By MATTHEW JEREMY
Formerly of Los Alamos
There was a lot of uninformed statements in James Rickman’s Op-Ed (link) but I will address maybe one or two.
James states and I quote: “Have the police discovered some new threat in Los Alamos that necessitates tap dancing on the Fourth Amendment and the fundamental presumption of innocence?”
Let’s take a look at said Amendment. As it reads verbatim:
“The right of people to be secure in their person’s, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
This Amendment protects against unlawful searches and seizures and does extend into privacy. This also includes the right to privacy as it relates to electronic surveillance. The key point of whether electronic surveillance is legal is based on the legal concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy”.
This legal test originates from the Katz v. United States (1967) in which Justice Harlan establishes: 1. A person has exhibited an actual (or shall we say subjective) expectation of privacy and 2. The expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. If both are true, the right to privacy has been violated.
So, a person may feel he has a right to privacy while driving his personal car (subjective). But would society in general accept this as reasonable? Is it reasonable to expect privacy in any public setting? No.
Any person, at any time, anywhere, can pull out their phone and record you, your vehicle and your license plate as you drive on a public road. Or your person as you walk down the public sidewalk for that matter. They can even post this to social media and now the whole wide world can see you or your vehicle in a public space.
In take away, Flock cameras do not violate the 4th Amendment nor do they come anywhere close to that.
As to the cameras and software of Flock themselves, I have personally used it in the law enforcement setting. There are checks and balances. You have to become a registered user through a law enforcement agency. To perform a search for a vehicle you must document your reason for doing so. Search history is recorded. While the cameras show pictures of a vehicle matching your search criteria, it does not reveal information about the registered owner. That information belongs to the State’s motor vehicle division.
Why might this type of surveillance be beneficial? Two scenarios:
- Your vehicle has been stolen. If only there was a way to see if the vehicle has been seen anywhere and which direction it is going…
- Your dear old granny with dementia suddenly takes the keys to the family vehicle and drives off. No one knows where she went or where she might be going. If only there was a way to see if the vehicle has been seen recently and which direction it went…
In conclusion, Flock and similar traffic cameras do not violate privacy, are not intrusive and can be a useful tool. Like any tool, there are limitations and potential for misuse. May each reasonable person come to his own conclusion on its utility.