Privacy Litigation
Spy No More: Stop State-Sponsored Surveillance
Litigation for residents, drivers, and community groups when a state-sponsored license-plate camera network, sometimes called ALPR, keeps and shares a record of where people drive.
The Supreme Court has held that historical location records can be protected by the Fourth Amendment. We take that question to local-government surveillance: how cities keep, search, and share license-plate data.
No obligation. Conflict check first. A website cannot decide whether you have a case.
Case potential
Answer a few questions for a general look at a privacy claim against a local government's license-plate camera program. At the end, you can add those answers to the consultation form.
This is a general indicator based on your answers. It is not legal advice and does not decide whether you have a case. Talk to an attorney.
Answer the questions to see a general indicator.
No indicator yet Answer the questions to see a general indicator.
One question at a time. Choose an answer, then press Next. Don't type your story.
Are you asking for yourself or for a group?
Situations this practice sees
The indicator above is general. These are examples of facts this practice consults on.
- Your city or county runs license-plate cameras across much of the area, not at a few spots.
- Plate data is kept for months or longer, or no one will say how long.
- Plate data is shared with or searchable by other agencies or other jurisdictions.
- Officers can search past location history without a warrant.
- You were stopped, questioned, or searched after a plate-reader alert, or your vehicle's history was pulled.
- A council or board approved, expanded, or renewed a camera contract with little public process.
- A neighborhood group, coalition, or organization whose members drive the covered roads every day.
- Referring counsel routing a client or group.
If the network is small, or the data is deleted quickly, we will say so in the consultation. This page does not promise that every camera program can be challenged.
Civil rights litigation. Local government. Record-focused.
- Claims about local-government surveillance through license-plate camera networks: how a city, county, or agency collects, keeps, searches, and shares that data.
- Fourth Amendment claims, and state constitutional and statutory privacy claims where a state provides them.
- Not a guarantee of any remedy or result.
- A single camera reading a plate on a public road is not the claim. The claim is about the network and how long its history is kept and searched.
Your movements, over time
These published decisions frame the question. They are cited for the law they state, not as results of this firm.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018).
The Supreme Court held that the government's acquisition of historical cell-site location records is a Fourth Amendment search that generally requires a warrant. The Court described the decision as narrow and did not address conventional tools such as security cameras.
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983).
A person traveling on public roads has a reduced expectation of privacy in those movements.
Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 484 Mass. 493 (2020).
Massachusetts' highest court held that the limited license plate reader use in that case was not a search, while recognizing that a denser network could raise a different question.
Whether a particular network crosses that line depends on how many cameras there are, how long the data is kept, who can search it, and the law of the state. No result is stated or implied.
What a case can ask for
Cases like this usually start with the city. Depending on the facts and the court, a case can ask for:
A warrant or probable-cause requirement before anyone searches stored location history.
Limits on how long plate data is kept.
Limits on who can access and share the data, with audit logs.
A court declaration that a dense, long-retention network is a search when its history is queried.
This page does not promise any of these, or the removal of any camera.
Common questions
Isn't anything on a public road already public?
Partly. A person on public roads has a reduced expectation of privacy in those movements (United States v. Knotts). But in Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court held that historical cell-site location records are protected, and that getting them is a search that generally requires a warrant. Courts are now asking whether a dense camera network that stores months of plate reads is closer to Knotts or to Carpenter. Massachusetts' highest court found a few cameras were not a search and left open that a denser network could be.
Do I need to have been stopped or arrested?
Not always. A case that asks a court to change a policy going forward has to show a real and immediate threat of future harm. Regular driving in a covered area, an incident involving your vehicle's data, and records showing how long data is kept and who can search it can all matter. A consultation, after a conflict check, is where those facts are reviewed.
Can our group or coalition bring the case?
Often, yes. Organizations can assert their own injuries, and in some circumstances the injuries of their members. A group also lets many affected people stand behind one coordinated case.
What can a case like this ask for?
Usually changes to the city's practice: a warrant requirement for searches of stored history, limits on how long data is kept, limits on sharing with audit logs, or a court declaration about the network. Claims against local governments over a policy typically proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. No remedy is promised, and this page does not promise that any camera will be removed.
What should we bring to a consultation?
What you know about the program: council minutes or votes, the contract, any retention or sharing policy, records you received, and dates. If something happened to you, write down the date. A conflict check comes before anything substantive is discussed.
These answers are general information, not legal advice, and reading them does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential facts in a comment, a direct message, or any public chat. Use the consultation form, or call the firm.
Talk through your facts
On a first call, after a conflict check, we will tell you honestly what we think, including if we think there is no case to bring.
No obligation. Conflict check first.
Request a consultation
The form is open. If you finished the questions above, your answers can be added to the notes. You can edit those notes. Nothing is sent until you press Send your inquiry.
MKLaw · Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A.
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Minneapolis, MN 55402