A federal judge has left the door open for constitutional challenges against Virginia’s sprawling network of automated license plate readers, even as the state quietly expands what the cameras can be used for.
More than 5,500 surveillance cameras now operate across Virginia, according to the website Deflock.org, which maps their locations. The concentration in Northern Virginia, Richmond, and Hampton Roads is so dense that those regions “disappear under a blob of overlapping cameras” on the map. Driving on most of I-95, I-81, or I-64 without having your vehicle’s information captured is essentially impossible.
Virginia lawmakers passed restrictions last year requiring collected data to be deleted after 21 days. The law limits use of the information to investigating alleged criminal violations, searching for missing or endangered persons, tracking individuals with outstanding warrants, investigating human trafficking cases, and locating stolen vehicles or plates.
But a new law taking effect this month expands those powers, allowing local governments to use the cameras for catching drivers who run stop signs or fail to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks.
In Floyd County, residents say they were never consulted before the cameras appeared in their community.
“There was no general announcement to the community that these were going in,” resident Jacey Clay told the board of supervisors at a recent meeting. “This was all done through backroom conversations and agreements and contracts that were signed with private companies without public input.”
Board of Supervisors Chairman Joe Turman claimed the elected body had no say in the matter. “The Board of Supervisors has no control whatsoever over those cameras,” Turman said, insisting the devices are run by the sheriff’s office.
Similar concerns emerged in Christiansburg. “It is a little shocking, the fact that they are so common. And it’s hard to have any idea that they’re there,” resident Justin Whitlock told WSLS.
“I don’t feel like we have that much of an issue with crime here as much as some other places,” Jonica Hocker added. “So, I don’t really know. Is it necessary? We don’t know.”
Earlier this year, federal Judge Mark Davis set aside a lawsuit claiming the cameras violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. But his 51-page ruling suggested constitutional limits may eventually apply.
“Surveillance could become too intrusive and run afoul of [constitutional privacy standards] at some point. But when?” Davis wrote. “While a definitive answer to that question is elusive, what is readily apparent to this Court is that, at least in Norfolk, Virginia, the answer is: not today.”
Citizens do retain some rights to transparency. Last year, a Cardinal News reporter tracked his own 300-mile trip through the state by requesting ALPR data from various jurisdictions. He even prevailed in court when the city of Roanoke attempted to withhold its records.
Not all localities are embracing the technology. Martinsville is removing many of its ALPRs, though the decision came down to cost rather than privacy concerns. The city determined it was simply too expensive to operate its 80 cameras.
