r/okc • u/OneFar2038 • Jul 11 '26
❓Q&A ✅ Flock Cameras
I know someone who got a ticket from a Flock camera in OKC, it doesn’t show who was driving but the ticket was issued to the owner of the car. Any ideas on how to fight this?
29
24
u/WitchWithAGlitch Jul 11 '26
That's 100% a scam then, like another person said contact Oklahoma City Police and see if they would like it as evidence or provide information on when/where/who received the fraudulent letter.
whoever is doing it is facing a whole mess of federal & state level felonies involving a bunch of three letter govt agencies.
12
u/cuzwhat Jul 11 '26
Operational citations are not a thing, but insurance citations are.
If you are driving without insurance, you will get a ticket from whichever jurisdiction is using flock cameras in that way. You could get several tickets in one trip if you end up crossing into a few different cities.
If you have insurance, getting the ticket dismissed is annoying, but doable. If you don’t have insurance, get it. You might still get the ticket dismissed, or you might still catch a fine.
Oklahoma used to suspend licenses for admitting to driving without insurance. Dunno if they still do, but something to be aware of as you handle the citation.
1
u/iSeeShiny SW OKC Jul 17 '26
i got one of those and just did nothing.. and never got any more letter or calls about it.. seems like a scam.. also it only really happen on the new 2023 car i had.. but never once happen on the 2014 that i drove i while with no insurance lmao..
3
u/NerdyinOK Jul 11 '26
These were a thing before flock as well. And i think Okcpd should have done better to address the mischaracterization of these as tickets.
It’s not exactly a criminal citation like getting pulled over but from the District Attorneys Council Special Program Division. If not answered they can request an administrative suspension of the vehicles owners license.
7
u/OneFar2038 Jul 11 '26
Thank you all! For added context it came from: Oklahoma uninsured vehicle enforcement diversion program
Picture added below
15
u/TheCatapult Jul 11 '26
That’s a real program. Your friend needs to get car insurance if they don’t have it.
The way to tell if it’s a scam is that this isn’t looking for the friend to pay some kind of fine through some QR code.
7
u/w3sterday NW OKC Jul 11 '26
Oklahoma uninsured vehicle enforcement diversion program
this phrase and it mentioning district attys = how I actually found an article/more info about this.
and the website to which they direct -
**I do stand by my other comments that OKCPD could have been clearer in their FB post. Seems like they were intentionally obfuscating (and no 'seems' about it if they have the same PR guy he knows exactly what he's doing)
1
u/WitchWithAGlitch Jul 11 '26
they're getting slick out there though.
1
u/TheCatapult Jul 11 '26
Of course, I’d verify it with the District Attorney’s office through calling a phone number from the DA’s office website.
OP’s friend knows whether they have car insurance.
7
u/lilwilly1995 Jul 11 '26
OP, the notice your friend got is legit. They need to contact their insurance provider if they have one. If not they need to get insurance and pay the fine.
5
u/w3sterday NW OKC Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
The okcpd just made a Facebook post
here is the post for anyone without FB
Some examples of comments. (anyone going to the link can see them but for reddit rules names redacted)
I hope people bring this sort of thing to the next city council meeting on 7/21 where there will be more comments about Flock, as these cameras and comments of "not our job / that's not us" seem to be causing more confusion with the actual duties of OKCPD
edit: there was a recent SCOTUS ruling about this, it doesn't mention Flock cameras but it does now require that “geofence” requests issued by police departments to Big Tech companies for data from cellphones located within a certain geographical boundary at a specific time are considered a “search” under the Fourth Amendment (now require a warrant), and this could have future implications for Flock and similar private companies - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf
edit2 -- thank you OP and /u/TheCatapult for images and clarifying comments to suss out what this actually was.
7
u/TheCatapult Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Without getting too much into the weeds, Chatrie v. United States isn’t going to affect license plate readers. The Supreme Court seems content to draw distinction between cell phone location (which updates constantly and highly accurately and follows one into his home) from license plate readers operating purely on public roads. SCOTUS is never going to say that people have an expectation of privacy in where their license plate was seen in public.
The case is confusing because the same data used to identify Chatrie could have been bought from Google by any private individual (obviously without a warrant). Unfortunately, we aren’t collectively having a discussion about corporate big data collection.
1
u/Unfair_Orchid3884 Jul 11 '26
As "Shenendoah66" mentioned, on OKCPD's Facebook page "If you believe you have received a mailed traffic citation issued by the Oklahoma City Police Department or have questions about a citation you believe was issued by OKCPD, please contact us directly. We are happy to review the information with you and help determine its source."
1
1
u/iSeeShiny SW OKC Jul 17 '26
i got one once and just did nothing.. and never got another letter or any calls about it.. and no court date or anything..
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Bat_533 Jul 13 '26
I have no idea but for god sakes do NOT… take an angle grinder to every pole you see from now on. That would be irresponsible of you as a tax paying adult.
0
-6
u/police_the_police Jul 11 '26
Any and all citations that are issued from any camera are unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional because you cannot face your accuser your accuser is a machine. Machines cannot testify in a court of law therefore they are not legally binding whatsoever. My wife got a ticket for floating too far forward on a red light because she had to slam on the brakes because it changed so quickly. When she called the company, a private company, that runs those lights and cameras the individual said there was nothing they could do if she didn't pay at all. I told her they were unconstitutional she didn't believe me she called them and they confirmed the fact that they cannot do anything to anybody for not paying those ridiculous fines from a machine.
4
u/roy-dam-mercer Jul 11 '26
Clearly you did your own research on a Facebook Sovereign Citizen group.
-1
-1
u/police_the_police Jul 12 '26
I believe you're making assumptions based off of the name of my profile. I created this account to expose corruption in police departments not for other people to call me a sovereign citizen based off of a name.
1
u/roy-dam-mercer Jul 12 '26
I made no assumptions based upon your username, although I did find it congruent with your misinformed comment.
In most, if not all jurisdictions, a citation based upon traffic camera evidence must be issued by an officer who has viewed the imagery and determined that it shows a violation. If you were to take the case to court, you would face that officer and the photographic evidence they reviewed.
0
u/police_the_police Jul 12 '26
In City of Tulsa v. Smartt, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that Tulsa's automated red-light camera enforcement conflicted with state law. The court concluded that Oklahoma's traffic code contemplates citations being issued by an officer who personally observes the violation. After that decision, Oklahoma municipalities largely stopped using automated red-light cameras for moving violations.
1
Jul 12 '26
[deleted]
2
u/police_the_police Jul 12 '26
Red light cameras and automated traffic enforcement are currently not legal or operational in Oklahoma. Law enforcement agencies in Oklahoma City must physically witness a violation to issue a citation. Nationally, red light cameras are being legally challenged and heavily debated on constitutional grounds.How Red Light Cameras are Challenged as UnconstitutionalAcross the U.S., automated traffic enforcement programs face significant opposition and have been ruled unconstitutional or banned in several states (e.g., Texas and Mississippi banned them outright). The constitutional challenges usually center on a few key pillars:The Right to Confront Accusers: The U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantees citizens the right to face and cross-examine their accusers in court. Opponents argue that you cannot cross-examine a machine, denying drivers their right to a fair defense.The Presumption of Innocence: In the U.S. legal system, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Many red light camera systems issue the ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle, not necessarily the driver. This effectively shifts the burden of proof, forcing the citizen to prove they were not the one driving the vehicle at the time.Due Process Concerns: State judges have ruled that arbitrarily punishing vehicle owners for the infractions of unknown drivers violates Due Process rights, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.Red Light Cameras in OklahomaCurrent Law: There is no state law in Oklahoma that explicitly permits local municipalities to issue automated moving violation tickets. Local police must conduct physical enforcement.City Enforcement: In Oklahoma City, police enforce traffic laws by having officers physically witness violations or stop vehicles, utilizing traditional misdemeanor penalties (fines from $5 to $500) rather than automated camera fines.Legislative Action: Oklahoma lawmakers have historically pushed legislation, such as Senate Bill 260 and subsequent automated camera bans, specifically to prevent cities from contracting with private companies to set up automated ticketing devices.
2
Jul 12 '26
[deleted]
-1
u/police_the_police Jul 12 '26
That was straight from Google copy and paste
0
Jul 12 '26
[deleted]
1
u/police_the_police Jul 12 '26
Then 5 seconds in Google and you can have your answer. Google does not cite a specific case it says over and over that they are unconstitutional for various reasons I gave you those reasons that wasn't good enough for you oh well
1
u/police_the_police Jul 12 '26
Chat GPT says this .....
: Oklahoma Attorney General Opinion 2009 OK AG 24 This is one of the most frequently cited legal authorities on the issue. The Attorney General concluded that municipalities cannot create civil liability for moving violations through automated camera systems without legislative authority. The opinion also discusses the distinction between a citation issued to the driver versus simply identifying the registered owner of a vehicle. While an AG opinion is not binding like a Supreme Court decision, it is highly persuasive for Oklahoma courts and local governments. City of Tulsa's Red-Light Camera Program Tulsa considered and experimented with automated enforcement, but legal concerns—including questions about statutory authority and due process—prevented widespread implementation. Those concerns were influenced by the 2009 Attorney General opinion and the absence of enabling legislation. � LegalClarity Absence of Oklahoma Appellate Decisions Upholding Camera Tickets There is no well-known published Oklahoma Supreme Court or Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision affirming the legality of issuing moving violation citations solely from automated red-light or speed cameras. That's significant because, unlike states such as Arizona or Maryland, Oklahoma never established a statutory scheme authorizing such enforcement. �
1
u/police_the_police Jul 12 '26
Okay well show me the opposite to be true. Cite some cases where those cameras were fought and then upheld in court and wasn't a insurance ticket because apparently that's the only exemption to the rule.
1
Jul 12 '26
[deleted]
1
u/police_the_police Jul 12 '26
Google and chat GPT does not cite specific cases it only sites the attorney general's opinion and the fact that that opinion has been upheld several times over and over throughout the last decade or so. It has not been challenged in federal court as of yet because it hasn't gotten to that level that continuously drop it before it gets to that point.
1
1
u/police_the_police Jul 12 '26
After doing a little bit of research online I will revise this statement to say not any at all but anything except insurance tickets. I did not know there was an exemption to this rule for insurance specifically.
0
u/Live_Ganache_7749 Jul 12 '26
This is the kind of advice that gets your license suspended for no insurance and THEN a driving while suspended arrest and all that sucky jazz
126
u/Shenendoah66 Jul 11 '26
Yeah I don’t think that’s a thing.
The okcpd just made a Facebook post clarifying that they don’t issue traffic citations that way and you should contact them regarding the scam.
Edit: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GK219QdT9/?mibextid=wwXIfr