The Dual Landscape: GoVia’s “Highlight A Hero” and Flock’s Surveillance Network
In an era where police encounters and mass surveillance intersect, two technologies dominate the discourse: GoVia’s “Highlight A Hero” app and Flock Safety’s license plate recognition (LPR) cameras. While Flock’s ALPR systems track vehicles across thousands of communities—raising Fourth Amendment concerns—GoVia’s app offers citizens real-time legal and mental health support during police interactions. This article explores how innocent and reentry citizens can leverage GoVia to challenge unlawful stops and prosecutions tied to Flock’s surveillance, supported by case law and actionable strategies.
Flock Cameras: Constitutional Challenges and Case Law
Flock’s ALPR cameras, deployed in over 5,000 communities, create a “vehicle fingerprint” by logging license plates, vehicle details, and movements. This data is stored for 30–90 days, enabling law enforcement to retroactively map drivers’ locations without warrants 91115. Key legal precedents shaping the fight against this surveillance include:
- Carpenter v. United States (2018)
The Supreme Court ruled that prolonged warrantless tracking of cellphone location data violates the Fourth Amendment. Courts in Norfolk and Illinois have applied this logic to Flock’s ALPR systems, arguing aggregated data creates a “digital mosaic” of private life 916. - Schmidt v. Norfolk (2025)
A federal court allowed a lawsuit against Norfolk’s 172 Flock cameras to proceed, comparing the system’s pervasive tracking to Carpenter. The court emphasized that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy against “indiscriminate monitoring” 11. - Scholl v. Illinois (2024)
A pending lawsuit challenges Illinois’ 652 ALPR cameras, which record 1.5 billion detections annually (100x the state’s population). Plaintiffs argue this constitutes unconstitutional “dragnet surveillance” under the Fourth Amendment 15. - Commonwealth v. McCarthy (2020)
Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court suggested that ALPR systems with sufficient coverage could violate privacy rights. While two cameras tracking Cape Cod entry points were deemed acceptable, Illinois’ network likely crosses this threshold 15.
GoVia’s “Highlight A Hero”: Real-Time Defense Tools
GoVia’s app modernizes police encounters by integrating:
- Live video chat with attorneys: Immediate access to legal counsel during stops.
- Mental health professionals: De-escalation support for high-stress interactions.
- Encounter documentation: Automatic recording and cloud storage of interactions.
How Citizens Can Use GoVia During a Flock-Based Stop
- Challenge the Stop’s Basis
If an officer cites Flock data, your attorney can immediately question whether a warrant was obtained for prolonged tracking. Under Carpenter, warrantless long-term surveillance is unconstitutional 911. Example script:
“Officer, does this stop rely on Flock camera data? If so, was a warrant secured for tracking my vehicle’s movements?” - Invoke Rights and Document
Use GoVia’s recording feature to capture the interaction. Attorneys can advise you to:- Politely decline consent to searches.
- Request clarity on the reason for the stop.
- Cite Schmidt v. Norfolk to argue Flock’s data lacks reasonable suspicion without a warrant 11.
- Mental Health Support
For reentry citizens, anxiety during stops can lead to self-incrimination. GoVia’s mental health professionals can provide calming techniques, ensuring responses remain legally sound.
In Court: Strategies to Suppress Flock Evidence
- File a Motion to Suppress
Argue that Flock’s data constitutes an unlawful search under Carpenter and Schmidt. Highlight the system’s scale (e.g., Illinois’ 1.5 billion annual detections) as evidence of a “dragnet” violating privacy expectations 1115. - Challenge Data Reliability
Subpoena Flock’s accuracy metrics. The company has faced criticism for funding biased studies and misrepresenting efficacy 16. In State v. Bell (2024), a Virginia judge suppressed Flock evidence due to reliability concerns 11. - Leverage State Precedents
In Massachusetts, McCarthy set a precedent for challenging ALPR systems with extensive coverage. Illinois’ 600+ cameras likely meet this threshold 15.
Protecting Reentry Citizens
Reentry individuals face heightened risks due to probation/parole terms that may waive privacy rights. Strategies include:
- Review Supervision Terms
Ensure monitoring conditions do not authorize warrantless tracking beyond constitutional limits. Challenge overly broad clauses using Carpenter 916. - Collaborate with Advocacy Groups
Organizations like the Institute for Justice (representing Norfolk plaintiffs) and Liberty Justice Center (Illinois case) offer pro bono support for Fourth Amendment challenges 1115.
The Future of Policing: Accountability Through Technology
GoVia’s live attorney access disrupts traditional power dynamics during stops, while Flock’s legal challenges signal a shift toward curbing surveillance overreach. For citizens, the path forward involves:
- Demanding transparency: Request Flock’s data retention policies (e.g., 90 days in Illinois) 15.
- Supporting litigation: Join class-action suits like Scholl v. Illinois to shape Fourth Amendment jurisprudence 15.
As Norfolk Police Chief Mark Talbot admitted, “It’s difficult to drive anywhere without running into a [Flock] camera” 11. Yet with tools like GoVia and strategic legal action, citizens can reclaim privacy—one encounter at a time.
Resources:
- Institute for Justice: Norfolk Flock Lawsuit Updates 11
- Liberty Justice Center: Illinois ALPR Case 15
- EPIC.org: Fourth Amendment Guide 9
“Technology should empower the people, not the powerful.” — Adapted from Lotte Scharfman
