Flock Wins Dismissal Of Alleged Hot List Error Case

Executive *******

******* ******* ******** ** ***** ********* advocates **** ****** ******** ** *** systems, ********* *****'*, ******** * ****** of ******** ***** *** *******, * federal ***** ***** **** *** ********* did *** ******* ********** ************* *** bringing ****** ******* *** *******.

********* ******* *****, * **** ******, has **** ************ ******* ** *** case ******* ****** **** **** ** attorney. ********** *** **** ***** ******* are ********* ** * ************ ** professional *********, *** *** **** ******** with **** ********** **** *** ***** practices *** **********.

* ********* *** ***** ******** ** comment ** *** ******. ***** **** IPVM **** ** ******* ** ******.

******** * *** ***** ** **** nuisance "*** **" *******, *** ***** found "**** ** ****** **** **** decision ***** *** ** ***** ** good *****." ***** *** ******* *****'* stop ***** **** *********, ** **** him **** ********* * ****** ** filing **** (** ** ***** $***), and ** ***** * ******** ****** to *** ****** ***** ***** ******* to **** *** ********* *********.

*** **** *****, *** ****** **** resulted ** ***** ******** ********** *** lawsuits ******* ****** ***********, ********** **** the ****** ****** ** ***** *** not ********.

**********

*** **** ** *** **** *** related ********** ** *****, *** *** following:

• ***** **** ** *** ******** **** LPR "*** ****" *****
• ***** ******** ** "*** ****" ***** Lawsuit
• **** **** **** ******** ********* ***** LPR ******-***** *****
• ***** ***** ****** *** ***** *** Not ******** *****

Dismissal ******

******** *****'* *******, ** ******** ***** Benita *. ******* ********* *****'* **** "with *********," ******* **** ** ****** amend *** ****** *** *******.** *** ******, *** ***** **** ********* "** moot" * ****** ** ******* ******* by *****, ********* * ****** *** a *** **** ********, * ****** to ******* ** ****** *******, *** a ****** ** ****** *****'* *********** defenses.

******* ** **** ** *** ** counts ***** ******** ** *** ***-**** second ******* *********, ********* *** ******* violations, ******* *******, **********, *** **********, the ***** ***** **** ** ****** to ************* "***** * *****" *** relief. ********, ***** *** ****** ** support ****** **** ***** *** * "state *****" **** *** ** **** responsible *** ********* *****'* ****** ****** the ******* **** ***** ** *** close ************* **** ******, ********* ** the ******.

*** ****** ******:

Defendant’s ******** ************* **** ******* *** *********** ********, *****, ** *** ********** ** **** *** *********** ***** ****. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant does not create the information on the “Hot List.” Defendant merely captures images of vehicles and license plates and matches it against information that law enforcement agencies have flagged for alert notification. After Defendant reports a match to law enforcement, it *** ** ******* ***********. [Emphasis Added.]

*********, *** ***** ***** **** ***** "has *** ******* ***** **** ********* support * ******* ****" *****'* ******* "was *********."

*** ****** ******:

******,Defendant's ****** ******* ** **** ********** ** *** ********. Plaintiff's issue with the product is that it did not dod more than it was designed to do. That does not make the product defective. [Emphasis Added.]

** *********:

********,Defendant’s ****** *** *** ***** *** ****** of which Plaintiff complains. Defendant’s camera did not create the “Hot List” or input the data. It merely transmitted the alert to local law enforcement. Law *********** ********* **** *** ************** ** ****** *** *********** and act on it, if they see fit. [Emphasis Added.]

Procedural ****

*** ***** ***** **** ***** **** a ********** ***** ** ****** ******* ****** ******* ** *** *********. ***** ******* ***** ** ***** procedure, ********** *** **** ***** ***** complaints **** ******* ********** **** *** defendant.

***** ***** *** **** ********** **** Flock ** ***** *** ********* * second ****, *****'* ********** "*** ***** based ** *** ***************** **** ********* was ******** ********** ******* *** *****," according ** *** ******. *******, ******* of ***** ** ** ****, ***** "added **** **** *** ********** *** 14 ******** ** *** *********."

*** ***** *****:

******* *********did *** **** ********* ********** ** ***** *** ****** ******* ********* ** *****, Defendant claims Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is improvidently filed and also seeks dismissal or that basis. [Emphasis Added.]

***** *** ***** *** *** ****** the ********** **** **** *** ********* of *** ****, *** ******* *****,***** * ******* ********** ** ******** plaintiffs,"**** ** ****** **** **** ******** could *** ** ***** ** **** faith."

** ***** ** *** *******: "** appeal *** *** ** ***** ** forma ******** ** *** ***** ***** certifies ** ******* **** ** ** not ***** ** **** *****."

****** * ****"** ***** ********"***** ******** * **** ** ****** without ********* ***** *****. ** ******* court, "** ***** ********" ****** ** commonly **** *** *********, *** ***** indigent ********** *** **** *** ******* under ***** *****, ***. ****** **** developed ********* ** **** ********* ** other ******** ********** **** ******** *** other *** ** **********.

*******, *** ******* **** *** ***** Flock ** **** ********'* **** **** Smith ** *** ***** ***** **** his **** *** "*********, ************, ******* foundation, ** ** *** *****."

Plaintiff's ********

**** ***** *** *******, ***** **** that ** ***** **** ** ******. Smith ******* **** **** **** *** ruling *** "* *** ********** ******* the ******** ** *** ****** **** present...it's **** *** ***** **** *** Defendant's *********** *********** ** ******* *********."

***** **** ** ******** *** ***** ruled ******* *** ****** ******* ** didn't **** ** ********, ****** "*** se ********** **** ** * *** rarely ***** ********* ** *****." ** added **** *** "***** ****** ** multiple ****** ****" *** ***** **** he *** ******** ****** *** ****** information ******** ******* *****'* ***** ************ with ****** ********.

** *********:

*** ***** ****’* ******** *** ******** of *** *************, ********* *** **** of **** **** ** * ******* whose ******* ** **** ** *** enforcement *** *** ********* *** **** from *** ************* ** ********** ***********. Ratherthe ***** ****** *** **** **** ***** **** ************ * *******, ***** ** *****.

**** *** ***** *** *** ********** considerwhether *** ****** ** *** ******* ****** **** ******** ********** to prevent the type of harm that occurred, such as a mechanism to ensure the accuracy of the data or to remove outdated information.

*** ***** **** ****** **** ********** the ***** ** *** *********'* ******** data *** ******* *** ********* ********** benefited **** *** *** ** **** data ******* ****** ************ ** ************* from *** *********.

***** ****** *** ********** *** *** time, ******* ** *** ***** ***** was *****, ***** ***** ***** ** a ****** *****. [******** *****.]

* ********* *** ***** ******** ** comment ** *** ****** *** ******** to ******* ** *****'* ********.

Possible **** *****

********* ** ******* ********* *********, ***** *** ** **** **** the ***** ** * ******** ** file * ****** ** ******, ********** $***. ********** ***** *** **** ***** per ********'* *** ********.***** *** **** ****** ** **** a ****** ******* ********'* **** **** Smith.

**********

** *** ******* *** **** ************ by ******, *** ****** ** ****** in ******* ****** ** ******** **** to * ******* **** ** ***** to ****, ******* ** ******** ***** and *******. *** ****** *** *****, while *** ************, *********** * ******* record ** ************* *** ********** ****** against *** ******* **** * ******** LPR "***."

**** ******** ***** *** ***** *** companies *** *** **** **** ********** defendants ** ******* ********. ** **** instance, *** ****** *** **** ** support * ******* ** ******* ********* from ***** **** ******.