U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.

United States v. Riley Thomas

Whether a particular Flock search intruded on a defendant's privacy rights.

Docket: No. 5:25-cr-00095-PCP
Judge: Judge P. Casey Pitts
Where it stands: Evidentiary hearing ordered Sept 9, 2026 (Doc. 79). Government moved Sept 22 for leave to seek reconsideration.

Pending

Ruling on the government's request for leave to seek reconsideration.

Docket timeline

2026-09-09
Order for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 79).
2026-09-22
Government moves for leave to seek reconsideration.

as of 2026-09-23

Entries in the record

Sept 9, 2026 · San Jose, CAverifiedU.S. v. Riley Thomas: court orders a hearing on how Flock was used

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.).

How we know: 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.

Full record →checked v3.19

“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.”

Judge P. Casey Pitts, Doc. 79

Source chain

01CourtListener docket 69873978primarydocket 5:25-cr-00095-PCPlink being reconstructed
02Doc. 79 order (PDF), N.D. Cal.primarylink being reconstructed