Norfolk Court Dismisses Fourth Amendment Claims Over License Plate Reader Use

Judge rules Norfolk's ALPR system does not violate privacy rights, despite plaintiffs' appeal plans.

Published on Feb. 16, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Eastern District of Virginia has granted summary judgment to the City of Norfolk, ruling that the city's use of an automatic license plate reader (ALPR) system does not violate the Fourth Amendment privacy rights of local residents. The plaintiffs, Norfolk citizens Lee Schmidt and Crystal Arrington, had argued the ALPR system allowed police to reconstruct and track the whole of a person's movements. However, the judge found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate the ALPR system captured enough images to reveal the whole of the plaintiffs' movements, even when combined with other investigative techniques.

Why it matters

This ruling aligns with strong national precedent that fixed-location ALPR systems do not constitute unconstitutional search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The decision rejects a core argument made by anti-ALPR activists nationwide, affirming that Norfolk's ALPR system does not and cannot 'track' individuals. However, the plaintiffs plan to appeal, arguing the surveillance system compiles vast troves of data on people's movements, revealing their private habits and routines.

The details

The judge found the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the collection and storage of vehicle images by the ALPR cameras, but not the police department's warrantless use of the ALPR database. The court ruled the ALPR system does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search, as citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the visible exterior of vehicles traveling on public roads. The limited number of ALPR camera clusters in Norfolk, and the 21-day rolling data retention period, were insufficient to track the whole of a person's movements or provide an intimate window into their private activities.

  • In February 2025, the judge found the plaintiffs plausibly alleged an injury from Norfolk's ALPR system, allowing the case to proceed.
  • In January 2026, the judge granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims.

The players

Lee Schmidt

A Norfolk citizen and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the City of Norfolk over its ALPR system.

Crystal Arrington

A Norfolk citizen and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the City of Norfolk over its ALPR system.

Mark Talbot

The police chief of Norfolk, named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Mark S. Davis

The U.S. District Judge who granted summary judgment to the City of Norfolk, dismissing the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims.

Michael B. Soyfer

One of six attorneys representing the plaintiffs from the Institute for Justice in Arlington County, who plans to appeal the court's decision.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Norfolk's extensive system of surveillance cameras compiles vast troves of data on people's movements, revealing their otherwise private habits and routines. The 4th Circuit has held that surveillance that crosses that threshold is a search that requires a warrant, so we believe we have strong arguments on appeal.”

— Michael B. Soyfer, Attorney representing the plaintiffs (valawyersweekly.com)

“This ruling recognizes the difference between fixed ALPR — which records an image of a vehicle at a single moment in time — and continuous tracking technologies like mobile phones or GPS trackers. In rejecting a core argument advanced by the plaintiffs in this case, and by anti-ALPR activists nationwide, the court explicitly found that Norfolk's ALPR system does not and cannot 'track' any individual.”

— Holly Beilin, Senior Director of Communications, Flock Safety (valawyersweekly.com)

What’s next

The plaintiffs plan to appeal the court's decision dismissing their Fourth Amendment claims against Norfolk's ALPR system.

The takeaway

This ruling affirms that fixed-location ALPR systems, like the one used by Norfolk, do not violate reasonable expectations of privacy or constitute unconstitutional search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, despite concerns raised by civil liberties advocates about the potential for pervasive police surveillance.