Orange County Drivers Invited to Join Flock Lawsuit

An Atlanta, Georgia law firm has filed a precedential class-action lawsuit against Flock Safety and is inviting Orange County, California motorists to join.

The federal claim alleges that local law enforcement in Coweta County, Georgia targeted and tracked Tyler Murkerson using Flock cameras after he filed a civil rights lawsuit against them.

“This case is about what happened to a man who sued the police for violating his constitutional rights and about what a surveillance system built without safeguards makes possible for anyone who sues the police, files a complaint against them, or otherwise draws their attention,” the Oct. 8 complaint states.

Hall & Lampros filed the legal claim, on behalf of Murkerson, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and named Flock Group, Georgia’s Coweta County, Coweta Sheriff Lenn Wood. and Coweta County Sheriff’s Deputies as defendants

The Flock Group/Flock Safety is a nationwide public safety technology company that provides automated license plate readers (ALPR) and vehicle intelligence software to law enforcement agencies across the U.S. including in Orange County.

Government Surveillance Without Justification

“It raises a whole bunch of issues if you can just surveil where somebody is and where somebody drives 24 hours a day without offering any law enforcement justification,” attorney Christopher B. Hall told OrangeCountyLawyers.com

“That just invites abuse and it appears that abuse has occurred.”

Hall advises Orange County residents interested in joining the lawsuit to review public records on the website HaveIBeenFlocked.com where drivers can uncover whether their license plate has been searched or tracked by the Flock surveillance network.

If a person’s license plate appears on the registry, it means their tag was not just recorded by an ALPR camera, but also that law enforcement actively searched out their license plate and put them under active surveillance or tracking within the Flock system.

“Before somebody is put under surveillance, there has to be a law enforcement purpose,” Hall said in a phone interview.

Without a law enforcement purpose, such as a legitimate criminal investigation, Hall maintains that ‘flocking’ violates the average Californian’s rights under the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment protects American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause, and requires law enforcement to have a warrant based on probable cause before conducting a search.

4th Amendment Violation?

“Just reading the license plate is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which is an unsafe search, which is an unauthorized search, which is an invasion of privacy,” Hall added.

In Murkerson’s case, Flock Safety’s platform allegedly failed to build safeguards to stop Coweta County sheriff’s deputies from illegally surveilling him for months.

Hall adds that his client’s circumstances are not an isolated incident.

At least 50 law enforcement officers nationwide have been charged with or accused of misusing ALPR systems as of August 2026, according to Hall & Lampros data.

“The misuse of Flock against Mr. Murkerson reflects the same pattern seen across Flock’s customer base,” the lawsuit further states. “Agencies running searches with no case number and no stated reason beyond a generic placeholder.”

The concern about Flock is spreading Nationwide.

The Santa Ana City Council delayed a scheduled discussion to review its agreements with Flock Safety while public records show that the Fullerton City Council voted 3-1 last week to suspend the use of Flock’s ALPR systems for six months.

“I think it was a misstep that’s made our city less safe,” Fullerton mayor Fred Jung told OrangeCountyLawyers.com. “There are folks in the community, particularly on the progressive side, who don’t like law enforcement to have resources.”

Jung added that the issue will be brought back for reconsideration within a month.

Officials from the City of Santa Ana did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.

“I think they’re very concerned with privacy issues and whether people are put under surveillance for purposes of retaliation,” Hall said of the City of Fullerton’s decision.