Flock Responds to "Hot List" Error Lawsuit

•Published Dec 19, 2023 13:04 PM

Flock Safety has responded to an Ohio man's lawsuit over being mistakenly identified as a human trafficking suspect on an LPR "hot list," broadly arguing the plaintiff has no case against the company "under any theory of liability."

IPVM Image

The man, 28-year-old Lyft driver Michael Smith, is representing himself, and he likely faces an uphill battle against highly trained attorneys hired by Flock. The company has filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of the suit "with prejudice," meaning that it could not be amended and refiled.

In this report, we examine Flock's arguments and the likelihood the company will secure a dismissal.

Executive *******

***** ******* *** ******** ******* ********** in*****'* *********, ***** ***** ** **** *** company *********** *** * **** ***** of ******, ********* ******* *******, **********, emotional ********, **********, *** ***** ****** violations.

**** ** *** **** ********** ***** on *****'* **** *** **** *** license ***** **** ** ********** ****** information, *** ** ***** *** * business ************ **** ***** (*** ****** department **** ********** ****** *** **** and ******** *** ***). ******* *****'* attempts ** **** *********, ***** ******* argued ** *****'* ******* ** * "state *****."

"** *** ****** **** ***** ******** any ******, *****’* ***** ** ******* the **********, *** *****," ***** **** in *** ******. *******, ***** *** already **** *** **********, *** **** case *** *******.

***** *** ****** *** ****** *** drafted ***-**** ******* ****************** **** ***** ******* *** ******* about *** ********, *** ***** ****** at *****, *** *****'* ************* **** state ********* (*** ******** ********* *** 51 *****). ** **** *** ***** $26 ******* ** ******* ******** **** $24 ******* ** *** ***** *********.

** ***'* *** ********* ******* *** additions ******** *** ********* ****** ** Flock. *** ******* *** ***** *** the ****** **** ** ** ********* "with *********," ******* ***** ***** *** be **** ** **** ** *****.

Background *** *******

*****'* ******* ***** **** ******* *********** over *** ***********'* *** ** *** to ******** *********** **** ** ********* criminal ********. ******* *********, ********* *********** ***** ********* ****************** ******** **********,**** ****** *** ******** **********, ******** police ** **** ********* ** ****** per ****** *** ***** "*** *****" tracking ******** *** *********** ** ********, should ** **** ******* ********* ** prevent ****** *** ******.

*** ******** ********* ***** ********** * possible *****-**** ******** ********** ** *** advocacy ******. ** ******* ** *** stopped ** ***. **, ****, ** Jackson ********, ****, ***** *** ***** was ******* ** * ***** ****** LRP ******. ******** **** ******** ** alert ******* ****** *** ** * suspect ** * **** ** * missing ******** ****. ***** *** ******** for ** ******* ***** ******** ********* relevant ******** *** ********** *** ***** was *********.

*** ****:

***** **** ** *** ******** **** LPR "*** ****" *****
*** ***** ** ******** *** ********** (Flock *** ********) ********
****** ******* ****** ***** *** ******** to ***** **-****
***/**** ***** ********

Flock's *** *********

*** *******'* ********* ** *** ****** revolve ****** **** *** ******:

***** *** ** ****** ************ **** Flock, ***, *********, ***** *** *** engage ** *** ******* ****** *****.
*** ******* ** *** * "***** actor."
*** ******* ****** ** ******** *** had ** *******.
*** ******* ***** **** *** ****** information.
***** ***** *** ******** *** ***** statements ** *****.

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

******* *****’* ********** ** *****’* “*********” conduct, ** * ***** ****** ** public ******, *** ******* ***** *********** on ***** *****’* ***** *** ***** was ******* **** *****’* ****** ** the **********, ***, ** ******** ** the **********,Flock’s ****** ******** ******* *** ********** **** ********* ** **** ******* ***** ******. Smith has not alleged any conduct for which Flock could plausibly be found liable. To *** ****** **** ***** ******** *** ****, **** **** ** *** ************ ** *****. [Emphasis Added.]

** * ****** ** ***** ******, Smith "***** ** ***** * *****," Flock ****. * ***** ** ******** lays *** *** *** ****** ** raised ****** ** *****'* ******.

IPVM Image

"Conveyed ****** ***********"

***** ******* ********** **** *** ***-*****, namely ****** ***********, *** *** *******, input **** **** *** ******** ****** and **** ** ** ******* *********** for *** **** *** *** ** is ****. "**** ****, *****, ** fatal ** *** ******** ** *****’* claims," ***** *******.

*** ******* ******* ******:*** *********’* *********** and ********** ******** *********** ****Flock ****** ******** ****** *********** (i.e., Smith’s license plate number and location) to the Department, and played no role whatsoever in attributing any particular conduct to Smith. Instead, the Complaint proves unequivocally that any **** *********** *****’* ******* ***** ****** **** * ******** ************* – or any other data associating any license plate number with particular conduct – is ******* *** ***** ** *** *** ***** ** *****’* ******** ** ***** **** ******** *********. [Emphasis Added.]

Unanswered ********

***** ******* *** ************ ** ********** how *****'* *********** *** **** * "hot ****" *** ********** **** *** missing ******** ** *** ***** *****. In *** ****** ** *******, ***** states **** "*** **********" — ******* Jackson ********, **** ****** — ******* the ******* ***** **** *** ******.

*******, ******* *** ******* ******** ********* in *****'* ******* **** ******* *** police ********** **** ********* ****** ******* the ****.

IPVM Image

*********, * ****** **** *** ***** obtained ******* * ****** ******* ******* indicates **** ******* *** ********* ****** Department *** *** ***, ***** *** both **** ********** ** *** ***** alert, *** ********** ** *****. *** log ****** **** ********* ****** **** "not **** *** *** **** ** flagged."

IPVM Image

***** ****** **** ******* ******** ****** ultimately *** ***** ** **** ******** that *** ************* *** ********** *** days ****** *** ******* ****, **** the ******** *** ***** ** *** hospital. **** *********** ** *** ********* in *** **** ***, *******.

***** ********* **** **** ***** ***** how ** *** **** *** ****. He ******* *** ******* "***** * legal ********** ***** *** ***** ** the *** ** ****** *** ******** of *** ***********/******** **** ***** ** its ************* ** ***** *******."

Likelihood ** *********

***** *****'* ******* ** *********** *** claims *** ******** *** ******* **** unusual ******** *** ***************, ***** *** identified ********** ** *** **** **** will ** *********** *** *** ** surmount.

*** ********, *** **** ** * direct ************ ******* ***** *** ***** makes ** ********* *** ***** ** plausibly ****** **** ***** ****** ***. Flock **** ****** **** ** ******** only *** ********* *** ***** ** police *** **** *** ******* *** customers **** ***** ****** ** *** the ********* *** ***** ****** ** used.

************, ***** ** ********** ** *****'* professional ********* ** ***** ** ******** knowledge ** ********** **********. ****** *** sometimes ******* **** "*** **" ********** who ***'* **** *** *** *****, but **** ** **** ****** ** occur ** * ******* **** **** as *** *** ***** *****.

** **** ******** ** *****, ** a ***** ***** ** *********, ***** also ****** ** ********* *** *****.

*** *****'* ********* *** ******* ********* include ********* *******, ********* ***** ******** through ******** ******** *** ****** ******* requests, *** **** ***** ** **** widespread ******* *** ***** ********* ********. It ** ******** * ***** *** find **** **** ** *** ****** are ********* **** ****** ** ******* to *********.

Comments (1)

Christie Smythe

•Jan 03, 2024

******: ***** *** ***** ************* ** *******,********** ** ******* *****'******** *********. ***** *** **** ********* *** substantive *** ****, ***** **** ******** some ********** ******* ***** ** *****.

***** ******* ****** ** ***** **** Flock "********* * *********** ****-***** ************ with *** ***** ** ****" ***** which ** ******** ****** ** *********** camera, ********, *** **** ************.

** ********, ***** ******:

Smith ********** ********** *****’* ******* “***** ************” **** *** ***** ** ****, ***, ** *******, ***** ****** ********* ********** **** *** ******* *** *** ******** **** * ********** ********. Smith’s Amended Complaint still lacks any allegations of conduct that could plausibly transform Flock into a “state actor” for § 1983 purposes. [Emphasis Added.]

***** **** **** ***** **** *********** made ** ***** **** *** *** camera ****** *** "*********." *** ******* argued ** *** ******:

***** ******* **** *****’* ******* *** defective ** ****** *******“they ****** **** ********** ** *** ********** ***** *** ** *****,”*****, ********* ** *****, ********* “** intentional ****** ********” ******* ***** “***** have ****** *****[*] ** ****** *** information ******** ** *** ******* **** trusted *** *********** ********* **** ** NCIC.” ***** ***********demonstrate *****’* *********** **************** ** *** *** ***** ****** *****.
*****,the **** ** **** *** ******** **** ***** *** ***** ****** ******* ***********; every potential criminal suspect in every jurisdiction is not necessarily listed in the NCIC at any given moment. Second, Smith’s proposed remedy for the Flock ******’* ********* “****** ****” – or any other modification of the camera’s “input *** **** **********” ********* – would not have prevented the underlying traffic stop. [Emphasis Added.]

Reactions:

(1)