Are Flock Cameras Admissible in Indiana Courts? What Criminal Defendants Need to Know

If you've been driving around Evansville, Rockport, or other Southern Indiana communities, you may have noticed small cameras mounted on poles at certain intersections and roadways. These are likely Flock Safety cameras, a technology that's becoming increasingly common across the state and raising significant legal questions for those facing criminal charges.

What Is a Flock Camera?

Flock cameras are automated license plate readers (ALPRs) that capture images of vehicles passing through their field of view. Unlike traditional traffic cameras that might only activate when a driver runs a red light, Flock cameras continuously collect data on every vehicle that passes by.

These sophisticated devices don't just record license plate numbers—they capture vehicle characteristics including make, model, color, and identifying features like bumper stickers or roof racks. The system then uploads this information to a searchable database that law enforcement agencies can access.

How Do Flock Cameras Work?

Flock cameras utilize high-definition imaging technology combined with optical character recognition (OCR) software to identify and record license plates, even at night or in poor weather conditions. Here's how the system typically operates:

1. The camera captures images of vehicles passing through its viewing area

2. Built-in software reads the license plate and records vehicle characteristics

3. The data is uploaded to a cloud-based system, often in real-time

4. Law enforcement can search the database using specific criteria

5. The system can send instant alerts when vehicles of interest are detected

Many Flock systems are programmed to automatically cross-reference license plates against databases of stolen vehicles, AMBER Alerts, or vehicles associated with wanted individuals. This allows for near-instantaneous notification to police when a flagged vehicle passes by a camera.

Are Flock Cameras Legal?

While the use of Flock cameras by law enforcement is legal in Indiana, their implementation has raised privacy concerns among citizens and civil liberties groups. Unlike targeted surveillance with a warrant, Flock cameras collect data on all passing vehicles, regardless of whether the drivers are suspected of any wrongdoing.

Currently, Indiana does not have specific state legislation regulating ALPR technology like Flock cameras. This means that policies regarding data retention, access, and usage vary by jurisdiction. Some communities have established their own guidelines, while others operate with minimal restrictions.

The legality of these cameras doesn't necessarily address whether the evidence they collect will be admissible in court—an important distinction for anyone facing charges based on Flock camera evidence.

Admissibility of Flock Camera Data in Indiana Courts

If you're facing criminal charges in Indiana where Flock camera data is part of the evidence against you, understanding its admissibility is crucial to your defense. According to Indiana case law, Flock camera data may be admissible, but certain conditions must be met.

The "Silent Witness" Theory

In Indiana, courts have recognized the admissibility of automatically captured images under what's known as the "silent witness" theory. This legal principle, established in cases such as Averhart v. State (470 N.E.2d 666) and further developed in Wise v. State (26 N.E.3d 137) and Tucker v. State (46 N.E.3d 502), allows photographic or video evidence to be presented as substantive evidence even without a witness who personally observed the events depicted.

However, this doesn't mean all Flock camera evidence will automatically be admitted in court. The prosecution must establish a proper foundation for the evidence, which includes demonstrating:

Foundation Requirements

To admit Flock camera data in an Indiana criminal case, prosecutors must show:

1. The reliability of the camera system

2. How and when the camera was installed and activated

3. When and how the images were captured

4. The chain of custody of the data or imagery

5. Evidence that the images have not been altered or tampered with

These requirements were emphasized in cases like Edwards v. State (762 N.E.2d 128), which highlighted the importance of establishing the integrity of automatically captured images before they can be admitted as evidence.

Relevance and Prejudice Considerations

Even if the foundation requirements are met, the court will also consider:

• Whether the evidence is relevant to the case

• If the probative value outweighs any potential unfair prejudice

• Whether the evidence might confuse or mislead the jury

According to Indiana Code 35-37-4-15, this balancing test is typically conducted during a pretrial hearing to determine admissibility before the trial begins.

Potential Grounds for Exclusion

There are circumstances where Flock camera evidence might be deemed inadmissible:

1. If the evidence was obtained in violation of specific statutory provisions

2. If proper procedures for preserving the chain of custody weren't followed

3. If the data was collected in a manner that violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches

Indiana Code 35-33-5-10 specifically addresses evidence not admissible in judicial proceedings when certain collection methods violate the law.

Challenging Flock Camera Evidence in Court

If you're facing criminal charges in Evansville or surrounding areas where Flock camera evidence is being used against you, there are several potential avenues for challenging its admissibility:

1. Question the foundation: Challenge whether proper procedures were followed in maintaining and operating the camera system

2. Challenge the chain of custody: Explore whether there were gaps in the handling of the digital evidence

3. Examine potential alterations: Investigate whether the images or data could have been modified

4. Constitutional challenges: Raise Fourth Amendment concerns about unreasonable search and seizure

5. Relevance objections: Argue that the evidence has minimal probative value compared to its potential prejudicial effect

Why Experienced Legal Representation Matters

As a retired FBI agent with 23 years of experience, I've witnessed firsthand how technological evidence like Flock camera data can significantly impact criminal cases. The complex legal landscape surrounding this emerging technology requires defense attorneys who understand both the technical aspects of these systems and the legal frameworks that govern their use in court.

Our criminal defense practice in Evansville brings this unique perspective to cases involving surveillance technology evidence. We understand how law enforcement uses these tools and, more importantly, how to effectively challenge evidence that doesn't meet Indiana's legal standards for admissibility.

Contact Us for Help

If you're facing criminal charges in Evansville, Rockport, Tell City, or Boonville where Flock camera evidence is being used against you, contact us at (812) 301-6221 for a consultation. We offer financing and credit card payment options and are available by phone, email, text, or online chat.

Remember: Just because Flock camera evidence exists doesn't mean it will automatically be admissible in court. With proper legal representation, you can ensure your rights are protected against potentially problematic surveillance evidence.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique, and outcomes depend on specific circumstances. Contact our office to discuss your particular situation.