Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

Disability, Accessibility, and Civil Rights

All Eyes On Me: The Plaintiff's Architecture for Announced-Surveillance Exclusion from Public Space

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Working draft. Not peer reviewed.

Written
August 2026
Version
v0.6
Pages
25
Download PDFPlain language slides (PDF)Export BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

Announced mass surveillance of the public right of way, automated license plate reader networks above all, operates as an access barrier for a definable class of people with psychiatric disabilities: those for whom observation is the clinical content of the condition, avoidance of public space is its behavioral consequence, and treatment runs through returning to feared situations so the world can disconfirm the feared outcome. A companion article establishes that mechanism and its claim under the meaningful access standard. This article builds the litigation. It maps the settled ground, the right of way as a covered program, and the first hazard, the split over privately enforceable regulations. It frames the claim through meaningful access, the methods of administration and reasonable modification rules, and the integration mandate, and it answers the benefit-definition countermove. It then constructs the plaintiff: deterrence standing on the model the accessibility cases built, the concreteness demanded after TransUnion, accrual on Frame's knew-or-should-have-known trigger, associational and organizational standing that let the class litigate without exposing individual members, and a Rule 23(b)(2) class whose common question is a single announced policy. It maps remedies through the deliberate indifference gate and the post-Cummings damages architecture, in which economic loss must carry what emotional injury cannot, states the defenses and their discipline, and closes with comparative anchors: the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the anticipatory adjustments duty of the UK Equality Act, a surveillance deployment held unlawful under an equality statute, and Canada's constitutional accommodation principle.

Keywords

  • disability rights
  • disability law
  • ADA Title II
  • meaningful access
  • reasonable modification
  • methods of administration
  • integration mandate
  • automated license plate readers
  • camera barrier
  • persecutory delusions
  • deliberate indifference
  • comparative disability law

Plain language slides

First slide of the plain language summary of All Eyes On Me: The Plaintiff's Architecture for Announced-Surveillance Exclusion from Public SpaceOpen the 35-slide summary (PDF)

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "All Eyes On Me: The Plaintiff's Architecture for Announced-Surveillance Exclusion from Public Space." Real Safety AI Foundation Working Draft, August 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/all-eyes-on-me/

References (65)

  1. Ability Center of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky, 385 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2004).
  2. Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, 601 U.S. 1 (2023).
  3. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985).
  4. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001).
  5. American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). American Psychiatric Publishing.
  6. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213.
  7. Areheart, B. A., & Stein, M. A. (2015). Integrating the Internet. The George Washington Law Review, 83(2), 449–497.
  8. Bagenstos, S. R. (2004). The future of disability law. The Yale Law Journal, 114(1), 1.
  9. Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002).
  10. Canadian Association of the Deaf v. Canada, 2006 FC 971 (Can.).
  11. Chaffin v. Kansas State Fair Board, 348 F.3d 850 (10th Cir. 2003).
  12. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
  13. Charmatz, M. (2024). New appeals court case finds Title II does not allow for emotional distress damages. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 30(4), 3.
  14. Charmatz, M. (2026). Ninth Circuit: Title II/Section 504 allows damages for lost educational opportunity. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 31(10), 3.
  15. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983).
  16. Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69–93). Guilford Press.
  17. Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 2014).
  18. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Dec. 13, 2006, 2515 U.N.T.S. 3.
  19. Craske, M. G., Treanor, M., Conway, C. C., Zbozinek, T., & Vervliet, B. (2014). Maximizing exposure therapy: An inhibitory learning approach. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 58, 10–23.
  20. Culvahouse v. City of LaPorte, 679 F. Supp. 2d 931 (N.D. Ind. 2009).
  21. Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212 (2022).
  22. Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001).
  23. Ehlers, A., & Clark, D. M. (2000). A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(4), 319–345.
  24. Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624 (Can.).
  25. Ellett, L., Freeman, D., & Garety, P. A. (2008). The psychological effect of an urban environment on individuals with persecutory delusions: The Camberwell walk study. Schizophrenia Research, 99(1–3), 77–84.
  26. Equality Act 2010, c. 15 (UK).
  27. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024).
  28. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
  29. Foa, E. B., & Kozak, M. J. (1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin, 99(1), 20–35.
  30. Fox News. (2026). 119,000 Flock license plate cameras track drivers nationwide: Map. https://www.foxnews.com/tech/license-plate-cameras-tracking-drivers-everywhere
  31. Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
  32. Freeman, D. (2016). Persecutory delusions: A cognitive perspective on understanding and treatment. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(7), 685–692.
  33. Freeman, D., & Garety, P. (2014). Advances in understanding and treating persecutory delusions: A review. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49(8), 1179–1189.
  34. Freeman, D., Garety, P. A., Bebbington, P. E., Smith, B., Rollinson, R., Fowler, D., Kuipers, E., Ray, K., & Dunn, G. (2005). Psychological investigation of the structure of paranoia in a non-clinical population. British Journal of Psychiatry, 186(5), 427–435.
  35. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000).
  36. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982).
  37. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977).
  38. Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94 (1st Cir. 2006).
  39. Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 593–602.
  40. Kinney v. Yerusalim, 9 F.3d 1067 (3d Cir. 1993).
  41. Kreisler v. Second Avenue Diner Corp., 731 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2013).
  42. Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529 (1890).
  43. Lonberg v. City of Riverside, 571 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2009).
  44. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
  45. Marlow, C., & Stanley, J. (2026). How to fight deployment of Flock and other mass surveillance license plate readers in your community. American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/tracking-alpr-cameras/how-to-fight-deployment-of-flock-and-other-mass-surveillance-license-plate-readers-in-your-community
  46. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services, 28 C.F.R. pt. 35.
  47. Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
  48. Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, 11 F.4th 729 (9th Cir. 2021).
  49. Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, 169 F.4th 971 (9th Cir. 2026).
  50. Penney, J. W. (2022). Understanding chilling effects. Minnesota Law Review, 106, 1451.
  51. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998).
  52. Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2002).
  53. R (Bridges) v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police, [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 (Eng.).
  54. Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(8), 741–756.
  55. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
  56. Stoycheff, E. (2016). Under surveillance: Examining Facebook’s spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(2), 296–311.
  57. Tandy v. City of Wichita, 380 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2004).
  58. tenBroek, J. (1966). The right to live in the world: The disabled in the law of torts. California Law Review, 54(2), 841.
  59. Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004).
  60. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021).
  61. United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006).
  62. Updike v. Multnomah County, 870 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2017).
  63. Waller, H., Freeman, D., Jolley, S., Dunn, G., & Garety, P. (2011). Targeting reasoning biases in delusions: A pilot study of the Maudsley Review Training Programme for individuals with persistent, high conviction delusions. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 42(3), 414–421.
  64. Whaley, B. A., Martinis, J. G., Pagano, G. F., Barthol, S., Senzer, J., Williamson, P. R., & Blanck, P. D. (2024). The Americans with Disabilities Act and equal access to public spaces. Laws, 13(1), 5.
  65. Whittaker, Z. (2026, February 23). Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/23/americans-are-destroying-flock-surveillance-cameras

All research