A Resource for the Defense Bar: The NC Constitution and Flock Surveillance
We’ve published a balanced memorandum of law — the facts, the caselaw on both sides, and an honest assessment — for any North Carolina attorney examining Flock’s ALPR and PTZ surveillance.
Most challenges to license-plate-reader surveillance are argued on federal Fourth Amendment grounds, where the government’s “no privacy in public” position is strong. We think the more interesting question is a state one: does Article I, § 20 of the North Carolina Constitution — a general-warrants clause that predates and differs from the Fourth Amendment — independently limit a standing, suspicionless surveillance network?
To help attorneys evaluate that question honestly, we’ve published two things:
- A For Attorneys resource page — the primary-source factual record, a neutral survey of the federal and state caselaw, and links to the underlying documents.
- A downloadable Memorandum of Law (PDF) — balanced and fully cited, including the adverse authority (Garner, Perry, Rogers, and the Norfolk summary judgment) alongside the affirmative theory.
It is deliberately balanced. We state the government’s strongest positions as fairly as our own, because a memo that hides the hard cases is useless to a working lawyer. The theory it develops — that § 20 forbids the government from holding generalized investigative authority, and that a collect-first, identify-later network is the functional equivalent of the general warrants the clause was written to forbid — is novel and, in North Carolina, a matter of first impression. We say so plainly.
Recent law makes the timing worth watching. In Chatrie v. United States (June 2026), the Supreme Court held that location data is protected even when a third party holds it — undercutting a rationale police have leaned on for ALPR. And the Norfolk appeal now sits in the Fourth Circuit, our circuit.
If you’re a North Carolina attorney — criminal defense, civil rights, or otherwise — we’d like to hear from you: want the underlying records, want to compare notes, have comments or corrections, or end up using any of it? Email mark@DeFlockILM.org or reach us through the coalition page. This is a working document and your input makes it better.
This article is general information about North Carolina law, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you are involved in litigation, some steps described here may conflict with a duty to preserve evidence or an existing protective order. Consult a licensed North Carolina attorney before acting.
You’re not a suspect. So stop being tracked like one.
It takes one minute. Add your name, then tell your county commissioners to cancel the Flock contract.