Flock cameras and license plate readers have no place in a free society when they track innocent citizens without probable cause. Thank you, Governor Ron DeSantis. DeSantis has drawn an important line in the sand: Florida should not become a surveillance state.
That should not be controversial.
Americans should not have to accept a society where the government can track their movements, record their locations, build databases documenting where they travel, and potentially create a permanent digital record of their daily lives, all without probable cause that they have committed a crime.
That is not freedom.
That is the architecture of a surveillance state, of a police state.
And frankly, Governor DeSantis is right to reject the idea that Florida should move toward the kind of constant government monitoring we associate with authoritarian governments such as Communist China or North Korea.
Florida must never accept the normalization of government surveillance simply because the technology exists.
Sheriff Prummell’s Response Is Deeply Concerning
Charlotte County Sheriff Bill Prummell was among the most vocal critics of Governor DeSantis’ decision, which makes one question if Sheriff Prummel is really a republican or a RINO. While he might be registered Republican, his criticism of Governor DeSantis’ ban on license plate cameras reading and tracking all drivers is not indicative that he holds conservative, and much less constitutionalist, views. Rather, it is indicative that Prummel run his political campaigns selling himself as republican but in practice, he runs a Marxist law enforcement department.
According to his public comments, Sheriff Prummell argued that criminals were “jumping up and down for joy” over the governor’s decision and described the restrictions as politicians having a “knee jerk reaction” to something that supposedly “really isn’t a problem.”
But Sheriff Prummell’s response misses the fundamental issue entirely. The problem is not whether technology can help law enforcement solve crimes. Of course, technology can help solve crimes. The real question is this:
How much freedom are Americans expected to surrender in the name of convenience and law enforcement efficiency?
That question should concern every citizen.
Law enforcement today is has become and “us versus them” agenda, and run like a paramilitary establishment against the people, largely to generate revenue for the government. That is not what the People want law enforcement to do.
The United States was founded on the principle that government power must be limited. The Constitution was not written to make the government’s job easier. It was written to protect the people from an overly powerful government.
Law enforcement does not have the constitutional authority to simply monitor everyone because doing so might eventually help catch someone who commits a crime. That turns the fundamental principle of American justice upside down.
In America, citizens are supposed to be presumed innocent, not treated as potential suspects whose movements should be continuously recorded “just in case.”
“If You Have Nothing to Hide” Is Not an American Principle
The argument for mass surveillance almost always follows the same pattern. Namely, If you are not committing a crime, why should you care? That argument does not work in a free state like Florida, and it violate the very fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution. Americans must reject that argument completely. It is inexcusable for law enforcement to take that position. They are still to operate under the parameters of a constitutionally limited government, not a communist boundless government.
The right to privacy does not exist only for criminals. The Fourth Amendment was not written only to protect guilty people. Every law-abiding citizen has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable government intrusion. Citizens should be able to travel without wondering whether their movements are being permanently recorded.
They should not have to worry about government agencies creating databases documenting where they shop, where they work, where they worship, where they shop and what they buy, which doctors they visit, which political meetings they attend, or whose homes they visit.
Once government possesses the ability to monitor the movements of an entire population, the potential for abuse becomes enormous. But there is absolutely no accountability or oversight with HOW that information is used or abused against the people. That is what a police state is, and we must take it back to the point where Florida, where the United States of America, is a free state and a free country.
History teaches us one very important lesson: Government powers created for one purpose rarely remain limited to that purpose forever.
The government should need probable cause, not just a camera that, by the way, the taxpayers paid for in the first place. Have you ever stopped to think about the fact that the government surveillance that is perpetrated against you, you are paying for via taxes? And when they come for you, you are paying not just for your own defense against a corrupt and unconstitutional surveillance of you, but you’re paying for the prosecution too. They just robbed you in both ends. Now, that should really tick you off.
The fact is that Flock cameras and automated license plate reader systems collect information about vehicles passing through public areas. That means innocent citizens who are not suspected of any crime can be swept into government surveillance databases simply because they drove down the wrong road or any road equipped with surveillance technology.
That should concern every American.
The government should not be allowed to build dossiers documenting the movements of law-abiding citizens without probable cause. If law enforcement has reasonable suspicion or probable cause involving a specific criminal investigation, there are already constitutional procedures available to obtain information. IF, and only IF, law enforcement does indeed have probable cause, can they obtain a warrant. But they cannot, and they must be stopped, just randomly surveillance citizens. That is NOT how the American system is supposed to work. And that is the reason citizens, in rising numbers, have lost faith and confidence in law enforcement. as a whole.
Power hungry sheriffs and law enforcement agencies around the state, and around the country, have positioned themselves as “above the law”. They have lost sight of who they are actually working for. That is not sustainable in a free state. And it is unconstitutional!
Law enforcement needs to Investigate suspects—not entire populations. Technology should assist legitimate criminal investigations. It should not be used as an excuse to transform ordinary citizens into continuously monitored subjects of government data collection.
Governor DeSantis: Florida Must Not Become a “Digital AI Surveillance State”
Governor DeSantis correctly warned about the dangers of allowing artificial intelligence and surveillance technology to create a system where citizens can be tracked everywhere they go. His concern is justified.
“We don’t want, in the state of Florida, to have a digital AI surveillance state where everything we’re doing is being tracked at all times.”
Exactly!
That should be the end of the discussion. It’s common sense. The fact that surveillance technology is technologically possible does not mean it is morally acceptable. The fact that law enforcement finds it useful does not mean its unlimited use is constitutional. And the fact that the technology may help solve crimes does not mean Americans must surrender their fundamental right to privacy.
Freedom is often inconvenient to government. That is precisely why constitutional protections exist.
Criminals use technology. That is correct, but so do free citizens. Sheriff Prummell argued that criminals are using technology to commit crimes and that law enforcement needs technology to catch them.
Nobody disputes that criminals use technology, but that argument does not justify placing an entire population under surveillance, Sheriff Prummel.
If the government can monitor everyone because criminals might use technology, where does that principle end?
Should the government monitor every telephone call?
Every email?
Every financial transaction?
Every internet search?
Every private conversation?
Every automobile trip?
Every political meeting?
Every church attendance record?
At what point do Americans finally say:
Enough!
A free society requires limits.
The government cannot be permitted to continuously expand its surveillance powers simply by arguing that more surveillance might help catch criminals. If that becomes the standard, there will eventually be no meaningful privacy left.
The Real Danger Is Not Just Today’s Government
Supporters of mass surveillance often make another dangerous assumption that they trust the people currently in government. That is blind faith in power, and that is very dangerous. Constitutional rights are not designed to protect us only from the government officials we happen to like. They are designed to protect us from government power itself.
You may trust today’s sheriff. You may trust today’s governor. You may trust today’s police chief. But what about tomorrow?
What happens when a future administration has very different political beliefs? What happens when government agencies begin targeting political opponents? … and they have already. What happens when surveillance data is used against citizens because of their religion, political beliefs, associations, activism, or speech? What happens when databases containing years of innocent citizens’ movements fall into the wrong hands?
Once the surveillance infrastructure exists, the temptation to abuse it will always exist. And once freedom is surrendered, getting it back is rarely easy. It will take a war to take our God-given rights, if we give them up.
Government Surveillance Can Become Government Persecution
The most dangerous aspect of mass surveillance is not simply the collection of data. It is what government can eventually do with that data. A government capable of tracking citizens can identify where they go, whom they associate with, what organizations they support, and potentially develop detailed profiles of their private lives. That information can become a powerful tool for intimidation and persecution.
History is filled with examples of governments using information about their citizens to suppress political opposition and control populations. Americans should never assume that “That could never happen here.”
The Constitution exists precisely because the Founders understood that government power must be restrained. They understood that human beings are imperfect and that power can be abused. That understanding is just as important today as it was in 1791.
We Should Not Have to Live Like Citizens of Communist China
Americans should never accept a future where government cameras follow them everywhere they go. We should not normalize systems that resemble the surveillance infrastructure used by authoritarian governments, like China and North Korea. We must not become comfortable with cameras recording our movements at intersections, highways, neighborhoods, businesses, and communities simply because someone claims it makes law enforcement more efficient.
America is not Communist China. America is not North Korea.
And Florida must never become a state where citizens are expected to surrender their privacy and constitutional rights simply to make surveillance more convenient for government. That is a Dangerous Contradiction
There is also a legitimate question about the state’s previous financial support for license plate reader technology. Governor DeSantis has reportedly approved millions of dollars in funding connected to license plate readers for law enforcement agencies in connection with immigration enforcement efforts.
That deserves clarification. If Florida is now taking a strong position against the development of a broad surveillance infrastructure, then the state should establish a clear and consistent policy governing when and how this technology can be used. The issue should not simply be whether cameras are located on state roads versus other roads.
The larger question is whether government should be allowed to systematically track law-abiding citizens anywhere without probable cause. Moving cameras from one road to another does not solve the constitutional concern.
Sheriff Prummell Should Be Defending Citizens’ Rights Too
Sheriff Prummell has a responsibility to protect Charlotte County residents from criminals. Absolutely. But protecting citizens from crime and protecting their constitutional rights are not mutually exclusive responsibilities.
A sheriff should not have to choose between public safety and liberty. The oath of office requires government officials to respect and defend the Constitution. Period! End of Story!
That means recognizing that constitutional rights sometimes place limits on government authority, even when government officials believe additional authority would make their jobs easier. The U.S. Constitution was not written and adopted to make the job of government officials easy. It was written to protect the citizens from government. Clear and simple.
Sheriff Prummell may believe that Flock cameras and license plate readers are valuable crime-fighting tools, but the constitutional rights of innocent citizens must come first, and he needs to understand that fact, and he needs to abide by it 100 percent. This also means retraining of his officers who violate the rights of the people, while claiming that they’re just doing their job.
Doing your job does not mean abandoning critical thinking and the Supreme Law of the Land.
Law enforcement convenience is not more important than constitutional liberty. The answer is not to cripple legitimate criminal investigations. The answer is to ensure that surveillance technology is directed toward actual suspects and legitimate investigations, not indiscriminately used to monitor everyone.
Investigate Criminals—Not Citizens
This is not rocket science. In fact, this should be a simple principle:
If there is probable cause, investigate. If there is a legitimate suspect, pursue the evidence. If a crime has been committed, use constitutional tools to solve it.
But do not treat every innocent American as a potential criminal. Do not build permanent databases documenting the movements of law-abiding citizens. Do not normalize government surveillance without probable cause.
And do not tell Americans that surrendering their privacy is the price they must pay for public safety.
Because once a government has the ability to watch everyone, the question eventually becomes not whether it can, but whether it will stop itself. The power-hungry do not have a stop button. History suggests that government rarely limits power voluntarily. That responsibility belongs to the people. And the responsibility of the people is to remove, vote out, and defund the power-hungry government when it violates our rights.
Governor DeSantis Is Right to Draw the Line
Governor Ron DeSantis deserves credit for publicly recognizing the danger of a growing surveillance state. Florida should lead the nation in demonstrating that public safety and constitutional liberty can coexist. We can support law enforcement without supporting unlimited government surveillance. We can fight crime without treating innocent citizens as suspects. We can use technology without surrendering our freedom to it. And we can protect our communities without building the infrastructure of a surveillance state.
Freedom means being secure in your person and property, not being continuously tracked by government without probable cause.
That principle is worth defending. Thank you, Governor DeSantis. Florida must remain the Free State—not become the Surveillance State.
by Karina Schmitt, Blog Editor and Contributor
NOTE: A proposal was sent to the Daily Sun on 9/3/2026 in Charlotte County to publish this article. They declined the offer. Instead, it’s posted here and a short Letter-to-the Editor was sent to them instead.