet made laws remedying warrantless ALPR. Montana,(16) Minnesota,(17) and Utah(18) state laws require a warrant (in varying degrees) on ALPR data. In North Carolina, the state does not require warrants under G.S. Chapter 20 Article 3D regarding preservation of data and permitted use by law enforcement,(19) nor the NC State Budget signed into law by Governor Stein on July 7, 2026 permits the NC Department of Transportation to partner with the state Bureau of Investigation in installing more ALPRs across department-owned lands and right-of-ways.(20)
On, June 16, 2026, the Town of Wake Forest Commissioners unanimously approved the 2026-27 Budget, which included the lease renewal with Flock.(21)
In stark contract, other local governments in North Carolina are not waiting for legislative action to address their constituents’ Fourth Amendment concerns:
The Town of Hillsborough Commissioners, after consulting with the Town Attorney and Police Chief, voted to end their contract with Flock and remove the cameras. They cited data privacy concerns.(22)
In the Town of Pittsboro, the Commissioners voted to cease funding the town’s ALPR system, let the contract expire, and eventually completely remove all equipment.(23) They reasoned that while the ALPR technology assisted law enforcement with crime, residents were concerned about constant monitoring.
Chatham County Commissioners, after discussing data sharing and privacy, voted to discontinue using Flock equipment.(24)
The Town of Boone created a Flock transparency portal within the Boone Police Department and will not add more cameras to the network.(25)
The Apex Town Council voted to refer the matter to the town’s Public Safety Committee before the contract renews.(26)
Citizens who exercise their First Amendment right to petition their elected officials see results, proving that a local government can address Fourth Amendment violations without waiting for a mandate by law. Wake Forest residents can also reach out to their state and federal representatives to petition them to address warrantless ALPR data storage searches.
As we enter the midterms, Wake Forest residents must ask their candidates where they stand on ALPR data storage and what actions they would take on warrantless ALPR searches.

1. Michael Levenson, "3 Ex-Georgia Deputies Are Arrested Over Using Flock Cameras to Stalk People," NYTimes, August 12 2026
2. Christopher Ingraham, "Dozens of Innocent Motorists Have Been Pulled Over, Detained at Gunpoint, or Jailed Due to AI License Plate Camera Errors," Institute for Justice, July 20 2026
3. Kunle Falayi, "Virginia surveillance network tapped thousands of times for immigration cases," WHRO Public Media, September 24 2025
4. Mireya Ramsey, "Flock Safety Crosses 100,000 Cameras as 53 Cities Cancel Over Unauthorized Federal Data Access," Tech-Times, June 29 2026
5. Owen Parker, "Flock Camera Lawsuit 2026: Who Qualifies and What to Know," Law Fold, updated September 25 2026, accessed September 4 2026
6. Christopher Ingraham, "The IJ Database of ALPR Abuse," Institute for Justice, August 12 2026
7. United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, "STEPHANIE SCHOLL,FRANK BEDNARZ, Plaintiffs, v. ILLINOIS STATE POLICE," 2025. Case No. 24-cv-4435
8. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, "LEE SCHMIDT, CRYSTAL ARRINGTON v CITY OF NORFOLK," 2026, Civil No.2:24cv621
9. Richard Samuelson, ed, "Collected Political Writings of James Otis," Liberty Fund, 2015
10. “From John Adams to Mercy Otis Warren, 20 July 1807,” Founders Online, National Archives
11. “John Adams to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives
12. “From John Adams to William Tudor, Sr., 29 March 1817,” Founders Online, National Archives
13. “Franklin’s Contributions to the Conference on February 17: Four Drafts, 1775,” Founders Online, National Archives
14. Supreme Court of the United States, "CHATRIE v. UNITED STATES," 2026, No. 25–112
15. Sullivan County Board of Commissioners Meeting, "08/13/26," Youtube, 1:48:08
16. Montana Code Annotated Title 46 Chapter 5 Part 1 46-5-117
17. 2025 Minnesota Statutes DATA PRACTICES Chapter 13 Section 13.824
18. Utah Code Part 20 Automatic License Plate Reader System Act
19. North Carolina General Statute Chapter 20 Article 3D
20. North Carolina General Assembly, "SENATE BILL 257," Session 2025
21. Wake Forest Board of Commissioners, "06/16/2026 Minutes," Town of Wake Forest
22. "Hillsborough Cancels Contract for License Plate Reader Cameras," Hillsborough North Carolina, October 28 2025
23. Pittsboro Board of Commissioners, "MAY 11, 2026 Minutes," Town of Pitssboro
24. Chatham County Board of Commissioners, "April 20, 2026 Minutes," County of Chatham, Granicus 3:23:28
25. Boone Board of Commissioners, "May 13, 2026 Minutes," Town of Booe
26. Apex Board of Commissioners, "2026.06.09 Minutes Part 2," Youtube, 13:55