Flock and the 4th Amendment

I’m a big fan of the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment. I would tattoo it on my body, but I’m a little chicken. 

After the recent walks I’ve taken in this town, I might do it anyway. Everywhere I walk, there are surveillance cameras. I even found one at Oxbow Park the other day. Found one on Florida Road today. You might be right, there is not an expectation of privacy in most outside spaces. But really, why are the Flock cameras in all these locations in outdoor spaces? The secondary problem is, who is installing them and for what purpose? 

If someone had been kidnapped at a school, maybe for a short-term, cameras might help kids feel a little safer. Sometimes people speed while they drive and maybe some hit fences, but those are pretty small events to cause a major constitutional upending, especially around the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment says clearly: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This means the police must swear out a warrant in front of a judge and ask if they can surveil an area. The judge will then determine if they have probable cause. He or she will then issue a finding if they may proceed. Not before but only then. This is how the Constitution prevents police from becoming overly dominant. 

While catching speeding traffic is somewhat important, it’s not a full justification for the placement of cameras. Making Durango a fun community or a safe community requires that it comply with the Constitution. Let’s stop this now.

– Christa Turnell, Durango