It’s obvious from my inbox that you guys didn’t agree, at all, with my take on license plate readers and Flock cameras.
I tried for a compromise position of tight regulations on usage in exchange for the positive tool they provide police to solve crime. But I clearly missed.
In four years of writing a weekly column, I have never received as much feedback as I did on this one. And only one was in support of my position. Dozens of others provided studies, legal arguments and hypotheticals to prove their point.
And I want to note upfront that everyone was polite and respectful, which I so appreciate. Because we don’t have a “letters to the editor” section I thought I would highlight some of the responses I received here.
First up, Curt from Seymour, Ind.:
“I would agree with the court that in an instance of a car being photographed (and located with a time stamp) in public space is not a constitutional violation as there can be no expectation of privacy. That in of itself isn’t really the issue. When a camera takes more than one, or a dozen or a hundred photos of a vehicle, a clear pattern arises of an individual’s daily routine,” he said.
The grandfather went onto say “this absolutely diminishes liberty and IS clearly a 4th amendment violation. It’s always in the name of safety, and I remain of the opinion that police work is a damn tough and dangerous job. If I were asked, however, I would be forced to place my vote with liberty’s side. I believe you are totally wrong on this one.”
Next up we have Howard:
“In America we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and I am not supposed to have to prove my innocence. Seeing how I am not committing crime why do I have to give up my presumption of innocence so the government can record me until I break the law?
“These are kind of rhetorical questions, I know I won’t change your mind. I do enjoy your editorials even when we disagree. I want to thank you for your hard work of keeping Hoosiers informed.”
Another writer, Guy, echoed sentiments that several Hoosiers sent.
“We have multiple federal government agencies disappearing people off streets while said people are doing things like dropping kids off at the school bus, and at least two American citizens have been killed by those same agencies, but ‘if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have little to be worried about’? I think not. That’s an absolutely silly take.”
Reader Tom focused on how easy it is for police to misuse the system, which we have seen in recent arrests.
“Any tool like Flock that can be abused so easily is not a tool law enforcement should have in its arsenal. There is always plenty to worry about where police are concerned, whatever side of the law you’re on,” he said.
Dana told me the debate is about more than oversight and access.
“The outrage is also about over surveillance of citizens and the potential for misuse by the Flock camera company. Our local governments have no control over what Flock does with the data/images. Flock has already misused the data by sharing it without a city’s permission. There is no guarantee that the data/information is not copied/stored or sold by Flock or one of its third-party contractors. By entering into a contract with Flock, these local governments are surrendering oversight to a company that is in the business of making money, not protecting citizens’ privacy.”
The notes and comments are still pouring in. I can’t say I have done a reversal on my opinion, but I appreciate some of the context and nuance provided. It’s clear the intersection of technology and privacy is an uncomfortable space for many of us. I am still hoping, perhaps naively, to find a way to enjoy the benefits the license plate readers can provide without losing our privacy.
And speaking of benefits, the Carmel Police Department has a top 10 “wins” memo involving automated license plate recognition. Here is just one.
“In May of 2024, CPD was dispatched to a commercial burglary in the 10200 block of Commerce Dr. Three suspects broke into a designer clothing store in the early morning hours and took approximately $60,000 in merchandise. During the initial investigation, a suspect vehicle was developed with Flock cameras near 96th St / Michigan Rd. Throughout the day, investigators tracked the vehicle with nationwide Flock cameras and found that it traveled west to Missouri, then south to Arkansas. Investigators contacted the Arkansas State Police, passed along the case information, and were notified a few hours later that the suspect vehicle had been located. Troopers with the Arkansas State Police stopped the vehicle for a moving violation and detained/identified the five occupants. It was reported that the vehicle contained two pounds of marijuana and the stolen clothing from the Carmel burglary. After coordinating with ASP, CPD investigators recovered the stolen merchandise and charged Marcus Williams and Sean Mitchell, both of California, with Burglary and Theft.”