Did Police Use Tracking Technology to Set Up Council President for a DUI?

Protect The 1st recently covered a case in Kansas in which police used automated license-plate reader (ALPR) technology to track a writer who had criticized law enforcement tactics in a newspaper column. As we noted then, surveillance tools can easily become tools of speech intimidation when deployed against critics rather than criminals.

In a new case, Council President Terry Heller of Brookhaven, Pennsylvania, recently filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against that borough and its former police chief, alleging that police used a camera-based license plate tracking database to locate him and orchestrate a traffic stop. The system used was Vehicle Intelligence and Plate Recognition (VIPR), a technology similar to ALPR but enhanced with artificial intelligence.

According to the lawsuit, police located Heller at a Chili’s Grill & Bar, where he was having dinner. As Heller left the parking lot, he says officers “hunted” him. Heller believes the reason was political – he had previously voted against giving a raise to the officer who ultimately pulled him over. 

Heller was given a breathalyzer test for DUI. When the result fell below the legal alcohol limit, he was required to go to a hospital for a blood draw. The test again showed he was driving legally.

The legal claims in Heller’s case will be resolved in court. But the constitutional concerns raised by these allegations are larger than any one dispute between local officials. If government officials can use surveillance tools to retaliate against political speech or votes in the democratic process, the First Amendment is in danger.

Retaliation by government actors for political speech is a classic constitutional violation. Courts have long recognized that even subtle punishment for political speech can chill participation by others who fear becoming the next target. Yet modern surveillance technologies make such retaliation easier than ever.

License-plate readers, for example, create detailed logs of where vehicles travel. Used properly, they can help police find stolen cars or locate suspects in serious crimes. Used improperly, they can allow officials to track political opponents, journalists, activists – or elected officials like Heller who have oversight over the police.

These cases in Kansas and Pennsylvania illustrate a broader constitutional principle – the First Amendment is deeply intertwined with privacy protections. Without safeguards against surveillance abuse, the government will quietly monitor – and use what they find to potentially punish – those whose political views offend officials in power.

Imagine the chilling effect if local officials believe that a police department is tracking their movements after a contentious vote. Imagine if activists believe a protest or critical op-ed might trigger quiet monitoring of their daily lives – wait, don’t imagine that, that actually happened.

That is why transparency, strict policies governing surveillance tools, and meaningful oversight are essential. Technologies such as license-plate readers should only be used for legitimate law enforcement purposes, with clear limits that prevent their deployment for vendettas.

The Founders understood that freedom of speech depends on freedom from government intimidation. When surveillance powers are abused to settle political scores, the damage is not confined to one town council dispute.
​
It strikes at the heart of the First Amendment itself and the freedom of Americans to speak, vote, and participate in public life without fear of being tracked and stalked.

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS