America Under Surveillance with Michael Soyfer

What It Covers

Michael Soyfer from the Institute for Justice discusses their lawsuit against Norfolk, Virginia over 172 Flock license plate readers that track vehicle movements for thirty days without warrants, challenging Fourth Amendment protections.

Key Questions Answered

• •Data retention limits: New Hampshire requires license plate reader data deletion within three minutes unless flagged for stolen vehicles or warrants, preventing mass surveillance while preserving legitimate law enforcement hot list alerts for immediate threats.
• •Audit failures expose misuse: Norfolk conducted zero audits of their license plate database for two years. Without rigorous oversight, officers can abuse systems undetected—two Kansas officers used Flock databases to stalk ex-partners by disguising searches as legitimate investigations.
• •Carpenter precedent applies: The 2018 Supreme Court ruling requiring warrants for cell site location information establishes that long-term movement tracking violates Fourth Amendment privacy expectations, creating legal foundation to challenge automated license plate reader networks collecting population-level surveillance data.
• •Local engagement creates impact: City councils often approve surveillance systems without oversight using grant money that bypasses budget review. Attending meetings, requesting transparency portals, and questioning data access policies forces accountability where twenty attendees can influence 100,000 residents.