{
  "version": "3.33",
  "compiled": "2026-10-09",
  "site": "https://stateofwatch.com",
  "claim": {
    "id": "riley-thomas",
    "section": 5,
    "title": "U.S. v. Riley Thomas: court orders a hearing on how Flock was used",
    "date": "Sept 9, 2026",
    "sort": "2026-09-09",
    "status": "verified",
    "checked": "3.19",
    "note": "Docket and order read directly (v3.19). A reconsideration request is pending; treat the hearing order as current but not final. Not a ruling that Flock is unconstitutional.",
    "category": "court",
    "case": "riley-thomas",
    "body": "United States v. Riley Thomas, No. 5:25-cr-00095-PCP (N.D. Cal.), Document 79, Judge P. Casey Pitts. Unlike every other ALPR ruling here, the order does not decide the Fourth Amendment question on the papers. It holds the record insufficient to decide \"whether the particular Flock database search intruded on Thomas's protected privacy rights\" and orders an evidentiary hearing, with Detective Angelo Claussen to testify. On Sept 22, 2026 the government moved for leave to seek reconsideration; no ruling as of Sept 23. The defendant's first name is Riley; this case is unrelated to U.S. v. Riley (C.D. Cal.).",
    "quotes": [
      {
        "text": "Because the lawfulness of both the Flock search and the vehicle search cannot be resolved on the evidence before the Court, it will hold an evidentiary hearing on those matters.",
        "from": "Judge P. Casey Pitts, Doc. 79"
      }
    ],
    "sources": [
      {
        "label": "CourtListener docket 69873978",
        "primary": true,
        "docket": "5:25-cr-00095-PCP"
      },
      {
        "label": "Doc. 79 order (PDF), N.D. Cal.",
        "primary": true
      }
    ],
    "places": [
      "san-jose-ca"
    ],
    "url": "https://stateofwatch.com/claims/riley-thomas"
  }
}