Little says Flock data capture conflicts with the Fourth Amendment
Texas state representative (R) running for reelection in District 65
“The sheer volume of information captured is not something that is entertained, in my view, by the Fourth Amendment”
Source and context
Reporting
About this source
Texas Tribune analysis of how the Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority used a 2023 auto insurance fee increase to fund Flock license-plate cameras, with comment from state lawmakers, police and privacy advocates.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The Texas Tribune reported that a state agency used a $1 auto insurance fee increase, passed unanimously in 2023, to fund at least 3,200 Flock cameras across Texas.
After the quotation
The Tribune reports that Little and Rep. Brian Harrison intend to file bills next session banning the devices. Little also said sharing the data across state and jurisdictional lines is highly problematic.
How this statement is classified
Case context: Should Flock-style license-plate surveillance networks exist?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is whether networked license-plate reader systems such as Flock should exist and be used. Little said the volume of information the cameras capture is not permitted by the Fourth Amendment, and the Tribune reports he intends to file a bill banning the devices. That rejects the systems themselves, so Condemned fits.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Flock Safety
Should Flock-style license-plate surveillance networks exist?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“Ohioans should not have their movements routinely tracked, photographed, and stored simply for driving on public roads.”Read statement
“Tennesseans should be free from a surveillance state.”Read statement
“We need to restore real limits, real oversight, and real due process.”Read statement