FLOCK CAMERA Searches Violate the 4th Amendment; Federal Judge Throws Out ALL Evidence!

A federal judge just ruled that a cop’s FLOCK CAMERA search violated the 4th Amendment and threw out all the evidence. Here is how one California license plate led to a ruling that could change how police use license plate readers across the country.

In United States v. Kyle (N.D. Okla., October 1, 2026), a Tulsa County deputy saw an out-of-state plate, ran it through Flock and pulled 30 days of location history: more than 50 sightings across multiple states, with no warrant and no suspicion of any crime. He then stopped the driver for following too closely, questioned her about a short trip to California, and detained her for a K-9 sniff the moment she refused a search.

Judge Sara Hill suppressed everything on two separate grounds. First, the deputy unlawfully extended the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion. Second, and far more surprising, the Flock ALPR lookup itself was a warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment. Nearly every court before this one has said license plate readers are not a search. This judge disagreed, relying on Carpenter v. United States and the Supreme Court’s 2026 geofence decision in Chatrie v. United States.

Is a license plate on a public road fair game, or does a month-long tracking log cross the line? Tell me in the comments.

Case: United States v. Kyle, No. 26-CR-00189-SEH, 2026 WL 2958728 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 1, 2026).

Read the court’s opinion: United States v. Kyle (PDF)

This video is for education and entertainment, not legal advice.