Skip to content
STATEOF WATCH

FILE v3.35COMPILED 2026-10-15NO COOKIES · NO TRACKERS · NO ACCOUNTS

A public record of howU.S. surveillance is expanding,and exactly how sure we are.

Contracts, court rulings, data sharing, face recognition, and license-plate cameras, 2025 to now. Each fact is its own entry, tagged verified, partial, or retracted, and opens to its source chain: the court, the docket number, the exact quote.

When we get something wrong, the correction is published as a before and after. What we couldn't verify is listed, not hidden. Not a news site. Not a campaign.

Read the record What we got wrongHow this works
88 verified
A primary document or named outlet, fetched directly.
10 partial
Real, with a gap that is stated.
2 retracted
Checked and pulled, or never supported. Kept visible so it isn't repeated.
24 entries tied to one place, cycling. All of them are on the map.

New and updated in v3.35

Since the last version

All 100 entries →

01

What is expanding

Named contracts, dated rulings, sourced numbers.

02

How sure

Every entry carries its own tag and its own sources.

03

What changed

79 corrections, each as a before and after.

04

What's unresolved

9 open questions and 5 cut claims, in the open.

Live threads

Cases still moving

All 13 cases →

No. 1:26-cv-04977-NYW

Elser v. Flock

Colorado lawsuit over a theft charge built on Flock history, with class claims against Flock.

Complaint filed Oct 5, 2026. Bow Mar has waived service; no defendant has responded.

Next · not settled

Bow Mar's answer due

Set by Bow Mar's waiver of service (Doc. 8). The other defendants' deadlines are not yet on the docket. A telephonic scheduling conference is set for Jan 6, 2027.

Pending
Responses from Flock, Columbine Valley, Milliman and Cottrell.

1 document (PDF) →

as of 2026-10-09

No. 4:26-cr-00189-SEH

U.S. v. Kyle

Whether a month of warrantless plate-reader history is a Fourth Amendment search.

Motion to suppress granted Oct 1, 2026 (Doc. 62). The Oct 6 trial was stricken; Kyle was released on conditions Oct 5.

Next · not settled

Any government appeal to the Tenth Circuit

A government appeal of a suppression order is normally due within 30 days. No notice of appeal as of Oct 9, 2026.

Sealed or restricted
Doc. 48 (defense filing, Aug 3, 2026)
Doc. 56 (government motion, Aug 26, 2026)
Pending
Whether the government appeals the suppression order.

1 document (PDF) →

as of 2026-10-09

No. 26A308

DHS v. League of Women Voters

Stay application over the expanded SAVE voter-verification program.

Stay granted Sept 25, 2026, Justices Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting. Judge Sooknanan's June 22 order is on hold through the D.C. Circuit appeal and any petition for certiorari.

Next · not settled

D.C. Circuit decision on the appeal (No. 26-5243)

No argument date was scheduled as of Oct. 2, 2026. The parties filed a proposed briefing schedule that day; the source reviewed does not show whether the court adopted it.

Pending
Consolidated D.C. Circuit appeals, Nos. 26-5243 and 26-5301.

13 documents (PDF) →

as of 2026-10-02

Start with these

All 100 entries →

Corrections are the method

What we got wrong, left in the open.

v3.34

Corrected

Riley Thomas: a paraphrase was shown as the judge's words

Was

The order holds the record insufficient to decide "whether the particular Flock database search intruded on Thomas's protected privacy rights."

Now

Without more information on how Flock works and how the detective used the data, the court "cannot determine whether its use constituted an intrusion into Thomas's constitutionally protected privacy rights."

+ Show word diff

The order holdsWithout more information on how Flock works and how the record insufficient to decidedetective used the data, the court "cannot determine whether the particular Flock database search intruded onits use constituted an intrusion into Thomas's constitutionally protected privacy rights."

Why: The order (Doc. 79) was re-read in full from the court record on Oct 9, 2026. The words we had in quotation marks are not in it; the second version is the order's own wording, at page 10. The meaning was close, but a paraphrase should never be presented as the judge's words.

U.S. v. Riley Thomas: court orders a hearing on how Flock was used →

The whole ledger →