Day: October 1, 2026

Wherever Marci Bakely went, her ex-boyfriend seemed to know. When the Georgia single mother drove to the grocery store or a date, he often texted within minutes.

According to a Washington Post investigation, Bakely’s ex-boyfriend, Braselton Police Chief Michael Steffman, searched her license plates and those of her teenage daughter roughly 600 times through Flock Safety, a company that makes and operates networks of automated license plate readers, or ALPRs.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation arrested Steffman in November 2025 on charges of stalking, harassment and misuse of an ALPR. He was found dead before trial.

Bakely’s case is not unique. The Post identified at least 50 officers accused of misusing ALPRs, including 26 who used Flock’s cameras to spy on current or former partners or people they hoped to meet. Its investigation has since identified at least 100 police department employees charged with or accused of misuse.

Flock says these people represent a tiny share of its more than 140,000 monthly users and that permanent audit logs help uncover misconduct.

But these abuses required no hacking or stolen credentials. Each user walked through the front door.

I’m a criminal procedure scholar and I direct a school devoted to forensics. I believe the controversy over ALPRs points to a defect in the surveillance system’s architecture, not just the criminality of some of its users.

A search engine for movements

Flock cameras capture a vehicle’s plate, location and distinguishing marks down to dents or a bumper sticker. AI can sort license plate photographs by date taken. Police departments across the network can then conduct searches without warrants or supervisory approval.

In September 2026, news outlets Wired and 404 Media analyzed data that hackers had copied from one Flock camera. About 21 days of logs contained roughly 50,200 vehicles and 1.6 million images. The software detected people and bicycles, and it even isolated an American flag patch on a motorcyclist’s saddlebag. Flock said it lacked enough information to assess the hackers’ technical claims about security vulnerabilities in the camera.

Flock says customers control their data, yet a department that leaves sharing enabled may not know who is looking. In 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection accessed more than 80,000 cameras during an undisclosed nationwide vehicle-tracking pilot, including one police department’s cameras without its knowledge.

Logs record misconduct only after it happens, and only if someone reads them. Indianapolis police did not regularly audit Flock searches until The Washington Post flagged thousands of questionable inquiries by one officer. A systemwide audit found alleged misuse by four more officers. Other police departments likewise learned of officers’ misuse from reporters.

Flock’s August 2026 changes shorten recommended data retention from 30 to seven days and require misuse detection and case codes to document searches. But customers may retain data longer, emergencies may bypass case codes, and entering a case number can be done without judicial approval.

Examples of user overreach

Flock’s architecture turns local cameras into a cross-jurisdictional surveillance network that agencies that never purchased the cameras may query.

Public records from Danville, Illinois, revealed more than 4,000 searches by federal agencies, including some with a potential immigration-enforcement focus, although U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had no Flock contract.

A 2026 study similarly found 11,935 immigration-related searches in partial records from eight college police departments. Federal immigration agencies sometimes accessed campus camera data without campus officials’ knowledge.

The network also enables searches in other legally contested areas. In May 2025, a Texas sheriff’s office searched more than 83,000 cameras for a woman who had self-managed an abortion. The logged reason was “had an abortion, search for female.” The search reached Illinois, where state law forbids sharing plate data to enforce another state’s abortion ban. The sheriff called it a welfare check. Whatever the motive, one deputy triggered a national dragnet without independent review.

These examples reflect more than individual misuse. The platform makes the cameras easy to use by a second party, difficult to monitor and hard to control once local cameras are connected.

Why the Fourth Amendment matters

The law remains unsettled on ALPR use.

In October 2025 a Virginia appeals court held that police officers needed no warrant to retrieve three images spanning seven minutes from Norfolk’s 172-camera network because they showed vehicles, not people. But later findings about Flock’s people-detection capabilities weaken that distinction. Analysis of the hacked camera showed that its software could identify a person and record that person’s location within an image.

In January 2026 a federal judge held that Norfolk’s then-176-camera network did not violate Fourth Amendment protections. The system did not capture anyone’s entire movements, the court reasoned, although it photographed two plaintiffs’ vehicles 475 and 325 times over four and a half months. The ruling is being appealed.

In 2018 the Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States that acquiring seven days of historical cellphone location records generally requires a warrant because they can reconstruct someone’s past movements. Flock’s architecture raises a related but unresolved question: Its database can also reconstruct movements, yet police officers may search it without a warrant.

Both Norfolk rulings predate the Supreme Court’s June 2026 decision in Chatrie v. United States, which held that police conducted a search under the Fourth Amendment when they obtained two hours of stored Google location history. The court did not decide whether the search was lawful. Instead, it returned the case to the lower court to determine whether the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s requirements.

That did not make the access automatically unconstitutional: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches, not all searches. But the police generally need a warrant supported by probable cause once their conduct is classified as a search.

The Chatrie decision distinguished vehicles exposed to public view from phone-location data that can follow someone into a home or other sensitive place. But it also expressed concern about comprehensive archives that can be searched retroactively. A license plate reader network can create a similar archive of a driver’s public movements.

The constitutional question in Norfolk, therefore, turns not only on the seven minutes retrieved, but also on the surveillance power of the 172-camera network.

Enforceable limits

The Indianapolis cases expose the limits of internal controls in Flock’s system. Marion County Prosecutor Ryan Mears said many proposed guardrails would not have prevented the conduct. He pointed to the need for independent or judicial oversight.

I believe five safeguards could preserve Flock’s benefits while curbing abuse:

1. Judicial authorization for retrospective regional or national searches based on individualized suspicion, preferably a probable-cause warrant, with an emergency exception.

2. Technical access controls restricting immigration and reproductive-health searches.

3. Deletion of data after a short period.

4. Opt-in interstate data sharing, rather than by default.

5. Independent audits of search logs and device security.

Flock’s new safeguards show that the company concedes that design matters, but private settings cannot substitute for laws. It’s not a matter of making sure officers follow the rules. It’s about creating enforceable limits.

Henry F. Fradella does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the U.S. Supreme Court has been busy with voting rights cases.

In mid-September, the court barred the Trump administration from carrying out its proposed restrictions on mail-in voting for the midterm elections.

In late September, the court ruled that the Trump administration could continue with a plan for various federal agencies to use a controversial database to identify and cull ineligible voters on the voter rolls.

These decisions highlight the long history of struggles in the United States over who can vote, how votes are counted and who sets the rules that govern elections.

As scholars of elections and Southern politics, we have selected 10 important moments in U.S. voting history. The point is not to identify the definitive 10, but rather to underscore that battles over the franchise are long-standing and do not move in a single direction.

The 15th Amendment

Passed by Congress in 1869, the 15th Amendment was the final Reconstruction-era amendment. It said that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

This amendment helped bring about widespread participation by Black men and the election of many Black candidates to key positions in Southern states. In South Carolina, over 250 African American men were elected during Reconstruction, and South Carolina’s Joseph H. Rainey became the first African American to serve in the U.S. House.

The amendment’s language was clear and permanent, but much of the progress that followed was short-lived. During the Jim Crow era, Southern states used literacy tests, grandfather clauses and other barriers to deny Black citizens the vote.

The 17th Amendment

Aiming to provide a check on the popular will, the framers of the U.S. Constitution specified that U.S. senators should be elected by state legislatures. But problems with this system emerged. Disputes within legislatures sometimes led to deadlocks, and many states opted to select senators in partisan primaries or a general election.

As a result, Congress sent the 17th Amendment to the states in 1912. Ratified in 1913, it transferred the selection of senators from state legislatures to direct election by the people.

The 19th Amendment

The result of a long struggle for women’s suffrage, the 19th Amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1878 but did not pass over many years and subsequent introductions. Support increased after President Woodrow Wilson changed his position in 1917 to support it. Congress passed the amendment in 1919, and the states ratified it in 1920. It dramatically expanded the potential electorate.

Because of the lingering effects of Jim Crow laws and racial discrimination, however, many Black women were still denied the franchise.

Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 dramatically reduced barriers to voting and created a process under which localities with a history of discrimination were required to obtain federal approval, known as “preclearance,” before making changes to voting rules.

The results were immediate and substantial, resulting in increased Black political participation and representation, particularly in the South.

According to one analysis, “Prior to the adoption of the Voting Rights Act, the median proportion of Blacks who had registered (in the southern states) stood at 39.4 percent. Just a couple of years after adoption of the legislation the median figure had increased to 58.9 percent.” The law was reauthorized in 1970, 1975, 1982 and 2006, transforming Southern politics and altering representation by increasing the voice and representation of African Americans in the region.

McGovern-Fraser Commission

The tumultuous 1968 Democratic National Convention, marked by riots, violence against protesters and dissent over the Vietnam War, led to the establishment of the McGovern-Fraser Commission by the Democratic Party, which proposed new procedures for selecting delegates to the national convention. Most notably, the changes opened the process to greater public participation and reduced the power of party leaders to choose delegates behind closed doors.

McGovern-Fraser helped produce the modern primary system by changing the way presidential candidates are selected and shifting power from party leaders to primary voters.

The 26th Amendment

This amendment, ratified in July 1971, lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. The argument was simple — a person who is old enough to be drafted for military service is also old enough to vote. Support for lowering the voting age emerged during World War II, but the amendment was passed and ratified in 1971 in record time as support for the Vietnam War declined. It was the last constitutional amendment to expand the franchise.

The National Voter Registration Act

Also called the “motor voter bill,” the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 marked an important step in moving elections in America toward greater standardization by requiring state driver’s license offices to provide a way for people to register to vote. It also mandated other rules about how states must implement voter registration and how they must maintain voter registration databases.

Bush v. Gore

Following a closely contested 2000 presidential election in Florida, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a hand recount of contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. In the legal case Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recount, leaving Republican George W. Bush ahead of Democrat Al Gore in Florida and securing his election as president.

The case focused attention on the administration of elections, as problems with what were known as “hanging chads” on the ballots as well as voting equipment and the “butterfly” ballots themselves became central to discussion of elections in America. It also led to the passage of the Help America Vote Act in 2002 that set federal requirements for polling place accessibility, voting systems and voter registration.

Shelby County v. Holder

In this 2013 case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the formula used to determine which localities were required to have their voting policies reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice no longer reflected current conditions and therefore was unconstitutional.

Although Congress could create a new formula, it has not done so, and as a result the Shelby County decision effectively gutted the preclearance process created by the Voting Rights Act.

Recent research shows that this decision has resulted in several racially discriminatory voting policies.

Louisiana v. Callais

In late April 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that a Louisiana congressional map devised to create a majority Black voting district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and that the Voting Rights Act did not require the state to draw it.

In addition to affecting the specifics of the Louisiana map, Louisiana v. Callais made it much more difficult for plaintiffs to prove racial vote dilution claims under the Voting Rights Act. Many analysts believe that this may result in far fewer minority members of Congress.

Not a straight line

As is clear in this abbreviated tour of history, as well as in more extended treatises of the subject, the history of voting and elections in America doesn’t follow a steady path toward progress or retreat. It is marked by intense struggles, monumental victories and devastating losses. And many of the events on this timeline may represent all three, depending on a person’s experience and perspective.

Another set of 10 events might provide different examples, but they would be unlikely to bring us to a different conclusion.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Neighborhood investments meant to improve housing and opportunity often spark fears of gentrification and displacement. That worry is playing out in Pittsburgh’s Hazelwood neighborhood, where a stalled Second Avenue housing project sits blocks from the 178-acre Hazelwood Green riverfront development.

Hazelwood is a natural experiment that answers the question: Can development happen without displacement?

Residents feared the millions of dollars spent to clean up and redevelop Hazelwood Green would displace them, as new firms and workers moved in and land speculation increased nearby.

examined that question in Hazelwood, where the Heinz Endowments invested to support the community that existed there before redevelopment began.

I’m a researcher and consultant to policymakers, investors and others who are considering community development investments, and I teach research methods and statistics at the University of Pennsylvania. I also created the Market Value Analysis and Displacement Risk Ratio. We used these tools in this research on Hazelwood, and our study is one application of them.

Investing in Hazelwood

Hazelwood Green, the former site of the long-shuttered LTV Steel plant, was purchased in 2002 by a partnership of the Heinz Endowments, Richard King Mellon Foundation, Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation and the McCune Foundation. It now houses advanced technology, robotics and manufacturing companies, with more development planned.

Recognizing the risk that investments in Hazelwood Green could lead to displacement of longtime residents, the Heinz Endowments in 2012 began to offer a series of more than 120 grants totaling US$24 million for housing production and preservation. This funding was used to repair owner-occupied homes, rehab deteriorated rentals and relocate tenants to renovated units.

Funding also helped a local nonprofit acquire vacant land and buildings and homeowners stabilize their properties. It also supported a second nonprofit community development corporation through which residents could voice their vision for Hazelwood, and it backed a third focused on education, arts and culture programming. This all occurred while economic activity on Hazelwood Green was gaining momentum and redevelopment was visible.

Were residents displaced?

We used multiple approaches to examine how the redevelopment of Hazelwood Green affected the neighboring community.

The first examined the economic, housing and demographic profile of Hazelwood residents.

In a typical gentrification scenario, researchers would expect to see an influx of new residents and for the income profile of residents in the neighborhood to rise. Gentrifying neighborhoods also experience an extraordinary rise in housing prices and rents. And frequently neighborhoods transition from being predominantly minority to predominantly white.

We did not find any of these changes in Hazelwood.

Census data shows Hazelwood’s population was 4,474 in 2022, down from 5,395 in 2010. Comparable mobility data is only available starting in 2016: The share of all households living in the same home as the previous year held steady, at 90% that year and 91% in 2022. That percentage for renters, though lower than the rate for all households, rose from 82% to 85% over the same period. If residents were being pushed out, we’d expect to see the percentages of long-term homeownership and renters drop. Additionally, work and commuting patterns in Hazelwood held steady.

A newer analysis, released in March 2026, extends this picture through 2024; exact figures for Hazelwood were still being confirmed as of publication.

The share of nonwhite residents rose from about 48% in 2010 to 55% in 2022, the opposite of the typical gentrification pattern.

Home values increased, as they have in most places. But Hazelwood’s $121,358 median value in 2022 is still affordable for a household earning about $40,000, based on economic data.

Cost burden – spending more than 30% of income on housing – is common among lower-income renters in Hazelwood, part of a national pattern of rising housing costs outpacing incomes. Still, Hazelwood’s rate among its lowest-income renters is somewhat lower than the citywide Pittsburgh rate. About 7 in 10 Hazelwood renters with household income under $50,000 are burdened. But more than 85% of owners who earn $35,000 or more are not cost-burdened.

A growing number of upgraded homes and new, long-term affordable units financed through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit are also on the horizon. Together, they may give longtime residents more options to stay in Hazelwood in the years ahead.

How does Hazelwood compare?

The Market Value Analysis measures a neighborhood’s overall housing market health using factors such as sale prices, vacancy, building conditions and foreclosures.

The Displacement Risk Ratio asks one narrower question: Are home prices climbing faster than residents’ incomes compared to years past? That focus helps flag when longtime residents are being priced out, not just when a market is heating up.

Other places use the same method to guide their own housing plans and investments, and they make the results public so others can use them too. Researchers have also used the method to evaluate strategies for stabilizing neighborhoods.

We also used these tools to compare Hazelwood with other neighborhoods across the country. It fared better than neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Baltimore and St. Louis that were similarly next to large-scale, concentrated investment. Hazelwood was more stable than the Baltimore and St. Louis neighborhoods and faced far less displacement risk than the Philadelphia one.

Why the fear persists

Finally, we interviewed Hazelwood nonprofit leaders, who reported that displacement fear remains high, though actual instances are anecdotal. Interviewees said gentrification in other rapidly changing Pittsburgh neighborhoods, such as East Liberty, fuels that fear. They said persistent poverty – nearly a third of Hazelwood households have income below the poverty line, which is an increase from a decade earlier – creates trauma that leaves people more vulnerable to any crisis, including displacement.

Interviewees also said Hazelwood’s remaining blighted housing creates a pressure on families to leave. They called this “rotrification.” We saw that in one block group with a declining ratio and along Second Avenue, the largely vacant main street that splits the Hazelwood neighborhood.

Grant funding helped nonprofits buy up vacant and deteriorated properties in Hazelwood and preserve existing homes. Many homes and apartments were rehabilitated, existing homeowners saw modest price increases alongside improving neighborhood conditions, and new long-term affordable apartments are underway. The community also has an organized advocacy presence, including groups such as Hazelwood Initiative that help residents have a voice at the table as development decisions are being made.

Our research can’t isolate which grants made the difference.

But the Hazelwood case suggests that development can occur without triggering the kinds of displacement pressure typically associated with gentrification. Yet these findings may not fully address residents’ concerns about the future, particularly as home prices continue to rise.

The Richard King Mellon Foundation supports The Conversation Pittsburgh.

Read more of our stories about Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania.

Ira Goldstein conducted the work described in this article with a grant from The Heinz Endowments made to Reinvestment Fund. He is no longer an active employee of Reinvestment Fund, but does have a consulting relationship with them. Both the Market Value Analysis and Displacement Risk Ratio are proprietary tools developed by Reinvestment Fund, where Goldstein formerly served as Senior Advisor, Policy Solutions. Reinvestment Fund markets these tools commercially, and has been paid to apply the Market Value Analysis in more than 40 cities and counties, independent of this Hazelwood research.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

In this episode, hosts Zach and Carl discuss adapting to technological change, personal reinvention, and the impact of AI on creativity and web development, emphasizing diverse income strategies and effective ADHD management.