Institute for Justice lawyer Michael Soyfer calls the opinion "extremely important" and says earlier courts were "way too myopic"
Institute for JusticeLawyer at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, quoted by 404 Media
Michael Soyfer, a lawyer at the Institute for Justice, told 404 Media that the opinion recognizes the breadth of plate-reader systems and the intimate details a massive database of movements can reveal. He called it extremely important and said courts had resolved these cases too narrowly and had ignored how deeply the systems reach into people's movements.
Responding to
Michael Soyfer of the Institute for Justice said earlier court decisions on plate-reader cases were too narrow, and that Judge Hill's opinion gives proper weight to the breadth of the systems, which collect information about many people and can reveal intimate details of their lives.
“The opinion is pretty amazing. It recognizes one thing that courts ignore which is the sheer breadth of these systems, that they collect so much information about so many people in a way that sets them apart. This decision ascribes appropriate weight to the fact police are building out this massive database that can reveal incredibly intimate details of people’s lives … It’s extremely important. The way courts have resolved these cases previously has been way too myopic and has ignored the depths of these systems and the sweeping modes of surveillance that allow police to reconstruct the movements of anyone in the country.”
Original text
Reporting
Where this statement fits
Did a deputy's warrantless query of Flock license-plate data violate the Fourth Amendment, as a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled?
On October 1, 2026, U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill of the Northern District of Oklahoma held in United States v. Kyle that a Tulsa County deputy's warrantless query of the Flock and VehicleManager license-plate-reader databases was a search that violated the Fourth Amendment. The deputy, Freddie Alaniz, ran the query on a Mazda with a California plate in May 2026 and got more than 50 records of its location over about a month across several states. He reviewed that history while questioning the driver, Melisa Kyle. Judge Hill gave two independent grounds for suppression: the query, which led her to suppress all evidence obtained after it began, and Alaniz's extension of the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion. The U.S. Attorney's Office had argued that plates on public roads are in plain view and carry no Fourth Amendment privacy interest. Flock Safety says the ruling goes against the weight of authority, is limited to its facts and expects it to be overturned on appeal. The opinion is one district court's decision in a criminal case. Kyle is charged, and no court has decided whether she committed the offense. As of October 4, 2026, the docket shows no notice of appeal.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The appellants' reply brief in the pending Fourth Circuit appeal of the Norfolk decision. It shows the appeal was still being briefed on July 23, 2026 and that Michael Soyfer is counsel for the plaintiffs. We did not find an argument date or decision as of October 4, 2026.
Reporting
About this source
404 Media's report on the ruling, based on the opinion. It quotes the opinion at length, quotes Michael Soyfer of the Institute for Justice, and was updated with a statement from a Flock spokesperson. It says the decision will not set a binding precedent and that other cases are considering warrantless plate-reader searches.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The Institute for Justice is litigating Fourth Amendment challenges to plate-reader systems. Soyfer is counsel for the plaintiffs in the pending Fourth Circuit appeal of Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, in which a federal judge ruled for the city in January 2026.
After the quotation
In the same article Soyfer said he thinks Flock is going to automate alerts on travel patterns using AI. Flock's separate statement to the outlet disputes the ruling.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is the proposition that the warrantless query was a search that violated the Fourth Amendment. Soyfer endorses the opinion's reasoning and criticizes earlier decisions that went the other way, which supports the proposition, so we used Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenges the characterization. It loses because he praises the holding, which goes beyond disputing how earlier courts described the systems.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseLaw professor Matthew Tokson calls the opinion "A major ruling" that applies Chatrie to extensive camera networks
“A federal district judge just declared that Flock camera systems violate the Fourth Amendment! Applying Chatrie, the court concludes that extensive camera networks engage in unlawful "indiscriminate mass surveillance." A major ruling.”Read statement
Flock Safety says the ruling "goes against the overwhelming weight of authority" and that it expects the ruling to be "appealed and ultimately overturned"
Flock Safety
“Flock was not a party to this case. 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. 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.”Read statement
The district court holds the deputy's plate-reader query "was a search under the Fourth Amendment" done "without a warrant"
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
“This is a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance. It is not targeted on a single individual, as in Carpenter. It is a tool that collects information about all vehicles that pass by any network-connected camera at all times, and it serves up the information to law enforcement on demand. … The Court finds that because the ALPR systems Alaniz used to search Kyle’s historical location information intruded on her reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of her physical movements, it was a search under the Fourth Amendment. Based on the information in the record, the only reason Alaniz conducted that search was because he saw her license plate was from California. That search was not supported by probable cause, and it was done without a warrant in violation of Kyle’s Fourth Amendment rights.”Read statement
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Institute for Justice lawyer Michael Soyfer calls the opinion "extremely important" and says earlier courts were "way too myopic"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4534-michael-soyfer-a-lawyer-at-the-institute-for
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Institute for Justice lawyer Michael Soyfer calls the opinion "extremely important" and says earlier courts were "way too myopic"". First published: 2026-10-04. Last updated: 2026-10-04. https://disputeindex.com/events/4534-michael-soyfer-a-lawyer-at-the-institute-for