For most of modern policing, surveillance came after suspicion.
Investigators identified a suspect.
Then they gathered evidence.
That order is being reversed.
In May 2025, a Texas sheriff’s deputy searched more than 83,000 Flock cameras across 6,800 camera networks for a woman who had obtained an abortion.
The search extended into states where abortion is protected.
The reason entered into the system was blunt:
“Had an abortion, search for female.”
https://www.404media.co/a-texas-cop-searched-license-plate-cameras-nationwide-for-a-woman-who-got-an-abortion/
The sheriff called it a welfare check.
But the abortion had occurred two weeks earlier. Deputies had opened a death investigation, collected medication packaging and photographs from her home, and contacted the district attorney’s office to ask whether she could be charged.
No charges were filed.
The cameras did not find her.
But the search revealed something larger.
These systems are no longer used only to gather evidence against a known suspect.
They can be used to search thousands of communities at once until the system produces a person.
That is surveillance as person finding.
It is the same change we are seeing at airports.
https://www.reuters.com/world/ice-arrested-more-than-800-people-after-tips-us-airport-security-agency-2026-04-07/
A system built to screen passengers for terrorism became a way to locate immigration targets.
A system sold to communities for solving crimes became a way for one Texas officer to search across state lines for a woman who had an abortion.
Different databases.
Same new power.
The government does not have to begin with evidence that you committed a crime.
It can begin with something it wants to know about you—
where you traveled,
which car you drove,
which clinic you visited—
and use the surveillance network to find the person who fits.
State borders may still limit the law.
They no longer reliably limit the search.
This argument forgets one important aspect that was already decided by the Supreme Court in the 1960s - law enforcement only needs probable cause, not actual evidence to arrest, and they are well within their power to use any resources legally available to collect potential evidence. The prosecutor makes the decision to charge based on that work. So there's nothing new here; just law enforcement being proactive in their work rather than the usual waiting for things to go criminal and then responding after the fact. While the issue here hinges on an abortion, as we all know, the Court decided that's a state issue. So while it might not be illegal outside, it is per Texas' choice illegal there. Ergo, if you're a Texas citizen residing there, you're under that jurisdiction. Don't like it? Move out of Texas.
Like many pro-conservative defenses of state power, this changes the subject instead of addressing the claim.
The woman was never charged because prosecutors concluded Texas law did not permit charging her for taking the abortion pills.
The point is not whether police may investigate crimes in general.
The point is that police used a nationwide surveillance network to search for someone they ultimately had no legal basis to charge.
That is surveillance as person finding.