License plate reading cameras have become a controversial subject in Palm Beach County. But a recent investigation by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office demonstrates why these cameras can also be valuable tools for law enforcement.
According to CBS12 News, two individuals were arrested in connection with an alleged robbery spree involving people impersonating law enforcement officers. Detectives are now looking for additional potential victims.
One interesting aspect of this investigation is the reported use of license plate recognition technology.
As a criminal defense attorney practicing in Palm Beach County for more than 20 years, I have concerns about the government's increasing use of surveillance technology. However, I also recognize that technology can help police investigate serious crimes and identify suspects.
This case illustrates that benefit.
But it also raises an important question: Who owns and controls the license plate reader that helped investigators, and what happens to all the information it collects?
When License Plate Readers Help Solve Crimes
Automated license plate readers, commonly called LPRs or ALPRs, photograph passing vehicles and capture information such as license plate numbers, locations, dates, and times.
Investigators can use that information to identify vehicles potentially associated with criminal activity and reconstruct their movements.
In a case involving suspects allegedly impersonating police officers and committing robberies, this information could be particularly useful.
Unlike a traditional surveillance camera that might capture an incident at a single location, a network of license plate readers can potentially help investigators connect vehicles to different locations.
That can provide important leads in identifying suspects.
And when law enforcement is investigating serious crimes involving multiple victims, there is a legitimate public safety interest in using available technology to identify those responsible.
This is an example of the legitimate law enforcement benefits that supporters of license plate readers have been discussing.
But Was This a Flock Camera?
Here is where I think the discussion gets interesting.
We know license plate recognition technology was reportedly involved in the investigation.
What we do not know from the available reporting is whether the camera was part of the controversial Flock Safety network, another privately operated license plate recognition system, or a system owned and controlled directly by a municipality or law enforcement agency.
That distinction matters.
Flock Safety is a private technology company that provides automated license plate recognition systems to law enforcement agencies and other customers.
Other companies and government agencies operate similar technology.
The ownership, management, storage, retention, and sharing of the information can vary depending on the particular system and agreements in place.
If the camera was operated by a municipality, who had access to the information?
If it was part of a privately managed network, what contractual limitations governed access, retention, and sharing?
Could other law enforcement agencies search the information?
How long was the information retained?
These are reasonable questions, regardless of whether the technology helped solve a crime.
Sheriff Bradshaw Calls It a "Snapshot in Time"
Recently, Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw defended the use of Flock cameras amid growing privacy concerns.
In an interview with WPBF 25 News, Sheriff Bradshaw stated:
"Surveillance is when I decide I'm going to follow you ... 24 hours a day. That's surveillance. This is not. This is a snapshot in time of your vehicle passing a certain point."
I previously discussed that statement and my concerns about the distinction between an isolated photograph and a searchable network of cameras.
A single camera may capture only a snapshot.
But when multiple cameras record vehicles traveling throughout a community, those individual snapshots can potentially be combined to reconstruct someone's movements.
The question is not simply what one camera sees.
It is what the entire network can reveal.
Public Safety and Privacy Are Not Mutually Exclusive
I do not believe that we have to choose between catching criminals and protecting constitutional rights.
We can support law enforcement using technology to investigate serious crimes while also demanding accountability for how that technology is used.
For example, there should be clear answers about:
-
Who owns and controls the collected information.
-
Which agencies and individuals can access the database.
-
How long vehicle information is retained.
-
Whether searches are logged and audited.
-
What safeguards prevent misuse or unauthorized access.
These questions become particularly important when the information includes the movements of thousands of people who are not suspected of committing any crime.
The fact that technology can be useful does not automatically justify every possible use of that technology.
Likewise, the potential for abuse does not mean that every legitimate use should be prohibited.
What About the Fourth Amendment?
From a criminal defense perspective, license plate recognition technology also raises important Fourth Amendment questions.
Police officers generally can observe vehicles and license plates traveling on public roads.
However, the constitutional analysis can become more complicated when law enforcement collects and searches extensive historical location information.
In Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), the United States Supreme Court recognized significant privacy interests in historical cell-site location information.
That decision did not establish that every use of automated license plate recognition technology requires a warrant.
But it demonstrates why the government's ability to reconstruct someone's movements over time raises constitutional concerns.
The legality of a particular LPR search depends on the circumstances, the technology involved, and applicable law.
As these systems become more widespread, courts will continue to confront questions about the relationship between technology, privacy, and the Fourth Amendment.
My Take: Good Police Work Still Requires Good Oversight
If license plate recognition technology helped investigators identify individuals suspected of impersonating police officers and robbing people, that is a legitimate example of how the technology can benefit the public.
People should be able to travel through Palm Beach County without worrying that someone pretending to be a police officer will stop and rob them.
But the successful use of a technology in one investigation should not end the larger discussion about privacy.
I would like to know whether the cameras involved were owned and controlled by law enforcement, a municipality, or a private company such as Flock Safety.
I would also like to know what safeguards govern the information collected from people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.
We should be able to recognize when law enforcement technology works while still asking who is watching, who controls the information, and who watches the watchers.
That is not being anti-police.
That is being pro-accountability.
Palm Beach County Criminal Defense Attorney
At The Law Office of Matthew Konecky, P.A., we represent individuals facing criminal charges throughout Palm Beach County, including West Palm Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, Jupiter, Wellington, and surrounding communities.
If your criminal case involves license plate reader information, surveillance footage, or questions about the legality of a traffic stop or search, understanding how that evidence was obtained can be an important part of developing your defense.
Visit 561law.com to learn more about our criminal defense practice.
