Personhood + Property
= Privacy
Keep government off your digital lawn
Emily Grimmius, J.D. · Privacy Policy Analyst, Libertas Institute · October 21, 2026
Heard in the Law
Enforcement and Criminal
Justice Interim Committee
meeting on 10-21-26.
The Founders’ fight, in new form

1761
The Writs
General warrants let
officers search anyone,
anywhere

1967
Katz
The Fourth Amendment
protects people, not
places

2001
Kyllo
New technology can’t
shrink what the
founders protected

2012
Jones
A GPS tracker on your
car is a search

2014
Riley
Police need a warrant
to search your phone

2018
Carpenter
Seven days of phone
location records need a
warrant

2026
Chatrie
Even two hours of
saved location history
needs a warrant

Oct. 2026
Kyle
A Flock search is
“indiscriminate mass
surveillance”
Paxton’s Case, Quincy 51 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1761); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001); United States v. Jones, 565 U.S.
400 (2012); Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014); Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018); Chatrie v. United States, 609 U.S. ___ (2026); United States v. Kyle
(N.D. Okla. Oct. 1, 2026).
2
The injuries compound downstream
LEGAL THEORY CONSTITUTIONAL INJURY EXAMPLE




4TH AMENDMENT Capture is a search Every car logged, suspected or not



PROPERTY Retention is its own injury Kept about you without consent¹



4TH AMENDMENT Querying is a second search Queried with no judge



1ST AMENDMENT Speech and association chilled Logged at church, rallies, clinics



14TH AMENDMENT Liberty without due process No notice, no hearing, no remedy
¹ Amy L. Peikoff, The Record, Not the Lens: ALPR Retention, Property, and the Fourth Amendment (SSRN 2026)
3
Misuse is already widespread

6,400+
Salt Lake City police investigations using
plate reader data since 2021, none
approved by a judge
KUER, Aug. 13, 2026

170
documented plate reader abuse incidents
nationwide, including officers tracking
partners, exes, and strangers
Institute for Justice ALPR abuse database, 2026

The Institute for Justice is tracking these cases nationally and will walk through the litigation.
4
And this is only today’s technology
The next tools plug into the same cameras and databases, under the same guardrails.



Phones become plates
SignalTrace sensors log signals from
phones, watches, and earbuds, then
match them to your car.



Face matching on camera data
A vendor is pitching facial recognition for
exported Flock images. Flock says it won’t
add it to its own devices.



Mics that listen for voices
Flock’s gunshot sensors are expanding to
detect human “distress.”



From plate to person
Flock plans to link plate reads to data-
broker “people lookup” services.
Leonardo SignalTrace (Android Authority, Aug. 12, 2026); Vidizmo pitch and Flock CEO statement (Biometric Update, Sept. 30, 2026); Raven (EFF, Oct. 2025); people
lookup (ACLU, Aug. 2025)
5
Seven bills. One framework



FLAGSHIP
The SWORN Act Surveillance Warrants, Oversight, Retention
limits, and Notice



Warrantless Data Evidentiary Exclusion Act



Biometric Liberty Act



Biometric Compelled Unlock Protection Act



Surveillance Technology Registry and Approval Act



Government Surveillance Use Policy and
Reporting Act



No Government Trespass Act
6
The SWORN Act: what it does, and doesn’t

It does


Requires a warrant to search your data


Deletes plate data in 24 hours


Notifies people whose data was accessed


Creates a private right of action


Bars vendors from owning your data


Requires use policies, access logs, and audits

It does not


Ban cameras


Stop stolen-car or hotlist alerts


Block emergencies or Amber alerts


Cover body cams, dash cams, jail cameras


Appropriate any new money

The Founders didn’t write a vague right to “privacy.” They wrote a process: probable cause,
particularity, and a neutral judge.
We’ve set time with law enforcement to work through the details.
7
