Like other, similar laws nationwide, Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA) ensures citizens can exercise their right to oversee their government. Two cities north of Seattle—Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood—are now working to curtail that right.
Their argument last month was remarkable: allowing non-government employees to access ALPR data would “violate the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.”
To support this claim, the cities borrowed key talking points from the anti-surveillance crowd, including that collecting and accessing detailed location information about anyone creates tremendous potential for abuse. They cited examples like suspicious spouses tracking partners and raised hypotheticals about disgruntled citizens tracking government employees.
What the cities don’t mention is that Flock has no special rights under Washington law. They’re not a law enforcement agency, or even a government agency. The system doesn’t comply with laws concerning intelligence gathering or regulations governing sensitive information. If it did, the data would likely be exempt from the PRA.
Unlike other cloud services, which are generally protected by federal law, nothing prevents a divorce attorney from subpoenaing records about a potentially unfaithful spouse from Flock. Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood propose that we remove the only remaining, albeit woefully inadequate, safeguard that at least sometimes catches disgruntled Flock employees or customers stalking citizens, or accessing data despite assurances to the contrary.
The cities are right about one thing: the potential for abuse is enormous; giving Flock the keys to the kingdom is a terrible idea; and, yes, the whole system does violate the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.
The cities’ conclusion, however, is dead wrong: you can’t prevent abuse by hiding it. It must be addressed at the source.
- The full brief (10/8/2025)
- The defendant’s response (10/8/2025)