Artificial intelligence is not new technology by any stretch of imagination, but the commercial applications and the rapid proliferation of technology in recent years have been nothing short of astonishing. Agencies across the country are rapidly employing emerging technologies into their toolkit with the hope of helping to augment existing limited resources and to solve and prevent crimes.
In September 2025, Right On Crime released a research paper discussing Emerging Technologies in Law Enforcement coupled with blog post: Coming to a Roadway Near You: The Rise of License Plate Cameras. The goal of the paper was to look at modern and emerging technologies in law enforcement, review case law as it may relate to the technologies, and policy recommendations.
One of the defining characteristics of emerging technologies is how quickly the landscape evolves. Legal developments, in particular, can shift the conversation in real time. In that context, the case Schmidt v. City of Norfolk warrants closer attention.
For context, two Virginians sued the City of Norfolk for placing 172 Flock cameras throughout the city. The plaintiffs argued that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the city using these cameras. The plaintiffs raised concerns about how much and for how long data is retained after being captured the government. Thus, they argued against allowing for a warrantless “drag-net” where the government could track an individual.
In February 2025, the city filed a motion to dismiss the suit. This was denied by the judge. However, this week, the same judge ruled in favor of the city’s usage of the Flock cameras and granting summary judgment.
In his new order, he highlights the issue of rapid proliferation and technology’s capabilities to expand create a unique scope:
“More recently, however, several federal judges including another judge of this Court, have expressly cautioned that their rejection of a constitutional challenge to the use of ALPR (Automatic License Plate Reader) technology should not be indiscriminately extended because, as the number and capabilities of ALPR cameras expand, the constitutional balancing could conceivably tip the other way.” (pg.3)
He cites a previously denied motion by the city in the 2025 ruling stating that:
“The undersigned agrees with these cautionary statements, as reflected in this Court’s prior opinion finding that Plaintiffs’ complaint, when construed in their favor as required at the pleading stage, plausibly alleged a constitution violation predicated on dragnet-like surveillance of “the whole” of Plaintiffs’ physical movements.” (pg.3-4)
As the judge mentions several times throughout the ruling, fast-moving technology is evolving and the dangers it can pose do exist — but within our Constitutional framework, technology capabilities are simply a snapshot in time.
“ALPR “surveillance could become too intrusive and run afoul of [constitutional privacy standards] at some point. But when?” While a definitive answer to that question is elusive, what is readily apparent to this Court is that, at least in Norfolk, Virginia, the answer is: not today.” (pg.6)
As such, this puts greater emphasis on legislatures in forming case use inventories, setting clear acceptable use guidelines, and exploring the impacts it may pose as technology’s capabilities change. On the local level, transparency should include providing acceptable use policies and case use inventories to the public on their websites. Trust is a delicate balance in public safety and by providing this information offers clear opportunity to bring stakeholders and the community together.
The judge in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk summed up the value of having legislatures and communities finding a way to balance the needs of the community with public safety with the following:
“Such experimentation is best achieved with the input from the public and with guardrails erected by state legislatures or local governing bodies, as is the case in Virginia.” (pg.4)
This will require law enforcement, community members and policymakers to come together to reckon with the societal impacts. Case use inventories provide lawmakers with a clear understanding of what products are being used and how they are currently being used. In the case of ALPRs, to get a more detailed review, lawmakers should ask for the number of cameras currently in use, review data retention standards, and any data sharing agreements. This allows policymakers to craft clear and narrowly tailored use policies that reduce the risk that, as the court cautioned, “the constitutional balancing could conceivably tip the other way.” (pg.3)
Emerging technology has the potential to revolutionize the criminal justice system, augment limited resources, increase efficiency, and lower service costs. Much of the new technology introduces complex legal, ethical, and societal challenges that must be managed, carefully and proactively. Ideally, officers would have the ability to have all the tools needed to provide public safety. However, the rapid rate of advancement which may outpace our laws is worth being concerned about. State legislatures have an opportunity to create case use inventories to have informed decisions on creating clear guardrails to ensure technology is used responsibly.