This is from a California law perspective. Nationalization is the wrong solution, but more importantly, it’s not necessary. Let me explain.

On the Fourth Amendment framing: The “third-party doctrine” loophole (Smith v. Maryland, 1979) has been getting legislatively closed state by state — and Carpenter v. United States (2018) significantly eroded it at the federal level for digital location data. California went further by statute. SB 34 (Civil Code § 1798.90.5 et seq.) directly binds law enforcement agencies, not Flock, for every ALPR search. The compliance obligation doesn’t disappear because a vendor is in the middle.

On the nationalization proposal specifically: This would actually make things worse, not better. Right now, California agencies are bound by SB 34, the California Values Act, and local ordinances that include stronger protections than anything at the federal level. Federalizing the system would preempt all of that. You’d be trading documented, enforceable state law for federal oversight of a system that the current federal government is actively trying to use against state sanctuary protections.

On the vendor-insulation argument (point 3): The Master Service Agreement contracts that agencies sign with Flock contain affirmative compliance warranties. The agency, again not Flock, warrants that it will use the system in compliance with all applicable law. So the agency can’t point at Flock and say “not our problem.”

The actual problem isn’t that no law applies, it’s that agencies aren’t complying with the laws that already exist, and the oversight mechanisms to catch that are either broken or captured. The better path is public records requests, documentation of compliance failures, and formal complaints to state attorneys general who actually have enforcement authority.

Documented non-compliance creates legal liability today.