The city of San Jose has acknowledged some criticism of the cameras and location data. Last month, the City Council voted to shorten the data retention period<\/a> of location information that Flock can hold from one year to one month.<\/p>\n A Flock spokesperson said in an email that the suit raises \u201cimportant questions\u201d but noted that courts have repeatedly found that \u201cusing Flock devices is constitutional.\u201d<\/p>\n Flock cameras in San Jose, Calif. (Courtesy Institute for Justice)<\/p>\n (Courtesy Institute for Justice)<\/p>\n A spokesperson for the San Jose Police Department declined to comment. A city spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n Flock has been the subject of several lawsuits alleging the technology violates the Fourth Amendment, and it has yet to be found culpable. One of those lawsuits was brought last year by the Institute for Justice on behalf of two residents of Norfolk, Virginia.The court found in favor of Norfolk, but the case revealed some information about how Flock operates<\/a>, including that it took hundreds of photos of plaintiffs\u2019 vehicles over several months.<\/p>\n The Institute for Justice\u2019s Michael Soyfer, the lead attorney on the case, told NBC News he simply disagreed with that court\u2019s decision and has appealed and that he hopes the Northern District of California is more sympathetic.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat we\u2019ve demonstrated in these cases is that these cameras have the capability to generate data on virtually every route people take when they leave their house. Are they following you door to door? No. Are they generating a few data points on just about every route you take in your car? Yeah, they\u2019re clearly capable of that, and with that information police and the government can piece together a lot about you, because they usually know where you live, and they can usually make reasonable inferences,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cThey can find other information to figure out where you went, especially if that process is repeated over weeks and weeks and weeks.\u201d<\/p>\n Soyfer said Flock cameras are often near sensitive facilities, heightening the privacy concern that people could be tracked on those streets.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve seen these cameras in San Jose on the same blocks as hospice care facilities, immigration lawyers offices, hospitals, all sorts of places where you wouldn\u2019t want to be monitored and surveilled by the government,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The suit asks the court to compel the city of San Jose and the police department to delete all Flock images within 24 hours except when there are warrants.<\/p>\n \u201cIf the court doesn\u2019t go for that, our second-line request is for a warrant requirement to access data,\u201d Soyfer said. \u201cBut our belief is that it\u2019s the collection of data that\u2019s really the injury to people\u2019s privacy, and not necessarily access. It\u2019s the maintenance of this very widely available database.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"San](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/567da5848df4641467fdb11a5ee42410.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
![\"Tony](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/5382af505de94b00b4418ee0f744ad06.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n