Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

Privacy, Surveillance, and Consent

The Plate Is Not the Person: What Owner Liability Already Concedes About Automated Vehicle Surveillance

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Working paper. Not peer reviewed.

Written
August 2026
Pages
34
Download PDFPlain language slides (PDF)Export BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

A camera at the roadside records a registration plate. A database converts that record into an assertion about where a person has been. Nothing in the pipeline verifies that the person was ever in the vehicle. This article names that conversion silent attribution, names the space it crosses the attribution gap, and argues that American law has already adjudicated both, where no one has looked. Automated traffic enforcement concedes the premise three times. Illinois supplies defenses when a vehicle or its plates were stolen and therefore ``not under the control of or in the possession of the owner,'' language a legislature writes only when it knows the owner is frequently not the driver. The Seventh Circuit upheld owner liability in Idris v. City of Chicago on the reasoning that a camera reliably shows which vehicles ran a light but is less likely to show who was driving, leaving a city essentially unable to prove otherwise. And in Tupper v. City of St. Louis the Supreme Court of Missouri struck down a camera ordinance for creating a presumption that shifted the burden of persuasion onto the owner to prove he was not the operator. Plate reader doctrine has developed as though none of that existed. Courts ask whether a plate is exposed to public view and whether accumulated location points reconstruct the whole of a person's movements. Both questions presuppose that the vehicle's movements are the person's, and the leading decisions do not defend that premise because they never reach it. Kansas v. Glover authorized the inference for reasonable suspicion alone, only absent contrary information, and only where an officer looking at the driver can dispel it. Database retrieval removes all three. The article then tests the justification the networks are sold on. Substituting a plate defeats a reader more cheaply than avoiding one, and it does not produce invisibility. It produces misdirection onto a registered owner who was never present, which the system cannot detect and which the falsely named owner learns by mail. The contributions are three. It locates a statutory and judicial admission that a plate does not identify a driver, sitting in the jurisdictions that treat plate data as location history. It shows that no stage of retrieval records the moment a vehicle observation becomes a claim about a person. And it identifies the class whose recorded travel is false in its entirety: registered owners who do not drive.

Keywords

  • Fourth Amendment
  • surveillance law
  • license plate readers
  • silent attribution
  • attribution gap
  • mosaic theory
  • vicarious liability
  • evidentiary foundation
  • Flock Safety
  • nondriving registered owners
  • traffic camera adjudication
  • disability and mobility

Plain language slides

First slide of the plain language summary of The Plate Is Not the Person: What Owner Liability Already Concedes About Automated Vehicle SurveillanceOpen the 28-slide summary (PDF)

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "The Plate Is Not the Person: What Owner Liability Already Concedes About Automated Vehicle Surveillance." Real Safety AI Foundation Working Paper, August 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/plate-is-not-the-person/

Other versions

This paper is also posted on SSRN.

SSRN version

References (65)

  1. Al Jazeera. (2026, August 14). Flock adds safeguards to licence-plate readers after wave of stalking cases.
  2. Automated Traffic Law Enforcement Systems, 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/11-208.6.
  3. Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996).
  4. British Broadcasting Corporation. (n.d.). Number plate cloning: Fake plates ‘ready in 10 minutes’.
  5. British Broadcasting Corporation. (n.d.). Thousands hit by fines from cloned car plates.
  6. Camp, E. (2026). She spent 7 months in legal hell after cops used Flock surveillance to identify the wrong car. Reason.
  7. Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (1974).
  8. Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018).
  9. CBS News Minnesota. (2026, July 12). Flock cameras wrongly flag plates as stolen, lead to police stop in Plymouth.
  10. Certificates of Title and Registration of Vehicles, 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3-703, 5/3-704, 5/4-104.
  11. Chatrie v. United States, 609 U.S. ___ (2026).
  12. City of Creve Coeur v. Nottebrok, 356 S.W.3d 252 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
  13. City of Knoxville v. Brown, 284 S.W.3d 330 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).
  14. City of Sioux City v. Jacobsma, 862 N.W.2d 335 (Iowa 2015).
  15. City of St. Peters v. Roeder, 466 S.W.3d 538 (Mo. 2015).
  16. Commonwealth v. Govan, 259 N.E.3d 370 (Mass. 2025).
  17. Commonwealth v. Long, 152 N.E.3d 725 (Mass. 2020).
  18. Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 484 Mass. 493, 142 N.E.3d 1090 (2020).
  19. Daily Telegraph. (2023, February 27). Motorists fall prey to cloned registrations.
  20. Daily Telegraph. (2023, January 28). More criminals cloning number plates to swerve cameras issuing eco-fines.
  21. DeFlock Apex. (n.d.). What the audit log reveals.
  22. Department of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002).
  23. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2025, December). EFF’s investigations expose Flock Safety’s surveillance abuses: 2025 in review.
  24. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (n.d.). Data driven: What we learned.
  25. Expressway Camera Act, 605 Ill. Comp. Stat. 140/5.
  26. Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The smart Fourth Amendment. Cornell L. Rev., 102, 547.
  27. Fleet News. (2022, July 4). Increase in cloned cars leaving innocent drivers facing fines.
  28. Flock Safety. (2026, February 6). Not all license plate readers are equal: When plate data fails, how do investigations continue?
  29. Flock Safety. (n.d.). License plate readers (LPR) cameras.
  30. Gaines, J. (2026, January 9). Finding 67 Flock Safety live PTZ camera and LPR feeds and debug web interfaces accidentally exposed without authentication to the internet.
  31. Gatewood, J. C. (2013). It’s raining Katz and Jones: The implications of United States v. Jones, a case of sound and fury. Pace L. Rev., 33, 683.
  32. Heller v. Brookhaven Borough, No. 2:25-cv-05550 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 11, 2026).
  33. Idris v. City of Chicago, 552 F.3d 564 (7th Cir. 2009).
  34. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000).
  35. Kansas v. Glover, 589 U.S. 376 (2020).
  36. Kerr, O. S. (2012). The mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. Mich. L. Rev., 111, 311.
  37. Klick Plates. (n.d.). 10 steps to take if your number plates have been cloned.
  38. Koebler, J. (2025, December 22). Flock exposed its AI-powered cameras to the internet. We tracked ourselves. 404 Media.
  39. Koper, C. S., & Lum, C. (2019). The impacts of large-scale license plate reader deployment on criminal investigations. Police Q., 22, 305.
  40. Krieger v. City of Rochester, 42 Misc. 3d 753 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013).
  41. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).
  42. Moody, G. (2024, March 11). Vehicle cloning: Another reason not to use automated license plate readers. Techdirt.
  43. Motor Vehicles, Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29-A, § 2117-A.
  44. Motoring Chronicle. (2026, June 18). What to do if your number plate is cloned as cases jump 41 percent.
  45. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950).
  46. New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986).
  47. 9News. (2025, December 23). Douglas County’s Flock camera compromised as company leaves it exposed on internet.
  48. Number Plate Scanning Devices, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 261:75-b.
  49. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014).
  50. Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979).
  51. Scholl v. Illinois State Police, 776 F. Supp. 3d 701 (N.D. Ill. 2025).
  52. Spencer, S. B. (2018). Predictive surveillance and the threat to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3195977
  53. Straight Arrow News. (2025, December 22). Flock camera captured kids on a playground. A security failure exposed them online.
  54. Tupper v. City of St. Louis, 468 S.W.3d 360 (Mo. 2015).
  55. United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241 (1985).
  56. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981).
  57. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012).
  58. United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983).
  59. United States v. Sturdivant, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1098 (N.D. Ohio 2025).
  60. United States v. Tuggle, 4 F.4th 505 (7th Cir. 2021).
  61. Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103 F.3d 1346 (7th Cir. 1997).
  62. Virginia State Crime Commission. (2024). Law enforcement use of automatic license plate recognition.
  63. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).
  64. Wostbrock, M. (2024). Miller in a cashless society: Financial surveillance and the Fourth Amendment. Colum. Bus. L. Rev., 2023(2). https://doi.org/10.52214/cblr.v2023i2.12487
  65. Wyden, R. (2025, November 3). Letter to Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, Federal Trade Commission. United States Senate.

All research