Author: alaskaadmin

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