Washington, D.C. – The District of Columbia Police Union has filed a grievance challenging the Metropolitan Police Department’s use of the Flock license‑plate reader system. Union President Gregg Pemberton alleges that department managers have accessed the system’s data for investigations that do not involve criminal activity, which he says violates both department policy and the Flock user agreement.
Union raises constitutional concerns
“We discovered that managers in the department were accessing the system for non‑criminal investigations, which is a violation of the general order and it’s a violation of the Flock user agreement,” Pemberton told reporters. “The only way that you can make a query into this system is if you have reasonable, articulable suspicion or probable cause that a crime occurred.”
Pemberton added that the department’s recent policy change – restricting access to a single clearinghouse at the Real‑Time Crime Center – appears to acknowledge that the system was being misused. He warned that the technology is “significantly more powerful than a camera that takes pictures of license plates,” creating detailed profiles of innocent motorists.
Police department defends the practice
A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police Department responded that the use of the Flock system in an internal affairs investigation involving a union member was appropriate and consistent with department policy. The statement said the grievance will be resolved through arbitration between the department and the union.
Fourth Amendment implications
Pemberton emphasized that the broad collection of data – including vehicle color, bumper stickers, dents, and even footage from cameras inside private businesses such as Lowe’s and Ulta Beauty – raises serious Fourth Amendment questions. “We’re now collecting data on innocent people, and we’re creating profiles on what those people do every day, and where they are, what cars they’re using, and who they interact with,” he said.
He asked whether future Supreme Court rulings could deem the practice unlawful, potentially jeopardizing past arrests made with the technology. “Do we then have to go back and let those people out of jail? I don’t know,” Pemberton said.
Calls for transparency and legal review
The union is seeking greater transparency about the system’s deployment, including the locations of the cameras and a clear legal opinion on their use. Pemberton also reached out to the D.C. Council’s public safety committee for input, but has not received a response.
“I think we all need to take a step back and make sure that what we’re doing is lawful and it’s understood in the court system to be a legitimate tool and being used in a way that’s legitimate,” Pemberton said.
Background on license‑plate readers
License‑plate readers have been used by law‑enforcement agencies nationwide to aid investigations, but they have also sparked privacy debates. In D.C., the technology was previously discussed during the body‑worn camera debate a decade ago, when officials weighed public‑safety benefits against privacy concerns.
As the dispute moves to arbitration, both sides agree that the issue centers on balancing effective policing with constitutional protections for innocent citizens.
Original reporting: Alexandria, VA News – WTOP News — read the source article.
