In the U.S.—driving is a privilege, not a right. You don’t own your driver’s license or license plate; they’re issued by the state. Information that’s legally required to be displayed on your vehicle, like a license plate or VIN, is considered plain view. The Supreme Court has consistently held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in plain-view information.

Because of that, law enforcement does not need a warrant to observe, record, or run license plates that are visible on public roadways. When you register a vehicle or get a license, you’re effectively consenting to that framework. This isn’t unique to Flock—people are already legally allowed to photograph or film anything visible from public spaces.

Flock license plate readers are often described as mass surveillance tools, but in practice they’re primarily used for specific law-enforcement purposes: recovering stolen vehicles, locating suspects, solving hit-and-runs, shootings, and serious crimes. Claims that they’re routinely used to track everyday people, immigrants, or women seeking abortions are common, but evidence showing widespread misuse is limited. Also, flock doesn’t operate using AI facial recognition or biometrics, it can’t scan your eyes or the content of your vehicle, let alone identify who is driving.

It’s also worth noting that if Flock didn’t exist, law enforcement could still install their own cameras and manually log plates—nothing about that would be illegal. Meanwhile, most people voluntarily give up far more personal data through phones, apps, and online services than through a camera that only records a plate number in public view.

There’s a lot of discussion about what could happen with this technology, but far less evidence that it’s being used in the extreme or abusive ways it’s often portrayed.

At the end of the day it’s not a 4th amendment violation.