The lawsuit, filed on April 15, 2026, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the City, the San Jose Police Department, and Chief of Police Paul Joseph in his official capacity. The complaint argues that the program violates the Fourth Amendment by creating a "suffocating atmosphere of surveillance" without warrants, probable cause, or individualized suspicion.
According to the filing, the City contracted with technology company Flock Safety to deploy 474 cameras that photograph every passing vehicle day and night. The system uses artificial intelligence to analyze images for license plates, vehicle make, color, and distinctive features like bumper stickers, storing this data in a centralized database.
The complaint states that the system collected over 360 million images in 2024. Data retention was reduced from one year to 30 days following public criticism, but the plaintiffs argue this change is symbolic because a month of tracking still reveals deep insights into habits, associations, and visits to sensitive locations such as places of worship and healthcare facilities.
Access to the database is shared with hundreds of government entities across California, resulting in nearly 2.5 million searches in the last six months of 2025. The filing alleges that officers can run searches based on "hunch, idle curiosity, or even personal animus," and that federal agencies like ICE gained "side-door" access by asking friendly local officers to run searches.
The three plaintiffs, all adult residents of San Jose, allege they are "ordinary, law-abiding people trapped in San Jose’s dragnet" who drive past the cameras daily. They claim the pervasive tracking violates their reasonable expectation of privacy and creates a record of their movements and associations that should remain private.
The suit is brought under the Fourth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983), and the Declaratory Judgment Act. Attorneys Michael B. Soyfer and Robert Frommer of the Institute for Justice, along with Daniel Woislaw of Michel & Associates, P.C., represent the plaintiffs.