Unsettling secretive network is causing drivers to be pulled over, aggressively searched and detained by cops even though they’ve done nothing wrong… and it took a stroke of luck to finally expose it

A secret network of surveillance cameras in Texas led to a man’s constitutional rights being violated, a jury ruled – and more Americans could be harmed. 

Alek Schott was driving along Interstate 35 just outside of San Antonio when he was pulled over in March 2022 by a Bexar County Sheriff’s deputy.

Little did he know that being pulled over would become a 76-minute traffic stop that would violate his Fourth Amendment rights. 

The Texan would be put in the front seat of a cop car, where he was interrogated by the deputy, and where he later stayed while a drug dog sniffed his car when he refused a search. 

Schott had been told he was pulled over for crossing the yellow shoulder line, but his dashcam footage proved otherwise. The officer would later testify in court that he used it as an excuse to look through Schott’s vehicle. 

After the encounter, Schott would complain to the sheriff’s office, which told him to file a lawsuit if he felt he had been mistreated, his lawyer said. 

And through the lawsuit, the Houston resident would discover the real reason he was pulled over: A series of surveillance cameras had caught him making a one-day trip to the US-Mexico border. An anonymous law enforcement agent had flagged it as suspicious. 

‘Simply driving across Texas isn’t illegal,’ Schott told the Daily Mail of the act that would eventually lead him to be searched. And a federal jury agreed with him Monday, ruling that the Bexar County Sheriff’s deputy had violated Schott’s constitutional right to be free of unlawful searches. 

‘Holding the government accountable for false stops, unlawful detentions, and searches without cause is incredibly hard,’ Schott told the Daily Mail. 

Through the discovery process, Schott learned just how much data these random surveillance cameras collected, including that it knew he had a woman in his car when he left and whom he would later drop off at a hotel. 

And little is known about these cameras – not even who owns them, operates them, or who is determining what is deemed ‘suspicious’ behavior, lawyer Christie Hebert told the Daily Mail. 

‘But we do know that there is a broader license plate reader network,’ said the Institute of Justice lawyer, who represented Schott. 

An officer testified in court that these readers are everywhere – on mile markers, on tow trucks, and even in one’s own neighborhood. 

‘There’s a comprehensive network,’ Hebert said. ‘This network would scan everyone’s plate that drives by and [it] feeds into a broader database that was being monitored, according to these officers, by folks who would then say: “Okay, this person’s done a quick trip here. Stop them, hunt them for a traffic stop.”‘ 

Even more concerningly, Bexar County Sheriff’s deputies were alerted to these ‘suspicious’ drivers through a WhatsApp group called Northwest Highway Group, Hebert said. 

‘They would just take whatever someone dropped in the WhatsApp chat group as truth,’ the lawyer said, citing court testimony. 

‘They didn’t verify, they didn’t ask questions. A license plate number would be dropped in the chat, or a vehicle color and description, something as basic as that for a traffic stop.’ 

Deputy Joel Babb, who pulled Schott over, admitted in a pre-trial deposition that federal agencies, like Homeland Security, have ‘a lot bigger toys than a license plate reader.’ 

An artificial intelligence-powered camera had picked up Schott’s plate, according to the Institute of Justice. After that, an anonymous law enforcement agent decided his ordinary trip was suspicious. 

Babb testified he waited for Schott’s truck to appear after receiving the WhatsApp message, leading him to pull Schott over for a traffic stop. A jury decided that the deputy’s reasoning behind pulling the Houston man over was a pretext to look inside the vehicle. 

‘The beautiful thing about the Texas traffic code is there are thousands of things you can stop a vehicle for,’ the deputy said in court. 

Footage shot inside the cop car showed Babb questioning Schott about his trip and why he went there. Eventually, the deputy told Schott his anxious behavior was enough to search the car, which the latter refused. 

Babb then summoned a police dog, who alerted officers toward the driver’s side door. Deputies caused $7,000 worth of damage to the vehicle, only to not find any drugs. A police report later said there was a ‘trace’ amount of drugs in the vehicle. 

Schott went on to request the evidence, but his lawyer said the Sheriff’s Office refused to provide it, eventually telling him to sue them if he didn’t like how they did business. 

He would go on to win his case, with a jury finding his Fourth Amendment rights were violated four years later.  

Schott was awarded $76 – $1 for every minute he was wrongfully detained by police – on Monday. It is what the Houston resident asked for. 

‘A jury looked at what happened to Alek and said what Bexar County did was not okay,’ Hebert told the Daily Mail. 

‘If law enforcement is going to access this kind of broader database, there need to be warrant requirements. Officers need to satisfy the requirements to get a warrant before they can do this kind of comprehensive surveillance on an individual.’ 

Angel Reyes, a lawyer with Reyes Law and who is not associated with the case, told the Daily Mail that ‘government has always been allowed to watch public roads.’ 

‘If the Constitution stops the government from tracking you, the government can’t just pay a company to do the tracking instead and call that something different,’ Reyes said. 

‘Nobody in Texas or anywhere else should become a suspect for driving somewhere they have every right to go, least of all to officers willing to bend the rules to justify a search.

‘Alek Schott asked for $76 to make a point, and Bexar County should count itself lucky that’s all he asked for.’ 

Hebert said Schott’s case is an ‘important win for the Fourth Amendment’ and the rights of ‘all Americans.’ 

Texas Governor Greg Abbott also blocked state agencies from spending money on Flock cameras in August. 

A Texas Tribune investigation found the Lone Star State had managed to build a surveillance network through Flock, using at least $30 million in grants to local police forces. 

The state government was able to do so by charging Texans $1 extra to their car insurance policies under the pretense that it was to combat rampant catalytic converter theft, The Tribune said. The policy began in 2023. 

The Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority and the Texas Department of Public Safety added thousands of cameras through these contracts, the outlet added.

‘It’s kind of the Wild West,’ Reyes told the Daily Mail. ‘These cameras just got deployed everywhere.

‘Texas went off and built a statewide tracking system.’ 

Nikolas ‘Nik’ Guggenberger, a law professor, said there is ‘ample reason for concern’ surrounding the cameras, and not only in Texas. 

‘This type of surveillance is just incredibly intrusive in the sense of what it enables law enforcement to do,’ the University of Houston Law Center professor said. 

Guggenberger said there is ‘ample opportunity for abuse’ with these cameras, which the nation has already begun to see, especially inside police forces. 

The professor said these cameras enable police to engage in fishing expeditions, an unauthorized search by officers looking for incriminating evidence without probable cause. 

Guggenberger worries that police could start looking for evidence and then use these cameras to follow citizens, analyze their behavior, and start digging into their personal lives until they find a crime. 

‘That is just something that we generally don’t really want the police to do,’ he said.

Kevin Harden, a lawyer with Harden Crichton, agreed, telling the Daily Mail: ‘All Americans should be worried about indiscriminate government surveillance.’

The legality of these cameras is being questioned in real-time.   

At the moment, cameras like Flock and police paying to have access to them are legal. However, conversations and protests have popped up across the country. 

It is also legal at the moment for officers to use the WhatsApp chats, Harden said. Police can use information they receive from the encrypted messaging service during their investigations. 

‘In other words, if it makes sense and leads the police to a reasonable conclusion that a crime has occurred or is occurring, they are allowed to follow the evidence to its likely conclusion,’ Harden said. 

However, the former prosecutors said: ‘Anonymous tipsters and messages are not enough to obtain a warrant absent other information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a specific crime will or has occurred.’

The Daily Mail has reached out to the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office and the Department of Public Safety for comment.