OKLAHOMA CITY – Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola, on Thursday led a study on the use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and what he said is their use as a tool for mass surveillance allowing law enforcement to conduct warrantless searches. The study was held before the House Public Safety Committee. Gann looked back at legislation governing the use of ALPRs, which statutorily may only be used to show whether an Oklahoma motorist has automobile insurance. "We were at a crisis level in Oklahoma with the number of uninsured motorists," Gann said, "and the legislation we put in place helped us drastically reduce that number. Now, however, these cameras with the enhanced use of artificial intelligence are monitoring law-abiding citizens in details of their everyday lives. The data is being used well beyond what the law allows." Gann and other study presenters said this infringes on the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Gann and others used existing case law to show that vehicles represent property that cannot be searched without warrant. Gann shared several examples of violations by law enforcement in Oklahoma and other states, including a video of a traffic stop on Interstate 35, in which an officer asked the person pulled over about previous visits to the state – using information obtained without a search warrant or probably cause affidavit. "This represents the mass victimization of the American populace. Our rights are being violated every day," Gann said. Other presenters at the study included criminal defense attorney Shena Burgess, who is also an adjunct professor at the University of Tulsa, College of Law. She spoke about Flock cameras, which are prolific in many communities around the state, and how the data from these cameras is being used in violation of Oklahoma law. She said she was first alerted to illegal use when a Tulsa County sheriff's deputy alluded to information obtained from an ALPR that did not involve a search warrant. She's since taken a deep dive into Tulsa Police Department's policies, which state the cameras enhance the department's ability to detect illegal activity and stop crimes. "Statute is clear that law enforcement shall not use this for any reason other than to enforce the compulsory insurance law," Burgess said. "Permitting law enforcement to use this information for any other reason is in violation of statute. We have to have checks and balances to assure police are not abusing their power." Marven Goodman, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who formerly served as a Logan County commissioner and chief information officer for the Oklahoma Military Department and who now works as an investigative journalist, spoke on the use of the cameras by the cities of Guthrie and Edmond. He said he was able to work with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation to eventually get cameras removed from trailers along State Highway 33, and eventually the city of Guthrie dropped its contract with Flock. He said cameras are now monitoring traffic along State Highway 77 in Edmond, and he's again working with ODOT to stop that. He spoke of how data from the cameras can be used with other information to create a mosaic effect, tracking a person's every movement, whether or not they're suspected of criminal activity. He said this constitutes a violation of privacy and civil liberties. Alasdair Whitney, legislative counsel for Institute for Justice, also spoke about ALPRs and the law. He's pursuing a case in Norfolk, VA, filed by citizens who claim they are being tracked relentlessly without warrant in their everyday lives, from their homes to the store to outings with their family and more. He related 41 million images being compiled over 29 days. "We believe this is not law enforcement but mass surveillance and it's unconstitutional," Whitney said. "It begs the question of whether Americans still have the right to move about freely without being watched constantly by the government." He and others agreed Oklahoma law is very clear on paper, but they are concerned with mission creep and insist the law is not being followed. All presenters agreed they are pro-law enforcement and pro-public safety but not at the expense of citizens' constitutional rights. It was suggested at the end of the study that legislation should be filed to detail consequences for agencies found violating the law.