Flock camera use cited in convicted NTX robber's appeal

A convicted robber wants to overturn his conviction because flock cameras were used as evidence. Hello, everybody. I'm Heather Hayes. And I'm Steve Eager. It's nine o'clock. Charles Brownlee was linked to five armed robberies across North Texas in 2024. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison, but he is arguing that the flock cameras used in the investigation should not be allowed under the Constitution. Fox 4's Amelia Jones has more on the appeal. Amelia. I spoke with an attorney not involved in this case. He says this case could bring to a head the debate between Flock's effectiveness in fighting crime and privacy concerns we've seen across the country. Charles Brownlee is serving a 60-year prison sentence for robbing five cash loan businesses in the Metroplex. Evidence presented at the March 2025 trial showed Brownlee robbed the businesses, including this one in Grapevine, at gunpoint. Authorities were able to link him to the five armed robberies by tracing his movements with flock cameras. His attorneys are now appealing the verdict, arguing the use of the AI-powered camera system violates Brownlee's constitutional rights. There's a history argument here that has been, people have made it about a lot of different kinds of electronic surveillance, but it's become very popular with flock in the last year or so. David Cole is a constitutional law attorney not involved in this case. The three-judge panel heard oral arguments on this case earlier this month. The defense argues that collecting Flock camera data resembles a general search, which conflicts with the Fourth Amendment's protection against searches without probable cause. What you have here, which is in the space of two and a half hours, they're able to find literally a needle in a haystack. But they didn't even know the needle they were looking for when they started looking at that two and a half hours. The Department of Justice argued the cameras captured information visible in public and the data is episodic, meaning it's not actively tracking vehicles. Everybody can see you. And so, yeah, the flock camera records a lot of information, but it's a lot of information that anybody can record. And in fact, in their briefing in this case, the government says there's nothing the flock camera caught that other cameras didn't also catch. The argument comes as privacy concerns over flock cameras is growing nationwide. In a similar case out of Oklahoma, a US district judge ruled that the use of flock data violated a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights. Cole says the ruling issued by the three judge panel will likely have an impact on future cases involving flock data. What I would expect them to do is whichever way they rule to say, here are the three or four key factors that led us to put this case on this side of the line or that side of the line. There is no deadline for the federal court to issue a ruling, but Cole says this court generally rules 90 days after hearing an argument. Oral arguments were made in this case on October 5th.