Lawsuit Wants to Ban the Tech That Caught My Wife’s Hit-and-Run Driver

A drunk driver hit my wife in a hit-and-run last month. She was injured and is still recovering. Without Flock cameras, that driver would never have been found—and they’d still be on the road, maybe killing someone next time. But Flock found them.

Now a lawsuit wants to shut this technology down in San Francisco. The argument? That tracking license plates on public roads is “Orwellian.”

This Is Personal

Archived tweet

Flock is currently solving 10% of reported crime in the US. My wife was hit in a hit and run last month. (She was injured and is still recovering.) Flock cameras found the drunk driver who hit her. Without Flock, that drunk driver would never be found, and they might have killed someone next. [Quoting @ArmandDoma]: the idea that you have "a right to privacy" for your car's...license plate...in public...is ridiculous https://t.co/NYVoHnWmB1

Garry Tan @garrytan January 01, 2026

Flock is currently solving 10% of reported crime in the United States. This isn’t abstract policy debate for me—it’s about whether the person who hit my wife faces consequences or gets to do it again. Without Flock’s license plate readers, that drunk driver disappears into the night. The case goes cold. My wife’s injuries don’t matter. And that driver might hurt or kill someone else.

This technology works. It solves crimes that would otherwise go unsolved. That’s not theoretical. Our family is living proof at this point. We are relieved the suspect was found and will be held accountable.

The ‘Orwellian’ Lawsuit

A retired school teacher named Michael Moore filed a federal lawsuit earlier this month claiming San Francisco’s use of Flock cameras constitutes an illegal search and violates his 4th Amendment rights. He calls it an “Orwellian surveillance network” tracking his “law-abiding movements.”

His attorney describes it as “the wild, wild West between crime and safety and civil liberties.” The suit seeks to force San Francisco to stop using the technology entirely.

This is the first lawsuit of its kind against SF’s Flock cameras, though similar suits have been filed against Oakland and San Jose. Every licensed driver in San Francisco could potentially join the class action if a federal judge certifies it.

License Plates Are Public By Design

Let’s be clear about what we’re debating here: license plates. Government-issued identifiers that are literally designed to be publicly visible. As Armand Domalewski put it, “the idea that you have ‘a right to privacy’ for your car’s… license plate… in public… is ridiculous.”

License Plate Readers are constitutional under 4th Amendment “plain view” doctrine. Police have long been allowed to access license plate data to ascertain a vehicle’s ownership, the driver’s history, and their home address.

And crucially: Flock does NOT use facial recognition. It’s license plates only. The data has audit trails. SFPD has created a transparency portal showing which agencies have access and has pledged to bar out-of-state searches after earlier access issues.

The Flock Track Record

Remember the Brown University shooting? Law enforcement credited Flock cameras with helping track the rental car that led to identifying and arresting the shooter in New Hampshire. Oakland had just approved a $2.25 million contract for Flock—right before it helped solve that case.

A functioning society protects its citizens. Effective deterrence comes from the speed of apprehension. Cameras enable that speed. Every day these tools are blocked is another day drunk drivers and violent criminals go free.

The Two-Tiered Safety System

Here’s what the “privacy advocates” won’t tell you:

Archived tweet

The alternative to state surveillance isn’t privacy! It’s private surveillance. Wealthy neighborhoods already have Ring networks, private security patrols, and gated access. Opposing public tools like Flock while tolerating privatized equivalents creates a two-tiered system where safety becomes a luxury good.

Garry Tan @garrytan January 01, 2026

The alternative to state surveillance isn’t privacy—it’s private surveillance. Wealthy neighborhoods already have Ring networks, private security patrols, and gated access. Opposing public tools like Flock while tolerating privatized equivalents creates a two-tiered system where safety becomes a luxury good.

Everyone deserves the same tools to catch criminals, not just those who can afford their own surveillance networks. The irony of “progressives” opposing tools that would help working-class crime victims get justice is staggering.

That drunk driver who hit my wife? Without Flock, they’re still out there. Maybe hitting someone else. Maybe killing someone. The “privacy” being protected here is the anonymity of criminals on public roads with government-issued plates that are literally designed to be seen.

Real people are getting hurt while we debate whether license plates in public are private. They’re not. Stop the philosophical hand-wringing and let the tools that solve crimes actually work.

Follow @garrytan for more.