What are Flock Cameras?

Flock cameras collect information about vehicles like license plate numbers, make, model, color, and other identifiable characteristics such as dents or stickers. This information is stored in their cloud platform and converted into text that is easily accessible and searchable for law enforcement. This allows officers to search for license plate numbers or descriptions of vehicles to see their most recent locations or to be alerted if the car of a wanted person is spotted. Flock cameras are primarily different from other traffic cameras in that they are constantly recording, rather than just when a violation has been detected. They utilize AI to convert this continuous video to descriptive text.

How were Flock Cameras implemented in Tennessee?

House Bill 0294 was introduced by representative John Ray Clemmons on January 1st, 2025. The intended purpose of this bill was to amend TCA 55-8-198 to allow for traffic enforcement cameras to be installed on non-highways and for purposes beyond monitoring traffic offenses. More specifically, the Tennessee General Assembly website says, “This bill authorizes a county or municipality to purchase, install, operate, and maintain surveillance cameras on any public road or highway, other than a federal interstate highway, for the purpose of aiding in the investigation and prevention of terrorism and state criminal offenses if (i) such use is consistent with the continued use, operations, maintenance, and safety of the highway facility and does not interfere with the free and safe flow of traffic; (ii) the cameras are only operated by local law enforcement agencies; (iii) the cameras are not used to enforce or monitor state or local traffic violations or issue citations for such violations; and (iv) if the cameras are used on state roads, the local law enforcement agency has obtained approval from the department of transportation prior to the installation and operation of the cameras, and the cameras and their use comply with the present law requirements.” If you are interested in learning more about the specifics of this bill, you can search for House Bill 0294 under “legislation” on their website, however, no video is available from this meeting. Less than 30 days after this bill was proposed, it was withdrawn on February 3rd, 2025.

On April 23rd of 2025, Traffic Memorandum No. 2504 was issued on the Tennessee Department of Transportation’s website which expressly allows TDOT to implement Flock cameras if they see fit or if local law enforcement agencies see fit. This memorandum uses more specific language pertaining to roads and highways to allow TDOT full authority on the matter, except they refer to things like Flock cameras with the more generic term, “automated license plate readers.” While a memorandum does not necessarily create enforceable obligations, in this instance it does alter TCA-55-8-198 to allow more than just SmartWay cameras on roads and highways.

Map of Flock Cameras in the Greater Chattanooga Area

Even though this change is not expressly supported by a new amendment to the law, it is not explicitly disallowed by standing law either. As new cases are being prosecuted using evidence gathered via Flock cameras, we may see more restrictions set in place, but this could take years. It seems the only ordinances or restrictions placed on such technology would have to come through the judiciary, since Flock cameras were implemented with no real legislative basis and we haven’t seen significant pushback in the legislature. Barring vigorous civic engagement, this may be a legal gray area for the foreseeable future.

Chattanooga Surveillance Devices [Screen Capture]. (2026). Atlas of Surveillance. https://www.atlasofsurveillance.org/search?location=Chattanooga%2C+TN&sort=city_asc

Furthermore, determinations made by the judiciary would vary based on how Flock Cameras are being used. For example, each law enforcement agency can alter which settings are enabled, modifying the extent of the search. You can see in Hamilton County’s contract with Flock that they have the “Hotlist” tool enabled so we can assume that this means license plate number, vehicle make, model, color and body type as well as other defining characteristics like dents, scratches, and stickers are being reported to law enforcement through Flock’s cloud system. However, we also know that law enforcement must review this footage, and they see a lot more than the cameras can detect.

Details of Hamilton County’s Contract with Flock [Screen Capture]. (2025). Flock Safety Shared Devices List https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26182924-pittsboro-police-department-flock-safety-shared-devices-list/#document/p345

How does this affect you?

As it stands, if any individual were charged with a crime, evidence from a Flock camera presented against you may be considered lawful. The1968 Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio expounded on the Fourth Amendment by requiring that law enforcement must have, “specific and articulable facts” prompting a search. This alone could heavily restrict Flock camera arrests. There are other analogous cases that will guide the usage of this kind of technology. A recent United States Supreme Court case, Chatrie v. United States, concerned law enforcement using a geofence warrant to obtain the location of users in the vicinity of a bank robbery. They required that Google give the location history to find their suspects and charged Chatrie based on his location. The Supreme Court determined that this was an unconstitutional search because it violated the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. This philosophy could be easily applied to arrests made through Flock evidence depending on the specific circumstances of the arrest. It is a parallel situation in which law enforcement is working with a third party to collect information about citizens in order to prosecute them. The primary distinction would be an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. However, this issue is more convoluted than it may seem. In another United States Supreme Court Case, Katz v. United States, the opinion of the court ruled that, “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment Protection.” This philosophy was strengthened by the 1970 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, which introduced the “Plain View” doctrine. This case says, “police may without a warrant seize evidence that is in ‘plain view,’” and has been further legitimized in subsequent jurisprudence like Horton v. California. This has compounded to mean that anything left in plain view can be used as evidence against you, i.e., law enforcement has the right to look through the windows of your car without being considered a search. Because Flock cameras are primarily targeted towards cars and highway use, arguments could be made against or in support of their use in criminal law. Details gleaned about your person may be more defensible.

As illustrated here, this is a complex issue that could have different results on a case-by-case basis. If you find yourself in a situation where you need legal guidance, please don’t hesitate to give us a call. As your local criminal defense law firm, we consider it our duty to stay up to date on these kinds of changes, so we know how to best protect our clients.