Sunlight Is a Statute

Records

Two shelves. The landmark records and cases this work stands on - and our own public records requests, published as the agencies answer them.

Shelf One

Landmark Records & Cases

The Supreme Court's location-privacy line of cases - what each one actually held, with official links, and no overclaiming.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

The Court held that attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle was a Fourth Amendment search, on trespass grounds. Separately, five justices in concurrence reasoned that long-term GPS monitoring impinges on reasonable expectations of privacy - the seed of the aggregation principle.

Opinion (Justia)

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)

A unanimous Court held that police generally need a warrant to search a cellphone seized incident to arrest. The reasoning rests on the vast scope of digital data: a phone is not a wallet, and digital information receives strong Fourth Amendment protection.

Opinion (Justia)

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018)

The Court held that government acquisition of historical cell-site location information - records revealing a person's movements over time - is a Fourth Amendment search, generally requiring a warrant. Decided June 22, 2018.

Official print (supremecourt.gov, PDF)

Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (2026)

Decided June 29, 2026 (6-3). The Court held that police acquisition of a person's stored Google Location History through a geofence warrant is a Fourth Amendment search - individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in stored cellphone location information.

The caveat we always carry: the Court did not decide whether the geofence warrant used in the case was valid. It remanded for the lower courts to assess probable cause and scope. Geofence warrants were not struck down; the acquisition of this data was held to require Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

Slip opinion (supremecourt.gov, PDF)

What these cases mean for ALPRs: none of them decides every ALPR program, and we never claim otherwise. Together they establish that aggregated location surveillance raises grave Fourth Amendment concerns and demands strict constitutional scrutiny. How courts apply that principle to networked plate readers is being litigated now - which is exactly why we watch.

What We Watch

The Open Questions

Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (4th Cir. No. 26-1227) - the direct Fourth Amendment challenge to a citywide Flock network (roughly 172-176 cameras; plaintiffs' cars logged 526 and 849 times in about four months). On Jan 27, 2026 the district court upheld the network - it does not violate the Fourth Amendment "yet" - and the appeal is pending as of Aug 2026 (WHRO; Courthouse News). We say it plainly: no court has ruled Flock unconstitutional in Norfolk.
Virginia's state-court pair - a Norfolk Circuit Court judge suppressed warrantless Flock evidence, likening the network to GPS tracking; the Virginia Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished opinion, holding plates in public view carry no reasonable expectation of privacy (GovTech; 13NewsNow).
The Chatrie remand - how the lower courts assess the probable cause and scope of the geofence warrant on remand.
Public-records angle - Skagit County (WA) Superior Court ruled Nov 6, 2025 that Flock images and data are public records subject to disclosure, prompting several Washington deactivations (GeekWire).
Oklahoma - State v. Ifabiyi (McClain County District Court, 2024) suppressed ALPR evidence under 47 O.S. § 7-606.1; a trial-court ruling, not binding statewide precedent. Detail on The Honor Roll.
State constitutional privacy decisions - state supreme courts interpreting their own constitutions' privacy protections, which can exceed the federal floor.

Developments are added here after verification, and logged on Sources & Corrections.

Legislation Watch

Bills & Policy, Official Sources Only

Bills are listed here only after verification against the official Oklahoma legislature record at oklegislature.gov - never from headlines or secondhand summaries. Each entry carries the bill number and chamber, what it would actually do, its author(s), its current status with date, a link to the official bill page, our position labeled as advocacy, and a last-verified date.

No ALPR bill is recorded as passing in the 2026 session: the two ALPR bills, SB 857 and HB 1626, died without hearings, and 2026's ALPR activity at the Capitol was interim studies only - no ALPR bill advanced. Active tracking begins with the 2027 session. Everything below is verified against oklegislature.gov and oksenate.gov as of 2026-10-16.

Interim study IS 2026-16, "Flock Cameras" (Sen. Mary Boren, D-Norman; Senate Public Safety Committee) - approved mid-July 2026; hearing scheduled Wednesday, October 21, 2026, 1:00 PM, Room 230; study to be completed by Oct 30, 2026.
House interim study request IS 26-011 (Rep. Tom Gann, surveillance technology/ALPRs) - not approved by the Speaker.
SB 857 (Sen. Darrell Weaver) - would have authorized and regulated law-enforcement ALPR use; first read 2/3/25, referred Senate Public Safety 2/4/25, no further action - died without a hearing (official status).
HB 1626 (Rep. John George) - companion authorization bill; referred to House Rules 2/4/25, no further action - died (official status).
Not a real pairing: the circulating claim of Oklahoma "HB 658 / SB 540" ALPR-prohibition bills does not check out on oklegislature.gov - SB 540 (2026) is a dental compact bill. We do not cite it.

Full Oklahoma context, including current law (47 O.S. § 7-606.1) and State v. Ifabiyi: The Honor Roll. Find your legislators with the official lookup tool.

How to Ask

The Records Guide: Oklahoma Open Records Act

Every state has a public-records law, and it belongs to the people. The first chapter guide, from our founding chapter, is Oklahoma's.

Citation: Oklahoma Open Records Act, 51 O.S. § 24A.1 et seq.
Who can ask: any person. No purpose statement required, no magic words. Requests may be written or oral - written creates a record, so write.
Deadline: there is no statutory response deadline. Public bodies must provide "prompt, reasonable" access; delay is limited to the time needed to prepare records without disrupting essential functions.
Fees: only reasonable, direct copying costs - capped at $0.25 per page (documents up to 8.5x14) and $1.00 for certified copies. Search fees are allowed only for commercial or excessively disruptive requests, and fees may not be used to discourage requests.
Enforcement: civil suit for declaratory or injunctive relief (a prevailing requester can recover fees); willful violation is a misdemeanor.

The Oklahoma City route

OKC requests go through the Office of the City Clerk via the city's online JustFOIA portal: oklahomacityok.justfoia.com (linked from okc.gov Records Request). The city's stated estimate is about 7 business days for typical requests, and about 30 business days when legal review is needed.

Expect the location exemption - aim past it

Oklahoma agencies (Edmond and Tulsa among them) invoke the Act's public-safety and terrorism-prevention exemptions to withhold camera locations. Expect that, and do not let it end the request. Target what is much harder to exempt: contracts, invoices, use and retention policies, audit logs, usage and search statistics, data-sharing agreements, and Flock network-audit reports.

The model letter: copy, paste, adapt, send

Replace the bracketed fields. Keep the tone exactly this even: you are not asking a favor, you are exercising a statute.

To: [Records custodian / City Clerk, name and address] From: [Your name and mailing or email address] Date: [Date] Re: Open Records Request - Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Program Dear Records Custodian: Pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act, 51 O.S. Section 24A.1 et seq., I request access to and copies of the following records of [agency name]: 1. The current contract with Flock Safety or any other automated license plate reader vendor, including all amendments, renewal agreements, and attached exhibits; 2. All policies governing ALPR use, including use policies and data-retention policies; 3. All data-sharing agreements concerning ALPR data, and any list of agencies or entities with access to search this agency's ALPR data; 4. Audit logs of ALPR searches, including the stated purpose or reason codes recorded for each search; 5. Records identifying the funding sources for the ALPR program, including grants, invoices, and budget line items. If any portion of a record is claimed exempt, please cite the specific statutory exemption relied upon and release the remainder of the record. Please advise me of copying fees in advance if they will exceed $[amount]; per 51 O.S. Section 24A.5, copying fees are capped at $0.25 per page. The Act requires prompt, reasonable access to records. I look forward to your response. Respectfully, [Your name]

Shelf Two

Our Public Records Requests

A running list of this project's public records requests - a short description, the agency, and the date, nothing more for now. Full reports are published when Liberty Over Surveillance completes its investigation of each matter.

City of Manteca / Manteca Police Department

September 23, 2026 - Red-light camera program records - Still pending; a partial release has been received.
September 24, 2026 - Arrest and citation logs - Still pending.
September 24, 2026 - Drone program records - Still pending.
September 28, 2026 - Patrol vehicle window tint records - Still pending.
October 13, 2026 - Unplated patrol vehicle records - Still pending.
October 14, 2026 - Fire Station 6 decision records - Still pending.
October 14, 2026 - Follow-up questions on a records release - Still pending.
October 15, 2026 - Body camera and station video records - Still pending.

San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office

September 24, 2026 - Jail booking logs - Still pending.
September 24, 2026 - Records request - Report closed - details will be published when Liberty Over Surveillance completes its investigation.
September 28, 2026 - Patrol vehicle window tint records - Still pending.
September 29, 2026 - Concealed-carry program records - Still pending.
October 14, 2026 - Body camera, lobby video, and visitor policy records - Still pending.

City of Modesto / Modesto Police Department

October 2, 2026 - Evidence facility security records - Still pending.
October 2, 2026 - Body camera footage - Still pending.
October 2, 2026 - Pole camera program records - Still pending.
October 14, 2026 - Camera program records, filed with the City Clerk - Still pending.

County concealed-carry records tour, September 2026

September 30, 2026 - Sacramento County Sheriff's Office - concealed-carry program records - Still pending.
September 30, 2026 - Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office - concealed-carry program records - Still pending.
September 30, 2026 - San Francisco County Sheriff's Office - concealed-carry program records - Still pending.
September 30, 2026 - Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department - concealed-carry program records - Denied by the agency October 15, 2026; written challenge filed the same day - still pending.

Long Beach Police Department

August 3, 2026 - Concealed-carry licensing records - Report closed - details will be published when Liberty Over Surveillance completes its investigation.
September 29, 2026 - Concealed-carry records follow-ups (two requests) - Report closed - details will be published when Liberty Over Surveillance completes its investigation.

Obtained a record yourself? Share it with the project - we verify and archive with credit or anonymously, as you prefer. In another state? The model letter above adapts to any public-records statute.