Flock cameras are currently used by Indiana police, but warrantless searches of their location databases may face new Fourth Amendment challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Chatrie v. United States strengthens the argument that police access to privately stored location data can constitute a search requiring constitutional protection.
What do Flock cameras actually record about Indiana drivers?
You have probably driven past a Flock camera without noticing it. A slim pole, a camera, maybe a solar panel. No flashing lights. No ticket arrives later.
The camera simply records your vehicle as you pass.
Flock Safety operates automated license plate readers, commonly called ALPRs. Police departments across the country, including agencies in Indiana, use these systems.
The cameras can record information including:
- your license plate;
- the date and time;
- the camera location;
- your vehicle’s make and color;
- your vehicle’s body style; and
- distinguishing features, including some bumper stickers.
Flock calls this collection of identifying characteristics a “Vehicle Fingerprint.”
That matters because police do not necessarily need your plate number to search for your vehicle.
The bigger issue is what happens when thousands of individual observations become a searchable history.
One photograph tells police where your car was once. A database can potentially reveal where you worship, which doctor’s office you visit, and where your vehicle spends the night.
That’s a very different animal.
Don’t I lose my privacy when I drive on a public road?
Not necessarily.
The traditional government argument is straightforward: Your license plate is publicly displayed. A police officer can see it. Therefore, photographing it on a public street generally does not invade your privacy.
That logic becomes more complicated when technology allows the government to reconstruct someone’s movements over time.
In Carpenter v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed historical cellphone location records. The Court concluded that government acquisition of those records can constitute a Fourth Amendment search.
The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable government searches and seizures.
The important distinction is scale. Seeing someone’s car once is one thing. Searching a database containing that person’s movements over days or weeks can reveal considerably more.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Chatrie v. United States?
In June 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Chatrie v. United States.
The case did not involve Flock cameras.
It involved a geofence demand for Google location information. The government sought information identifying devices located near a crime scene during a roughly two-hour period.
The government argued that this limited amount of location information did not trigger Fourth Amendment protection.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court concluded that accessing the location information constituted a search. The fact that a third-party company possessed the records did not eliminate the constitutional issue.
That matters tremendously for ALPR litigation.
Before Chatrie, governments defending license plate reader networks could argue that limited tracking was constitutionally different from comprehensive surveillance.
In other words: We’re only tracking you a little.
After Chatrie, that argument looks considerably weaker.
To be clear, the Supreme Court did not hold that Flock cameras are unconstitutional. Courts still must apply Chatrie to ALPR systems and individual searches.
But the constitutional landscape has changed.
Why does Chatrie matter for Flock searches without a warrant?
The comparison raises an obvious question.
If police access to approximately two hours of privately held location information can constitute a Fourth Amendment search, what happens when police search days or weeks of vehicle-location information?
There is another important difference.
In Chatrie, police at least obtained judicial authorization before seeking the location information. A typical ALPR database search may occur without a traditional search warrant.
No probable-cause finding. No warrant identifying a particular vehicle. No judge reviewing the search beforehand.
That distinction could become extremely important as courts evaluate ALPR evidence after Chatrie.
Has anyone challenged Flock cameras under the Fourth Amendment?
Yes.
A federal lawsuit involving Norfolk, Virginia challenged a network of 176 Flock cameras.
In January 2026, a federal judge ruled for the city. Among other things, the court emphasized limitations in the network’s coverage and its 21-day data-retention period.
Essentially, the system did not capture enough of someone’s movements to become a Fourth Amendment search.
Then Chatrie arrived five months later.
The Norfolk litigation therefore presents an important question: Can limited quantity still justify warrantless location surveillance after the Supreme Court rejected a quantity-based argument in Chatrie?
That issue remains for the courts to sort out.
Could Indiana courts require warrants for ALPR searches?
Indiana may soon have its own opportunity to address the issue.
In a case currently making it way through the Indiana Court of Appeals, a driver’s license plate was placed on an ALPR “hot list.” The vehicle was monitored for roughly five months without a warrant.
The trial judge concluded that the use of two fixed cameras did not constitute a search.
Importantly, the judge limited that conclusion to the particular facts. The court also acknowledged that a pervasive, real-time network of cameras could present fundamentally different constitutional concerns.
The defense has sought appellate review.
The Indiana Court of Appeals may soon become one of the first state courts in the country to define constitutional limits on the government’s use of automated license plate readers like Flock cameras.
Does Indiana regulate license plate readers?
Indiana has taken an interesting approach.
In 2026, Indiana enacted legislation restricting homeowners associations from operating automated license plate readers.
That creates a strange situation.
Your HOA cannot simply establish its own ALPR surveillance network. Government agencies, meanwhile, can use the technology without a comprehensive Indiana statute establishing statewide rules for every issue involving searches, retention, and information sharing.
Apparently, the neighborhood pool committee was the surveillance threat that demanded immediate attention.
The larger constitutional question remains unresolved.
Can police officers misuse license plate reader databases?
The concern is not purely theoretical.
In August 2026, IMPD announced that an officer had allegedly accessed license plate reader information for personal purposes. The department stripped the officer of police powers, suspended him without pay, and recommended termination while the matter was investigated.
The officer had not been convicted of wrongdoing and remains entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Nationally, allegations involving improper ALPR searches have also generated scrutiny of auditing and access controls.
The lesson is simple: A powerful database requires powerful safeguards.
Technology doesn’t become harmless simply because the person operating it wears a badge.
Can I damage or remove a Flock camera in Indiana?
Don’t.
Whatever your opinion of automated surveillance, damaging a camera can turn a constitutional objection into your own criminal case.
In August 2026, two men in Muncie were arrested after a Flock camera was allegedly cut down. They were charged, not convicted, and remain presumed innocent.
The State filed charges including Level 6 felony obstruction of justice and misdemeanor criminal mischief.
Under Indiana Code § 35-50-2-7, a Level 6 felony can carry six months to two and one-half years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000.
Taking the equipment can potentially create additional theft allegations.
And involving a firearm can make an already serious situation considerably worse.
A Flock camera is replaceable. A felony conviction is much harder to replace your way out of.
Challenges to government surveillance belong in courtrooms, city council meetings, and the Indiana General Assembly, not on the end of a pair of bolt cutters.
Can Flock camera evidence be challenged in an Indiana criminal case?
Potentially.
If police used ALPR information to identify your vehicle, track your movements, establish probable cause, or obtain additional evidence, your lawyer should examine exactly how that information was obtained.
Important questions may include:
- How long was the vehicle monitored?
- How many cameras contributed information?
- Did officers search historical location records?
- Was the vehicle placed on a hot list?
- What justification existed before the search?
- Did police obtain a warrant?
- Who owned and retained the information?
- Did the ALPR search lead directly to other evidence?
After Chatrie, these questions may carry additional constitutional weight.
This does not mean every Flock search is automatically illegal. It means defendants should not automatically assume the evidence is untouchable.
What should Indiana drivers know about Flock cameras now?
Flock cameras can help police investigate stolen vehicles, hit-and-runs, missing persons cases, and other serious crimes.
That does not end the constitutional inquiry.
“It works” has never been the Fourth Amendment test.
The Constitution exists in part to make government searches deliberate, particular, and accountable. Modern technology does not erase those principles simply because surveillance has become easier.
At minimum, courts will increasingly have to decide when searching privately stored vehicle-location histories crosses the constitutional line.
Chatrie gives defense attorneys an important new argument.
If ALPR or Flock evidence appears in your Indiana criminal case, the circumstances surrounding that search deserve careful review.
Contact the Marc Lopez Law Firm at 317-632-3642 to speak with an Indiana criminal defense lawyer today.
And remember—Always Plead the 5th.