Jim Williams
If you pay attention to the news, you’ve probably heard a great deal about Flock cameras, whether it is from the perspective of concerned citizens who are worried about the invasion of privacy or government officials touting their ability to stop crimes. As personal injury lawyers, we are also starting to evaluate what impact these cameras could have on our cases. Will these cameras present us with helpful evidence, or will they have little to no impact on the proceedings of personal injury trials?
—————
What were Flock cameras made to be used for?
Flock cameras are a specific brand of license plate reader and video surveillance system operated by the company Flock Safety. The company bills itself as a “public safety platform,” saying that it “helps law enforcement, businesses, schools, and communities find relevant information, respond faster, and make better-informed decisions.”
In theory, Flock cameras are designed as safety tools to aid law enforcement agencies in stopping crimes. For example, these cameras can scan and record license plates on passing vehicles, along with details like make, model, color, and other physical characteristics. However, some jurisdictions have begun to expand the use cases for these systems, using them for purposes other than crime-stopping, such as for traffic enforcement.
Of course, Flock cameras have been the subject of significant controversy, especially regarding those expanded use cases. The core of the argument against Flock cameras is that they violate privacy laws, with one judge even ruling that warrantless Flock camera searches could be considered a Fourth Amendment violation. Critics have also raised concerns about the accuracy of Flock camera recordings, with some reports showing that Flock cameras have contributed to wrongful arrests.
—————
Can Flock footage be used as evidence?
In light of these expanding use cases, as well as the controversy, many in the legal industry are beginning to wonder whether footage collected by Flock cameras could be used as evidence in personal injury cases. The short answer is yes, but there are certain stipulations and limitations on how this evidence can be collected and used, both because of the inherent limitations of these systems and because of the laws that regulate their use.
Generally, video from a Flock camera will be used for the purpose of corroborating a claim rather than serve as absolute, independent evidence in its own right. For example, if liability is disputed in a case, video evidence collected by a Flock camera could be used to corroborate testimony that the defendant ran the stop sign when, without that video evidence, it would have been one person’s word against the other.
Flock cameras can also be useful during the investigation and discovery process. For instance, in a hit-and-run case, detectives may use the footage collected by these camera systems to identify license plates, vehicle makes and models, and any other distinguishing vehicle characteristics in an attempt to find the responsible party. This footage can also be used to identify potential witnesses who could be called to testify in trial.
That being said, there are some challenges that arise from using Flock camera footage as evidence. The biggest limitation of Flock cameras is that, like other third-party camera systems, they store footage in the cloud for only a limited time. The default retention period has been cut to a mere seven days (although some municipalities and agencies have extended retention periods), giving personal injury lawyers very little time to file a preservation request before the potential evidence is permanently deleted.
Another significant limitation of Flock cameras as evidence in personal injury cases is their limited availability in certain locations. Flock cameras are generally found near intersections or major thoroughfares, both because of the practical restrictions on where the equipment can be installed and the purposes for which municipalities typically use them. Because of this, the video evidence captured by Flock cameras may only be helpful if an accident takes place within an intersection or in another
area specifically monitored by these cameras.
Ultimately, while there are some instances where Flock camera footage could become useful evidence in a personal injury case, there are many practical and legal challenges that prevent it from becoming a significant disruption or transformation in the field. However, as lawyers, it is our responsibility to understand and use every tool at our disposal to build the best possible case for our clients, which is why it is important for us to stay up to date on the capabilities and regulations of Flock cameras.
—————
Jim Williams is a graduate of George Mason University Law School, where he distinguished himself as a member of the law review with a published article and was the commencement speaker for his graduating class. He has practiced insurance defense through both private practice and as counsel to a major insurance company, where he gained extensive experience as a trial attorney. Williams joined Burnett & Williams in 2006 as the lead partner in the Richmond, Va. area.
—————
What were Flock cameras made to be used for?
Flock cameras are a specific brand of license plate reader and video surveillance system operated by the company Flock Safety. The company bills itself as a “public safety platform,” saying that it “helps law enforcement, businesses, schools, and communities find relevant information, respond faster, and make better-informed decisions.”
In theory, Flock cameras are designed as safety tools to aid law enforcement agencies in stopping crimes. For example, these cameras can scan and record license plates on passing vehicles, along with details like make, model, color, and other physical characteristics. However, some jurisdictions have begun to expand the use cases for these systems, using them for purposes other than crime-stopping, such as for traffic enforcement.
Of course, Flock cameras have been the subject of significant controversy, especially regarding those expanded use cases. The core of the argument against Flock cameras is that they violate privacy laws, with one judge even ruling that warrantless Flock camera searches could be considered a Fourth Amendment violation. Critics have also raised concerns about the accuracy of Flock camera recordings, with some reports showing that Flock cameras have contributed to wrongful arrests.
—————
Can Flock footage be used as evidence?
In light of these expanding use cases, as well as the controversy, many in the legal industry are beginning to wonder whether footage collected by Flock cameras could be used as evidence in personal injury cases. The short answer is yes, but there are certain stipulations and limitations on how this evidence can be collected and used, both because of the inherent limitations of these systems and because of the laws that regulate their use.
Generally, video from a Flock camera will be used for the purpose of corroborating a claim rather than serve as absolute, independent evidence in its own right. For example, if liability is disputed in a case, video evidence collected by a Flock camera could be used to corroborate testimony that the defendant ran the stop sign when, without that video evidence, it would have been one person’s word against the other.
Flock cameras can also be useful during the investigation and discovery process. For instance, in a hit-and-run case, detectives may use the footage collected by these camera systems to identify license plates, vehicle makes and models, and any other distinguishing vehicle characteristics in an attempt to find the responsible party. This footage can also be used to identify potential witnesses who could be called to testify in trial.
That being said, there are some challenges that arise from using Flock camera footage as evidence. The biggest limitation of Flock cameras is that, like other third-party camera systems, they store footage in the cloud for only a limited time. The default retention period has been cut to a mere seven days (although some municipalities and agencies have extended retention periods), giving personal injury lawyers very little time to file a preservation request before the potential evidence is permanently deleted.
Another significant limitation of Flock cameras as evidence in personal injury cases is their limited availability in certain locations. Flock cameras are generally found near intersections or major thoroughfares, both because of the practical restrictions on where the equipment can be installed and the purposes for which municipalities typically use them. Because of this, the video evidence captured by Flock cameras may only be helpful if an accident takes place within an intersection or in another
area specifically monitored by these cameras.
Ultimately, while there are some instances where Flock camera footage could become useful evidence in a personal injury case, there are many practical and legal challenges that prevent it from becoming a significant disruption or transformation in the field. However, as lawyers, it is our responsibility to understand and use every tool at our disposal to build the best possible case for our clients, which is why it is important for us to stay up to date on the capabilities and regulations of Flock cameras.
—————
Jim Williams is a graduate of George Mason University Law School, where he distinguished himself as a member of the law review with a published article and was the commencement speaker for his graduating class. He has practiced insurance defense through both private practice and as counsel to a major insurance company, where he gained extensive experience as a trial attorney. Williams joined Burnett & Williams in 2006 as the lead partner in the Richmond, Va. area.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
