NORFOLK, Va. — In public these days, cameras are everywhere, but recently their use in speed enforcement and criminal investigations has been challenged.
Speed cameras in two local cities have come under scrutiny with former state delegate and attorney Tim Anderson suing Chesapeake and Suffolk.
He's also now filed a federal lawsuit.
"Automated policing may have a place, but it still has to comply with constitutional standards," Anderson recently told News 3.
The speed cameras were approved by the General Assembly in 2020. They say drivers going over ten miles an hour in a school zone can be ticketed.
In the latest suit, Anderson is alleging the cameras violate the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says people need to know who their accusers are in court.
Watch related: Norfolk school zone speed camera $100 fine enforcement begins
He says the person who calibrates the camera should have to come to court if someone wants to challenge their ticket.
"The government has to comply with the law. They can't break the law to make money," said Anderson.
Speed camera tickets are considered civil violations, not crimes, but Anderson argues tickets are treated similarly to crimes.
"Virginia law has provided that anyone charged with a traffic offense gets the same rights as those charged with crimes," said Anderson.
While these lawsuits play out, another recent ruling in a criminal case is making similar arguments, but under a different part of the constitution.
In that case, investigators say a man named Jayvon Bell robbed Video Game Heaven in Ghent and then drove by a Flock camera, which took a picture of his minivan.
Watch related: Former Del. Anderson files federal lawsuit over Virginia speed cameras
Police then used that to connect him to the scene of the crime.
An attorney for Bell argued police automatically entered the Flock photo into evidence, saying they needed a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment.
A judge ruled in Bell's favor and the evidence won't be used in the trial.
"We have evidence that's more than sufficient to move forward in this case even without this evidence," said Norfolk Commonwealth's Attorney Ramin Fatehi.
Fatehi told News 3 he respects the judge's ruling, but doesn't agree.
"The use of the Flock system is not a search. It is not a seizure. It does not implicate the Fourth Amendment," said Fatehi.
Watch related: Norfolk to activate speed cameras in school zones; $100 fine after warning period
These Flock cameras are set up all over Hampton Roads, including 172 cameras in Norfolk alone.
The court ruling says all police officers have access to the photos Flock cameras create in the city.
Fatehi says the cameras have helped law enforcement solve crimes and sent News 3 12 press releases of cases involving Flock cameras.
"Flock promotes public safety. It leads to the stop and arrest of people connected to crimes and it protects people's privacy and civil rights," said Fatehi.
Another man named Eddie Robinson Jr. is accused of breaking into a convenience store, stealing lottery tickets, and trying to then cash them in at another store.
A Flock camera links him to the crime. His attorney is also arguing it shouldn't be allowed to be used.
Watch related: Speed camera lawsuit filed against Chesapeake, Suffolk
A judge will hear arguments on that case later this month.
"The great thing about FLOCK is that instead of police officers flooding neighborhoods, pulling people over for pre-textual reasons, asking to search cars, creating the dangerous police-motorist interactions that we've seen all over national news. They are able to police more efficiently with a much lighter touch," said Fatehi.
Anderson is hoping for a similar ruling in his cases.
"If localities really are that worried about work zones and school zones then they should have police out there enforcing the law," he said.
