Sheriff Bradshaw Says Flock Cameras Aren't Surveillance. Is He Right?

"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."

That was Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw's response when questioned about the growing controversy surrounding Flock license plate-reading cameras in Palm Beach County.

According to a WPBF 25 News investigation, Bradshaw has no intention of removing the cameras, despite concerns from county commissioners that law enforcement could use the technology to track innocent citizens.

As a criminal defense attorney practicing in Palm Beach County for more than 20 years, I find the sheriff's definition of surveillance troubling.

Surveillance does not suddenly become surveillance only when an officer physically follows someone 24 hours a day.

The more important question is whether the government should be able to collect, store, and search information about your movements when you haven't done anything wrong.

And that's a question worth discussing.

What Are Flock Cameras, and How Do They Work?

Flock cameras are automated license plate readers, often referred to as ALPRs or LPRs.

Unlike traditional traffic cameras, which may be used to document traffic violations, these cameras are designed to capture vehicle information as cars pass certain locations.

Depending on the system, they can record:

• License plate numbers

• The date and time a vehicle passes a camera

• The location of the camera

• Vehicle descriptions and identifying characteristics

• Information that can be searched against law enforcement databases

The information can then be used to identify vehicles associated with criminal investigations, missing persons, or other law enforcement alerts.

But here's where the concern begins.

The system doesn't just photograph vehicles belonging to criminals. It photographs ordinary drivers going about their daily lives.

The overwhelming majority of people driving through Palm Beach Gardens, West Palm Beach, Jupiter, and Boca Raton are not suspected of criminal activity.

Yet their vehicles may still be photographed and their movements recorded.

Sheriff Bradshaw Has a Point: These Cameras Can Help Solve Crimes

Before criticizing the technology, we should acknowledge that automated license plate readers can serve legitimate law enforcement purposes.

Bradshaw pointed to the September 2024 attempted assassination of Donald Trump at his West Palm Beach golf course.

According to the sheriff, investigators obtained the suspect's license plate number, entered it into the license plate reader system, and located a match indicating the vehicle was traveling north on I-95.

Authorities subsequently stopped Ryan Routh in Martin County.

Bradshaw told WPBF:

"If we hadn't had that technology, he'd have been gone."

The sheriff also described using the cameras to locate missing individuals, including people suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

These are compelling examples of how technology can assist law enforcement.

But here's my concern.

The fact that technology can be used for a legitimate purpose does not automatically mean every use of that technology is constitutionally appropriate.

We can support law enforcement's ability to find dangerous suspects while still demanding safeguards against the tracking of innocent people.

Those positions are not mutually exclusive.

Is One Snapshot Surveillance? What About 50?

Sheriff Bradshaw's argument is that a single camera capturing a vehicle at a particular location is not surveillance.

Let's accept that premise for a moment.

What happens when there are 50 cameras?

What happens when there are hundreds of cameras across Palm Beach County and surrounding jurisdictions?

What happens when those cameras record your vehicle over several days or weeks?

Imagine you leave your home in Jupiter at 7:30 a.m.

You drive to your office in West Palm Beach.

At lunchtime, you visit your doctor.

Later, you attend a religious service, meet someone for dinner, and return home.

Each individual camera may capture only a snapshot.

But when those snapshots are combined, law enforcement may be able to reconstruct significant portions of your movements.

At what point does a collection of snapshots become surveillance?

That's the question Sheriff Bradshaw's definition fails to address.

It is not necessarily the individual photograph that raises the greatest constitutional concern.

It is the ability to aggregate, retain, search, and analyze thousands of photographs to create a record of where people have been.

The Fourth Amendment Doesn't Require 24-Hour Surveillance

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that technological advances can raise constitutional concerns when they give the government access to information that would previously have been difficult or impractical to obtain.

In United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), the Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements constituted a Fourth Amendment search.

In Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), the Court held that obtaining at least seven days of historical cell-site location information constituted a search generally requiring a warrant.

The reasoning in Carpenter is particularly relevant.

The Court recognized that comprehensive location information can reveal intimate details about a person's life.

Where someone worships.

Where they receive medical treatment.

Who they associate with.

Where they spend their nights.

Importantly, Carpenter did not establish that every government collection of location information is unconstitutional. Nor did it decide the legality of automated license plate reader networks.

Likewise, Jones involved GPS tracking with a physical trespass, not roadside license plate cameras.

Nevertheless, these cases demonstrate why the sheriff's 24-hour definition of surveillance is far too narrow to resolve the constitutional question.

The Fourth Amendment analysis depends on the nature, scope, duration, and method of government monitoring, not simply whether someone was followed around the clock.

Whether a particular Flock camera search violates the Fourth Amendment remains a developing legal question.

But it is certainly not answered by calling the information a snapshot.

What About Deputies Who Abuse the System?

One of the more interesting portions of the WPBF interview involved safeguards against improper searches.

Sheriff Bradshaw explained that deputies must enter a case number and justification when searching the system.

He also said the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office conducts weekly audits to identify inappropriate searches.

That sounds reassuring.

Until you consider the timing.

The audit occurs after the deputy has already accessed the information.

Suppose an officer wants to know where a former romantic partner has been driving.

Or where a neighbor spends the evenings.

Or whether someone has been visiting a particular business.

If an officer improperly accesses the database, the privacy invasion has already occurred before a weekly audit discovers it.

Discipline after the fact may deter misconduct, but it cannot undo the initial access.

This raises several questions that deserve answers:

• How long is license plate data retained?

• Which agencies can search Palm Beach County's information?

• Can officers search historical vehicle movements without a warrant?

• Are searches limited to particular criminal investigations?

• Are improper searches independently reviewed?

• Can an innocent person learn whether their vehicle information was improperly accessed?

Sheriff Bradshaw says he is not interested in tracking people who have done nothing wrong.

I have no reason to doubt that statement of his intentions.

But constitutional protections should not depend solely on the good intentions of whoever happens to be in charge.

Palm Beach County Commissioners Are Asking the Right Questions

Palm Beach County Commissioner Joel Flores raised concerns about whether the cameras could track residents who are simply going about their daily routines.

According to WPBF, Flores questioned whether the system could reveal trips to doctors, churches, or schools.

These are reasonable questions.

The public should understand exactly what information is collected, who can access it, and how long it remains available.

There is also a separate controversy involving cameras installed along state roads.

The Florida Department of Transportation directed the removal of certain license plate readers from state rights-of-way.

Bradshaw told WPBF that PBSO has an exemption connected to its responsibilities protecting President Trump alongside the Secret Service.

However, WPBF reported that it had not independently confirmed the exemption's approval.

Whether PBSO has the necessary authorization to maintain particular cameras on state roads is a separate question from whether searches of the data comply with the Fourth Amendment.

Both deserve scrutiny.

Can Flock Camera Evidence Be Challenged in a Florida Criminal Case?

Absolutely, depending on how the evidence was obtained and used.

As a criminal defense attorney, I would want to know much more than simply whether a camera photographed my client's vehicle.

For example:

Was the information used to initiate a traffic stop?

A license plate reader alert does not automatically establish that an officer had sufficient legal justification to stop a vehicle.

The source of the alert, the reliability of the information, and what the officer knew before initiating the stop may all be relevant.

Did investigators search historical movements?

There is a meaningful difference between receiving an alert for a particular vehicle associated with an active investigation and searching a database to reconstruct someone's movements over an extended period.

Was the information accurate?

License plate readers can produce errors. Investigators must consider whether the plate was correctly identified, whether the vehicle matched the description, and whether the information was sufficiently reliable.

Does the camera actually identify the defendant?

A license plate photograph generally establishes that a vehicle was present at a location. It does not necessarily establish who was driving.

Can the defense obtain the underlying records?

The defense may need to examine search logs, camera records, retention practices, and the circumstances under which investigators accessed the information.

In an appropriate case, these issues may support discovery requests, evidentiary challenges, or a motion to suppress.

However, the presence of Flock camera evidence does not automatically make an arrest unlawful or the evidence inadmissible.

Every case depends on its facts.

Technology Should Make Law Enforcement Better, Not Eliminate Privacy

I am not arguing that Flock Cameras aren't helpful.

I am arguing that the public deserves a more serious conversation about the limits of government surveillance.

We should be able to use technology to find dangerous criminals and missing people without creating an unrestricted database of innocent citizens' movements.

The question is not whether the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office has used this technology successfully.

Clearly, it has.

The question is whether appropriate constitutional protections, independent oversight, and meaningful restrictions are in place.

A single snapshot might not tell the government much about you. Thousands of searchable snapshots might tell it almost everything about where you go.

And that distinction matters.

Sheriff Bradshaw may not consider that surveillance.

But I believe the public, the courts, and our elected officials should examine the issue far more carefully.

Arrested After a Traffic Stop Involving License Plate Reader Technology?

At the Law Office of Matthew Konecky, P.A., we represent individuals facing criminal charges and DUI allegations throughout Palm Beach County, including West Palm Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, Jupiter, and Boca Raton.

Our defense strategy includes examining the legal basis for traffic stops, the reliability of electronic evidence, and whether law enforcement complied with constitutional requirements.

If you believe information obtained through a license plate reader contributed to an unlawful traffic stop, search, or arrest, contact our office to discuss the circumstances of your case.

Your constitutional rights deserve more than a snapshot review.

Visit www.561law.com to learn more about our criminal defense services.

Source: WPBF 25 News, Sheriff Bradshaw Defends Flock Cameras.