An Oklahoma federal judge ruled Friday that warrantless searches using AI-powered surveillance camera data - the kind collected by Flock Safety's hallmark technology - may violate the Fourth Amendment when there isn't adequate probable cause. Which is, technically speaking, what the Fourth Amendment is for.

"Freedom from persistent, dragnet-style surveillance while in public is not a foreign concept in our society, and it is a reasonable expectation that society already accepts," wrote U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill, a former President Biden appointee. She continued, "But it becomes constitutionally problematic when law enforcement can indiscriminately and passively catalog your whereabouts over an extended period of time and then use that information for any purpose whenever convenient." A sentence that reads like a privacy policy warning label nobody ever reads until it's too late.

For the uninitiated: Flock offers a system of automated license plate readers (ALPRs), which use recording devices to log plate numbers and identify what the company calls a "vehicle signature" - including a car's make, model and other identifying features. The cameras do not collect the biometric data of a vehicle's occupants, which is presumably cold comfort to anyone who has ever been in a car.

The ruling concerned ALPRs' role in a Tulsa County deputy sheriff's traffic stop that resulted in a drug arrest. In this case, the deputy began following a driver after noticing she had an out-of-state license plate and ran her vehicle through an AI-powered camera database - allegedly before the officer had identified any traffic violation or other criminal activity. So, the out-of-state plate was the probable cause, and the database was the fishing expedition.

The officer had access to both Flock and VehicleManager systems, according to the judge's ruling, and his search turned up over 50 sightings of the woman's vehicle across several states. The deputy sheriff eventually observed an infraction and pulled over the driver - a sequence of events that reads less like policing and more like a scavenger hunt where the prize is a drug arrest.

The judge's ruling does not label the use of Flock data to aid in arrests as illegal. Rather, it clarifies that the officer in this case did not have probable cause to "intruded on her reasonable expectation of privacy" with the technology - setting stricter precedent for when law enforcement may employ extensive ALPR databases during investigations. In other words, the technology isn't banned; it just has to follow the same rules as everyone else, which is apparently a controversial stance.

A spokesperson for Flock told The Hill, "The ruling goes against the overwhelming weight of authority in similar cases across the country, including multiple recent decisions in Oklahoma, and we expect it will be appealed and ultimately overturned." The company added, "This ruling is limited to the specific facts of this case. It does not set controlling precedent and does not affect law enforcement agencies' continued use of these important public safety technologies." Which is a polite way of saying: please ignore the judge, nothing to see here, move along.

ALPR technology has faced bipartisan pushback, which is one of those rare phrases that makes you check if the sky is falling. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) made moves over the past two months to limit the technology's use in their respective states. A growing number of municipalities have also ended contracts with Flock.

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), along with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), similarly unveiled legislation that would both prohibit federal agencies from using the AI-powered surveillance technology and pause government grant funding toward local law enforcement agencies looking to contract with ALPR manufacturers. Because nothing unites a Vermont socialist, an Oregon Democrat, and a New York progressive like the prospect of being tracked by a camera that never blinks.

VehicleManager's parent company, Motorola Solutions, did not respond immediately to The Hill's request for comment. Presumably, they were checking their own license plate readers for any sign of the inquiry.