Report on Surveillance Technology and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals in Greers Ferry, Arkansas

Case Summary

A legal challenge has been initiated by the Institute for Justice (IJ), a national nonprofit law firm, against the city of Greers Ferry, Arkansas, concerning the use of a license-plate reading camera. The case highlights significant tensions between public security measures and the protection of fundamental rights, with direct implications for several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Surveillance Implementation and Legal Challenge

Contract and Installation

In September 2024, the city of Greers Ferry contracted with Flock Group, Inc. for the installation of five license-plate reading cameras. One camera, installed in May on Lone Pine Road South, was positioned directly opposite the residence of a retired couple, Charlie and Angie Wolf, enabling the continuous monitoring of all visitors to their home.

Resident Objections and Official Response

The residents raised immediate concerns about privacy and potential Fourth Amendment violations. Their requests for the camera’s repositioning were dismissed by city officials.

1. Mr. Wolf requested that Police Chief Kallen Lacy reposition the camera, but was told, “it’s not moving.”
2. The Wolfs sent a formal letter to the Greers Ferry City Council detailing their constitutional concerns.
3. At a July 8 city council meeting, City Attorney Blake Spears advised the residents to “get a court order” if they wanted the camera moved.

Constitutional Arguments by the Institute for Justice

The Institute for Justice intervened, citing grave constitutional issues. The firm argues that the constant, suspicionless surveillance of the Wolfs’ home constitutes an unreasonable search, violating the Fourth Amendment. Key arguments include:

• The Fourth Amendment must provide at least the same level of privacy protection as was available at its adoption in 1791, when such surveillance technology did not exist.
• The creation of a surveillance network of “unblinking eyes” infringes upon the reasonable expectation of privacy citizens have in their daily lives.
• Legal precedents in Colorado and South Dakota have struck down similar uses of constant surveillance technology.

Analysis through the Lens of Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

This case directly relates to the core principles of SDG 16, which aims to build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice

The legal action by the Institute for Justice on behalf of the Wolfs is a clear effort to uphold the rule of law—specifically, the U.S. Constitution—and ensure that citizens have access to justice when they believe their fundamental rights are violated by government actions.

Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions

The response from Greers Ferry officials raises questions regarding institutional accountability and transparency. The dismissal of resident concerns suggests a lack of responsive governance, a key component for developing the effective institutions envisioned by SDG 16.

Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms

The central issue is the protection of fundamental freedoms, namely the right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches. The deployment of mass surveillance technology without specific cause challenges these freedoms, which are critical for a just and peaceful society.

Broader Implications for Sustainable Development

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The use of pervasive surveillance impacts the goal of creating safe and inclusive communities. While intended to enhance security, such technology can undermine the sense of privacy and safety within one’s own home (Target 11.1), a cornerstone of a sustainable community.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The report highlights a growing concern that data from Flock cameras is shared with federal agencies, including Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE). This practice has the potential to disproportionately target immigrant communities, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities and working against the aims of SDG 10.3 (Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome).

Legislative Context and Recommendations

Arkansas Act 668

A new state law, Act 668, expands the use of license-plate readers to private landowners and commercial businesses. Crucially, it removes prohibitions on sharing the collected data, potentially enabling wider distribution to federal agencies and undermining data privacy protections. This legislative change presents a significant challenge to achieving the institutional accountability promoted by SDG 16.

Demands and Potential Outcomes

The Institute for Justice has issued a formal demand to the city of Greers Ferry with the following requirements:

• The immediate removal of the camera from its position opposite the Wolf residence.
• The termination of the city’s contract with Flock Group, Inc. upon its expiration in September.

Failure to comply may result in litigation, which would further test the balance between modern security technologies and the constitutional frameworks that support just and sustainable societies.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   This goal is central to the article, which revolves around a legal and civil rights dispute between citizens and their local government. The issues of privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment, access to justice, the accountability of public officials (police and city council), and the rule of law are all core components of SDG 16.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   The article connects the use of license-plate reading cameras to potential inequalities. It highlights that the data collected by these cameras is shared with federal Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), which can disproportionately target and affect immigrant communities, thereby creating or exacerbating inequalities.

3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   This goal is relevant through its focus on partnerships. The article details a public-private partnership between the city of Greers Ferry and Flock Group, Inc., the camera provider. It also discusses the role of a civil society organization, the Institute for Justice, in holding this partnership accountable and advocating for citizens’ rights.

Specific Targets Identified

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

    The article directly addresses this target. The Institute for Justice is pushing for the city of Greers Ferry to adhere to the rule of law, specifically the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Wolf family is seeking access to justice by first appealing to the city council and then engaging a law firm to demand the removal of the camera, threatening litigation if the city does not comply. The city attorney’s response, “If you want the camera moved, my suggestion would be to get a court order,” explicitly points the citizens toward the legal system to seek justice.

  • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

    The actions of the Greers Ferry Police Chief and City Council demonstrate a lack of accountability and transparency. Police Chief Kallen Lacy’s blunt refusal to reposition the camera (“it’s not moving”) and the city council’s dismissive stance towards the Wolfs’ concerns highlight institutions that are not responsive to the citizens they serve. The entire conflict stems from a perceived lack of accountability from these public institutions.

  • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.

    This target is at the heart of the issue. The article focuses on the protection of a fundamental freedom: the right to privacy from unreasonable searches. The Institute for Justice argues that constant surveillance from “unblinking eyes” violates the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, the passage of Arkansas Act 668, which expands who can use these cameras and removes prohibitions on data sharing, is a legislative action that directly impacts this fundamental freedom.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

    The article implies this target is at risk. It reports that Flock camera data is shared with ICE through local law enforcement requests. A report from 404 Media found “more than 4,000 nation and statewide lookups by local and state police done either at the behest of the federal government or as an ‘informal’ favor to federal law enforcement, or with a potential immigration focus.” This practice can lead to discriminatory outcomes by specifically targeting immigrant populations, thus increasing inequality.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.

    The article provides a case study of such partnerships. There is a public-private partnership between the Greers Ferry government and Flock Group, Inc. However, the effectiveness and ethical implications of this partnership are being challenged by a civil society organization, the Institute for Justice. This demonstrates the critical role civil society plays in monitoring these partnerships to ensure they do not infringe on public rights.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

• For Target 16.3 (Access to Justice):

  • An implied indicator is the number of legal challenges and lawsuits filed by citizens or civil society groups against government surveillance. The article mentions the threat of litigation in Greers Ferry and active lawsuits in Colorado, South Dakota, and Virginia.

• For Target 16.6 (Accountable Institutions):

  • An indicator is the responsiveness of public officials to citizen complaints. The article provides a qualitative measure of this through the direct quotes of the Police Chief and city attorney, showing a lack of responsiveness.
  • The existence and public transparency of contracts between government bodies and private surveillance companies, such as the one between Greers Ferry and Flock, can serve as another indicator.

• For Target 16.10 (Protect Fundamental Freedoms):

  • An indicator is the existence and content of legislation governing surveillance technologies. The article specifically mentions Arkansas Act 668, which expanded surveillance powers and removed data-sharing restrictions.
  • The number and placement of surveillance cameras in residential areas can be a direct indicator of the scale of surveillance. The article notes five cameras were installed in Greers Ferry, with one placed “directly across from a resident’s house.”

• For Target 10.3 (Reduce Inequalities):

  • A specific indicator mentioned in the article is the volume of surveillance data lookups conducted for or on behalf of immigration enforcement. The report cited by 404 Media provides a number: “more than 4,000 nation and statewide lookups” with a potential immigration focus.

• For Target 17.17 (Partnerships):

  • An indicator is the number of public-private partnerships for surveillance technology. The contract between Greers Ferry and Flock is one example.
  • The level of engagement by civil society organizations in monitoring and challenging these partnerships serves as an indicator of accountability within these multi-stakeholder arrangements. The involvement of the Institute for Justice is a clear example.

Summary of Findings

Source: arktimes.com