DodgeFlock Get the flock out of Dodge.

The problem

Constitutional privacy rights framing for a Dodge County ALPR / Flock ban. Focus: warrants, democratic oversight, and limits on mass location tracking— not anti-police or partisan framing.

What ALPRs do (plain English)

Automated license plate readers (ALPRs)—including Flock Safety units—photograph vehicles as they pass. Systems typically capture plate text plus vehicle descriptors. Records go into searchable databases that can reconstruct where a vehicle was and when. Wisconsin currently has no statewide statute capping ALPR retention or barring sharing with federal/out-of-state agencies; agencies set their own policies.

Privacy advocates call this mass location tracking: continuous collection on drivers regardless of suspicion, then warrantless after-the-fact searching.

Fourth Amendment / Carpenter-style arguments

In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that accessing historical cell-site location information is a Fourth Amendment search, because detailed long-term location records reveal the “whole of [a person’s] physical movements.”

Advocacy translation: A dense ALPR network that stores plate sightings for weeks and allows retrospective queries produces a similar movement chronicle. Searching that database without a warrant is hard to square with Carpenter’s privacy logic—especially near homes, churches, clinics, workplaces, and political gatherings.

These are active litigation theories and policy claims. Wisconsin courts have not (as of this research) issued a final merits ruling that all ALPR database queries require warrants. Present them as constitutional concerns shared across ideological lines—not black-letter local law.

United States v. Chatrie (2026) and the WILL theory

WILL’s September 2026 Waukesha County suit leans on the Supreme Court’s June 2026 decision in United States v. Chatrie, which treated acquisition of detailed Google location history as a Fourth Amendment search. Plaintiffs argue Flock’s “Location Database” is likewise a location-history store that should require a warrant based on probable cause.

Wisconsin Constitution

Wisconsin Constitution Article I, Section 11 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and parallels the Fourth Amendment. Local ordinances can still adopt warrant rules, retention limits, and procurement bans even while state constitutional case law develops.

Civil liberties positions (ACLU / EFF)

Conservative / liberty positions (WILL)

WILL—a conservative/liberty-oriented public-interest firm—filed suit Sep 10, 2026 against Waukesha County and 11 municipalities, arguing warrantless Flock Location Database searches violate the Fourth Amendment. WILL asks that the constitutional warrant standard apply before searches.

Data-sharing risks (documented in Wisconsin, 2026)

False positives, misuse, and “no warrant” culture

Democratic oversight — why a county ban

Chetek (Barron County) showed how ALPR procurement can bypass elected oversight: cameras installed May 2026 without mayor/council advance notice; council later bagged cameras and sought contract termination (Aug 27, 2026). Dodge County residents should not learn about county ALPR networks after the poles go up. A clear Board ordinance puts the decision in public view.

Dodge County factual baseline

Contact your supervisor About