Federal judge blocks warrantless Flock license‑plate search as Fourth Amendment violation
U.S. District Judge Sara Hill issued a ruling on Oct. 4, 2026 that a Tulsa County deputy’s warrantless search of Flock Safety’s automated license‑plate reader database violated the Fourth Amendment.
The decision centers on Melisa Kyle, whose California‑registered Mazda was tracked by the deputy, Freddie Alaniz, who queried the Flock system for the plate without any investigative justification. The search produced more than 50 records of Kyle’s movements across several states over a month.
Judge Hill granted Kyle’s motion to suppress the evidence, stating that the reconstruction of a month‑long travel history breached a reasonable expectation of privacy. She described the method as “a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance” and emphasized that freedom from persistent dragnet‑style monitoring in public spaces is a core constitutional principle.
While the ruling does not outlaw the technology itself, it blocks the specific practice of accessing Flock’s data without a warrant or probable cause. The opinion notes that the decision does not establish a nationwide precedent, but it could energize ongoing debates over the use of automated license‑plate readers (ALPR) by police.
Flock Safety issued a statement contesting the ruling, claiming it runs contrary to prevailing authority in similar cases and that the order will likely be appealed. The company was not a party to the criminal case.
State leaders have already taken action. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis moved to restrict the technology over the past two months, and several local governments have canceled their contracts with Flock.
At the federal level, Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez of New York introduced legislation that would bar federal agencies from using ALPR systems and freeze grants that support local police purchases of the technology.
The ruling underscores growing concerns about how law‑enforcement agencies collect and store location data, highlighting a legal balance between public safety tools and constitutional privacy protections. The case is expected to proceed through appellate review, with the broader impact on ALPR usage yet to be determined.
