By Brandon L. Burley, M.P.A.
The Redemption Project Newsroom
Commentary

As a retired detective, I have used Flock.

I was there when automated license plate readers first came into my area. The purpose was practical and legitimate. A camera could read the plate of a passing vehicle and compare it against law-enforcement lists.

If the vehicle was stolen or connected to a missing or endangered child, officers could receive an alert while there was still time to act. I saw the value in that. The technology made a familiar police function faster and more effective.

But tools change.

What began as a system for checking plates against specific law-enforcement lists expanded into something larger. Modern systems can preserve when and where a vehicle was seen, catalog visible characteristics, search earlier sightings and share information across jurisdictions.

The original question was narrow: Is this vehicle connected to an immediate law-enforcement concern?

The expanding question is different: Where has this vehicle been, who may have been with it and what do those movements reveal?

As with any pendulum, it can swing too far.

The question is whether it has.

Public view is not the end of the analysis

A police officer standing beside a road can see your car pass. The officer can read the plate and notice its color, damage or stickers. That kind of public observation ordinarily does not require a warrant.

Now imagine cameras photographing the same vehicle throughout a city for a month. Each sighting includes an image, plate number, location and time. Software places those sightings into a searchable database.

An investigator can then work backward.

Where did the vehicle spend Sunday mornings? How often did it visit a medical clinic? Was it parked near a political meeting, church, mosque, synagogue, gun range, protest, defense attorney’s office or another person’s home?

One camera saw a car in public.

The network may reconstruct a life.

Repeated observations can reveal where someone lives, works, worships, receives medical care and meets other people. Investigators sometimes call this a “pattern of life.” The phrase does not automatically make a surveillance practice unconstitutional, but it does describe what accumulated observations can reveal.

The legal question is no longer limited to what one camera saw.

It includes what the network can learn.

Courts are watching accumulated movement records

The Supreme Court has not ruled that every license plate image is a Fourth Amendment search. It has not held that every Flock query requires a warrant. It has not created a simple rule for how long a vehicle may be tracked or how many cameras a city may connect.

But the legal direction is visible.

In United States v. Jones, the Court addressed prolonged GPS tracking of a vehicle. In Carpenter v. United States, the Court protected historical cell-site location information because it revealed the whole of a person’s physical movements.

In 2026, the Court returned to location privacy in Chatrie v. United States. Police investigating a Virginia robbery used a geofence warrant to obtain Google location data for devices near the crime scene. The Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location information.

Those cases are not the same as license plate readers. But they reject the idea that “it happened in public” automatically ends the analysis. A single observation is one thing. A searchable record of movement is something else.

The Fourth Circuit reached a similar concern in Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department. Baltimore’s aerial-surveillance program recorded broad areas of the city, allowing analysts to trace movements backward from crime scenes and combine aerial images with other records.

That decision does not control every camera network. It does show that courts may look at a surveillance system as a whole instead of pretending every image is isolated

Flock is no longer only about plates

Flock describes its cameras as part of a vehicle-intelligence system. Its products can produce real-time alerts and searchable vehicle information, including plate, make, model, color, location, time and other visible characteristics.

Flock says its standard retention period is 30 days, subject to local laws and agency policies. It also says its license plate readers do not use facial recognition, customers control access to their data and searches are preserved in audit trails.

Those are meaningful limits.

They do not answer whether searching 30 days of a vehicle’s movements should be treated like seeing it pass once.

Flock’s expansion is also no longer limited to vehicles. Its FreeForm software allows authorized users to search video using natural-language descriptions, such as a person’s clothing or visible characteristics. Flock says FreeForm does not use facial recognition or biometric identification.

That distinction matters.

Clothing is not identity. Different people can look alike, and one person can change clothes. The results are possible matches, not proof.

The scale still changes. An investigator once had to locate and review cameras individually. A networked search tool can review participating feeds and surface possible matches much faster.

That can help locate a missing child, an armed suspect or someone fleeing a violent crime.

It could also help authorities follow a person from a protest, medical office, political meeting or house of worship without knowing who that person is.

The system is bigger than one camera

The concern grows when plate readers, video search, drones, facial recognition, electronic-device identifiers and real-time crime centers begin reinforcing one another. A plate reader identifies a vehicle. A camera records someone leaving it. A search tool finds similar clothing elsewhere. Another system proposes an identity.

Each step may contain uncertainty.

A registered owner is not always the driver. A clothing match does not prove two images show the same person. A facial-recognition candidate is not a positive identification. A device traveling with a vehicle does not prove who carried it.

Several uncertain inferences do not become certain because software places them on the same screen.

These systems have legitimate public-safety uses. Plate readers can locate stolen vehicles, missing people and vehicles connected to violent crimes. Video search can help find a person before harm occurs. Real-time information can help officers respond more safely.

I understand why police value those tools.

The question is whether the benefits come with limits strong enough to prevent personal misuse, political surveillance and searches unsupported by individualized suspicion.

The boundary is still being drawn

A community does not have to reject every camera to demand boundaries.

Residents, police leaders and elected officials should be able to answer basic questions. How long is the data retained? Who can search it? Which agencies can access it? Are searches independently audited? Are misuse findings disclosed? Are criminal defendants told when these systems contributed to an investigation?

They should also ask harder questions.

When should police need judicial approval before reconstructing where someone has traveled? Can police search across camera networks for a person identified only by clothing? Are searches near medical facilities, houses of worship, political meetings and law offices treated differently?

Those are not anti-police questions.

They are questions about government power.

One officer seeing your car turn onto a public road is public observation.

A network remembering that turn, finding the person who stepped out and replaying both movements from a search box is something more.

Public view is a moment.

A pattern of life is a record.

Courts are still deciding when that record crosses the constitutional line. Communities must decide what they will permit before the technology decides for them.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

The Redemption Project Newsroom

I asked readers a simple question.

When CNN, ABC and NBC decided not to carry President Donald Trump’s July 16 speech live, was that good journalism or censorship?

The answers split quickly.

Some readers called it censorship. Their argument was direct: He is the president. Let the public hear him. Let citizens decide what is true.

Others said it was not censorship at all. The networks are private news organizations, not state media. They have editorial discretion. If a speech is expected to repeat false or unsupported claims, they argued, journalists have a duty to review, verify and contextualize before amplifying it.

Several readers landed in the middle: Air the speech live, label it clearly, fact-check it in real time and follow it with deeper analysis.

That divide is the story.

The most revealing part was that both sides were defending democracy.

One side wanted protection from presidential falsehoods. The other wanted protection from institutional gatekeeping. Both were worried about manipulation. They just disagreed about who was doing it.

That is why this was not a simple censorship story. It was not a simple journalism story either. It was a public-trust story.

The networks had the right to decide what to air. Viewers had the right to ask whether that decision served the public, protected the public or further convinced the public that legacy media no longer trusts them to hear a president speak for themselves.

The historical record complicates both sides.

Subscribe now

Major networks declining to carry a presidential speech live is unusual, but it is not new.

Networks have rejected or skipped live coverage of speeches or requested airtime from presidents of both parties, including Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and now Trump.

The reasons have shifted.

In 1975, CBS and NBC declined to carry Ford’s prime-time address on tax reductions and federal spending, while ABC carried it. The issue then was not misinformation. It was late notice, scheduling and whether the speech justified interrupting network programming.

In the 1980s, networks declined more than one Reagan request involving aid to the Nicaraguan Contras, including a 1987 speech that networks reportedly viewed as offering little new information. Clinton canceled a planned 2000 Oval Office appeal on China trade after major networks declined airtime.

Bush’s 2002 Cincinnati speech deserves special attention. ABC, CBS and NBC did not carry it live in full, though cable and other outlets did. In hindsight, that decision stands out because the speech was part of the administration’s public case against Iraq, not merely a campaign-style address.

The Obama comparison is especially important. In 2014, ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox declined to interrupt prime-time broadcast programming for Obama’s immigration address. Cable news, digital platforms, PBS and Univision carried it. A network insider described the address as too “overtly political” for broadcast preemption.

Biden faced a similar line in 2022 when ABC, CBS and NBC did not carry his Independence Hall speech live on their broadcast networks. The speech warned about threats to democracy and sharply criticized Trump and election denial.

So the factual answer is clear: Trump is not the first president major networks declined to carry live. This has not happened only to Republicans.

But that does not settle the argument.

Viewers do not only ask whether something has happened before. They ask who made the decision, which president was speaking and whether the outlet’s perceived political leaning made the decision look partisan.

That is where the July 16 speech hit a deeper nerve.

AllSides, a media-bias rating organization, rates CNN Digital, ABC News Online and NBC News Digital as Lean Left. AllSides says its ratings reflect the average view of Americans, not one individual. That does not prove motive. It does help explain why many Trump supporters did not experience the decision as neutral news judgment.

Precedent answers whether this has happened before.

Bias perception answers why people do not experience every refusal the same way.

The medium also changed the meaning of refusal.

In 1975, losing two of three broadcast networks sharply limited national access. By 2014, when major English-language broadcast networks declined Obama’s immigration address, viewers could still find it on cable, PBS, Univision and online. By 2026, Trump’s speech was still available through Fox, portions of CBS and MS Now, streaming and social platforms.

That does not make broadcast refusal meaningless. It changes what the refusal means.

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

The issue today is less about whether a president can be seen at all and more about whether major networks will place a president’s words before their mass audiences live and without advance review.

The July 16 case also raised a sharper editorial question than scheduling. ABC, NBC and CNN decided not to air Trump’s remarks live. CNN said it would cover the speech as a news event by monitoring the remarks and providing analysis and commentary. The Guardian reported that CBS, Fox News and MS Now aired at least large portions of the speech live, while ABC and NBC offered streaming access instead of carrying it on their main broadcast networks.

That is different from simply saying a speech is not important enough to preempt entertainment programming.

It asks whether a news organization should carry a president live when it expects materially false or unverified claims.

That question is not absurd.

Presidents can mislead. So can candidates, agencies, police departments, corporations and advocacy groups. Journalism is not stenography. It is not the job of a free press to broadcast every claim from power as if public office itself makes the claim true.

But the other concern is not absurd either.

A president is not just another pundit. When major networks say, in effect, “We will listen first, then decide what viewers should hear,” many citizens hear something larger than editorial caution.

They hear gatekeeping.

They hear institutional distrust.

They hear legacy media telling the public: We will decide when your president’s words are safe enough for you.

Legally, censorship usually means government suppression. A private network declining to air a speech is generally editorial discretion, not state censorship.

Civically, the word is messier.

Many viewers use “censorship” to describe powerful institutions deciding what information reaches the public, even when government is not forcing the decision. That may not be the legal definition, but it is a real trust signal.

The best answer may be the one several readers offered: carry the speech, label it clearly, fact-check in real time and follow with deeper analysis.

Do not pretend every presidential address deserves wall-to-wall coverage.

Do not pretend every refusal is tyranny.

But do not underestimate what happens when the public already distrusts the press and the press appears to say, “Hear it from us later.”

A free press does not owe a president a live microphone.

But if the press wants public trust, it must understand why so many Americans hear “we will review it first” and translate it as “we do not trust you to listen.”

My readers were not really arguing about one Trump speech.

They were arguing about the chain of trust in American democracy.

Can we trust the president to speak truthfully?

Can we trust the press to filter fairly?

Can we trust citizens to hear raw information and think for themselves?

That is not only Trump’s problem.

It is not only CNN’s problem.

It is the civic wound underneath the whole fight.

And it will outlast one speech.

Leave a comment

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

By Brandon Burley
The Redemption Project Newsroom

As a Detective, when I first encountered automated license plate reader technology in law enforcement, I understood the appeal.

If a crime happened in a specific place at a specific time, the tool could help investigators identify vehicles that passed nearby. It could help locate a stolen car. It …

Read more

Money is damaging American elections.

Not always by breaking the law.

That part matters.

A lot of the money moving through modern politics is legal. Super PACs can raise and spend large sums. Independent groups can support or oppose candidates. Wealthy donors, corporations, unions, nonprofits and poli…

Read more

With early voting approaching in Tennessee’s Republican primary for governor, front-runner Marsha Blackburn is facing renewed questions over debates, media access and whether voters will get to compare the candidates directly before casting ballots.

Blackburn, a sitting U.S. senator, is running against Republican opponents including U.S. Rep. John Rose a…

Read more

By Brandon Burley
The Redemption Project Newsroom

Tennessee has several child-related controversies moving at once.

One involves seriously sick immigrant children enrolled in a state health program. Another involves federal civil-rights complaints accusing the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services of failures involving children with disabilities, placements, removals, records and family rights. Others involve broader litigation and federal scrutiny around Tennessee’s foster-care and juvenile-justice systems.

They are separate cases, with different agencies, statutes and legal questions.

But they raise a shared public concern: whether Tennessee’s child-serving systems can provide care, process and accountability when the stakes are highest.

It is easy to sort the stories by category.

Immigrant children. Foster children. Disabled children. Children in state custody. Children in health programs. Children whose parents are accused of neglect. Children in facilities. Children in court.

That is how systems sort people.

It is not how the public should think about them first.

Before the category, there is the child.

That is the point Tennessee needs to sit with.

This is not a legal-versus-illegal story. It is not a partisan story. It cannot be reduced to one lawmaker, one lawsuit, one agency letter or one court order.

It is a care story.

And care is one of the hardest tests of government.

Government is not the family. It is not the church. It is not the neighbor, the doctor or the foster parent sitting at a kitchen table trying to calm a child after a placement move.

But government still has duties.

Subscribe now

Read more

Yesterday, you saw the newsroom put out this article: “Federal license plate reader proposal reopens debate over public safety, privacy and local control”, here’s my take on it.

by Brandon Burley and The Redemption Project

Automated license plate readers are useful public safety tools.

They are also systems for collecting location data.

Both things can be…

Read more

By Brandon Burley
The Redemption Project Newsroom

Amazon Deals! $29.97

Owala FreeSip Insulated Stainless Steel Water Bottle with Straw, BPA-Free Sports Water Bottle, Great for Travel, 24 Oz, Very, Very Dark

A Tennessee judge has temporarily blocked the state from reporting identifying information about roughly 400 seriously sick and disabled immigrant children to immigration authorities.

That sentence is going to make people choose teams before they think.

Some will hear “immigrant children” and assume the state is cruel.

Others will hear “not lawfully present” and assume the doctors are helping people break the law.

That is the trap.

The real story is harder, more human and more important than the slogans.

Get 40% off forever

Read more

Military service carries deep meaning in American life.

Honor.

Duty.

Sacrifice.

Family legacy.

National obligation.

But support for the military is not the same as support for a military draft.

That difference sits at the center of one of the most attention-grabbing questions in the new national registered-voter poll from Overton Insights.

The poll asked: “If President Trump implemented a military draft, would you support or oppose it?”

Overall, 11% said they would strongly support it. Another 14% said they would somewhat support it.

On the other side, 7% said they would somewhat oppose it, and 59% said they would strongly oppose it.

Another 9% were not sure or had no opinion.

Put simply, 25% supported the idea, while 66% opposed it.

That is not mild hesitation.

That is broad resistance to one of the strongest powers government can exercise over a citizen’s life

A draft is different from supporting the troops

The United States has a long tradition of honoring military service.

That does not mean Americans want compulsory military service.

A draft is not a parade.

It is not a bumper sticker.

It is not thanking a veteran at a ballgame.

A draft is the government telling citizens they may be required to serve in war.

That changes the conversation immediately.

A person can respect the military and oppose a draft.

A person can support national defense and oppose forced service.

A person can believe some wars are necessary and still want a very high burden of proof before government compels citizens to fight them.

Those positions are not contradictions.

They are evidence that Americans often separate respect for service from trust in political leaders to demand service.

That separation matters.

Opposition was broad

Read more

Read more

What stood out to me wasn’t the headline or even the premise. It was the response.

In less than 24 hours, the comment section turned into a serious discussion between people who rarely occupy the same space: business owners, landlords, policy-minded readers, and practitioners who deal with reentry every day. The tone wasn’t ideological. It was practical. Sometimes uncomfortable. Often honest.

Several themes kept surfacing.

Employers talked about risk—not abstract fear, but liability, insurance, customer trust, and workplace safety. Landlords raised concerns about housing stability and accountability. Others pointed to data showing that employment is one of the strongest predictors of reduced recidivism, yet remains one of the hardest barriers for returning citizens to overcome.

Share Brandon Burley

What struck me most was this:
Most people weren’t opposed to second chances. They were unsure how to offer them responsibly.

That tension matters.

We talk a lot about crime, punishment, and accountability. We talk far less about what happens after someone has served their sentence—even though that phase determines whether they become a repeat offender or a stable neighbor.

Second-chance hiring sits right in the middle of that gap. It forces us to reconcile two truths at once: public safety requires accountability, and long-term safety requires opportunity.

I don’t pretend this is simple. Not every role is appropriate. Not every offense is the same. Employers shouldn’t be shamed into risk they can’t manage. But ignoring the employment barrier altogether guarantees one outcome: higher recidivism and less stable communities.

If you haven’t read the piece yet, you can find it here (paywalled):
[link]

I’m more interested, though, in continuing the conversation beyond one city or one comment section.

So I’ll ask you the same question I’ve been asking elsewhere:

What is the biggest practical obstacle to second-chance hiring in your world—and what would make it workable?

I read every reply. And I think we get better answers when we’re willing to wrestle with the hard parts instead of skipping them.

Subscribe now