In three weeks, twenty agencies in fifteen states talked about "misinformation" and "accountability", following Flock's playbook. Let's compare the logs.
by H.C. van Pelt
24 min read
Image by Unachicalinda from Pixabay
regulation
misinformation
In the last three weeks of July, twenty law enforcement agencies across fifteen states held press conferences, briefed councils, published statements, or posted to Facebook about their Flock cameras. They all used the same vocabulary.
Monongalia County held a press-only session to clear up “misinformation.” Irmo titled its release “Setting the Record Straight.” Vernon Parish wanted to “stop the spreading of misinformation.” Louisiana, Missouri posted a point-by-point rebuttal of “misconceptions.” Mt. Sterling’s chief briefed his council to dispel “misinformation being spread on social media.” Pleasant Hill’s captain blamed vandalism partly on “a little misinformation.” Fresno’s chief came to a public forum to “clear up any misconceptions.” Kelso’s chief blamed “a considerable amount of misinformation.” The president of Rhode Island’s police chiefs’ association called the controversy “born from misconception” and the ACLU’s warnings “not based on fact.” Pea Ridge’s chief shut down his own program while attributing the opposition to “misunderstandings or misinformation.” Franklin, North Carolina — which has no Flock contract at all — had to issue a statement correcting false claims that it did.
A second group asked for regulation. Pickens County’s sheriff wants legislation with “real consequences for anyone who abuses that system.” Mt. Juliet’s chief said “I welcome strong legislation.” Greenville County’s sheriff, after firing two employees for misuse, predicted criminal penalties from his legislature by January.
Twenty agencies somehow converged on the same two talking points in three weeks.
Flock distributes an ebook to its police customers titled How to Speak to City Councils About Public Safety Technology,[1] built from a company webinar and staffed with named Flock personnel.[2] Its conclusion is a chapter called “Own the Narrative Before Someone Else Does.” Chris Colwell, who runs product consulting and training at Flock,[3] is quoted:
“This story is going to get told either way. The only question is whether you’re going to be the one telling it.”
The manual itself tells the story of what happened in July 2026.
#Move the conversation from surveillance to governance
The ebook tells agencies not to debate whether ALPR is mass surveillance (“you’re not going to convince opponents that it’s not,” per Flock strategist Jamie Hudson) and instead to recite retention periods, access rules, and audit requirements.
That recitation is the entire content of the agencies’ “corrections” — see the appendix. Retention days, authorized-personnel-only access, audit trails, case-number requirements, in nearly identical order, from West Virginia to California to Kentucky.
The ebook promotes Flock’s Transparency Portal and Audit Assistance products as the way to “show safeguards rather than describe them.” Monongalia County’s sheriff performed the pitch almost verbatim: “Everything we have is right here. There’s not going to be any reason for anybody to send us a FOIA because it’s already on there.”
The manual: recovered vehicles, missing persons, arrest counts. July: Mt. Juliet’s 342 arrests, Fresno’s claim that the cameras helped solve 70% of the city’s murders, Irmo’s hypothetical abducted child, Mt. Sterling’s rescued dementia patient.
Forget about the national character of the system, and that if you vote to fund this in Maine, you’re also funding access to your city’s streets for cops in Wyoming. Never look past the end of your nose.
Flock’s Max Weinstein, in the ebook: “Flock does not own data, period.” Monongalia County: “the county owns the images.” Fresno: shared only with California agencies, never with federal immigration authorities. Mt. Sterling: allegations the department would sell the data are “simply false.”
Only “access to data” is being sold, which is totally different. Apparently.
When an audit finds nothing, the system works. Burke County’s sheriff announced July 30 that a six-month audit found no misuse, proof of “strict accountability through regular audits” — a genre with precedent. Pickens County: “audits have shown no misuse to date.” Alabaster, Alabama: “the combination of department policy, training, user accountability, the audit capabilities and the supervisory oversight that we do have safeguards and promotes appropriate use of the system.” Grand Traverse County’s sheriff, asked about oversight of a system 1,400 agencies can query, said his detective captain audits it twice a year: “if there were an attempt on something nefarious, it would be identified immediately.”
When an audit finds misuse, the system also works. Savannah PD put six employees on leave July 31 for searches involving “personal acquaintances and family members” — misuse “discovered through its auditing and oversight processes as part of the Flock Safety Audit Assistance Program,” per the department, which answered the scandal by adding weekly audits. Richmond County, Georgia arrested four of its own deputies after “a routine audit.” Greenville County fired two employees and called it accountability. Greer’s terminations came from Flock’s own “AI Audit Assistance tool.”
The base rate says otherwise. By July 31, Georgia alone had arrested at least 20 officials for misusing Flock data. And the audit trail itself got less public the moment the public used it: Flock began anonymizing released audit data after “activists” (hello!) used it to identify officers by name. Milwaukee alderperson Marina Demitrijevic said the quiet part back in March: “It must be independently audited. We cannot police ourselves.”
Better still, we have collected a few audit logs at haveibeenflocked.com — so let’s check. Burke County conducted a “successful audit,” finding no misuse. The logs show searches for vague reasons like “law enforcement”, “investigation”, “LEO”, “incident”, and “test” — vagueness the FBI itself recommends. 97.4% of searches have no associated case number. 14.6% of searches have a reason consisting of 3 characters or fewer. One plate was looked up 100+ times over 70 days. That same user looked up several other plates dozens of times, over multiple months. Audit successful. Moving on.
Alabaster, whose oversight “promotes appropriate use” shows similar patterns. Users conducting dozens of searches of a single plate over multiple months, many searches requesting 30-day national location histories labeled simply “Traffic infraction,” and reasons such as “susp person” and many, many “test” searches. Promoted. Appropriate. Next!
In Birmingham, where every search “is logged and subject to audit”, roughly 1,400 searches run against the live, national network are labeled “training,” “test,” or “practice”. Similar to the Illinois cop who used “test” to cover up stalking. Here too we see users follow the same plate for months on end. It’s fine, we’re logging it.
In Grand Traverse, where anything nefarious “would be identified immediately”, 73.8% of searches lack a case number. Most searches have an offense code and nothing else. If anything is entered into the field, it’s something like “atl”, “3500”, “training”, or “test”. Who knows how anyone can identify anything from this. And again, we have users tracking single plates for months on end. Identified. Next.
Vernon Parish, whose policies “ensure accountability”, lets its users enter “qq” to support a search. Not occasionally: “Other - qq” is the single most common reason in the logs — 3,263 of the 6,000 most recent searches, or 54%. The written-policy control the sheriff cited is, in majority practice, two letters typed with one hand. And here too, one user searched a single plate 121 times over 139 days. Accountability ensured.
The chiefs asking for legislation sound brave until you hear the vendor asking first. On July 27, Flock’s CEO Garrett Langley posted a video to the company’s YouTube account:
“We push states, communities, and cities to adopt regulation. This is a technology that needs to be regulated. … Until every state passes an ALPR regulation, we’re not done.”
Flock wants ALPR statutes, and its customer agencies now publicly want them too. The appeal is not mysterious. A statute standardizes the product’s legal footing, replaces the patchwork of local fights (and local bans) with a single negotiable text, and relocates blame for scandals onto individual bad actors. And, of course, we can reduce the transparency while we’re at it, now that we’re required by statute to have successful audits. It’s a win-win, as long as you’re not the person under surveillance.
Greenville’s sheriff made the relocation explicit: “The Flock camera’s not doing anything wrong. It was the person who went in there and looked up the data when they shouldn’t have.” Penalties for abusers are the regulation a surveillance vendor can love: they concede the system will be abused and keep the system.
Two agencies show what the script for the play looks like when the actor skips the substance. Kelso and Pea Ridge both invoked “misinformation” but offered no corrections at all — no retention figures, no audit counts, only the word. The vocabulary has decoupled from content. That is what a playbook looks like from the outside: blank faces repeating blank phrases.
Flock’s manual warns agencies that “if you do not tell the story of your program, someone else will.”
The town published a statement titled “Setting the Record Straight” as it expanded from 11 to 33 cameras, correcting the record on what the cameras do.
“If a child is abducted, a violent criminal flees our town, or a family is desperately waiting for answers after a loved one goes missing, I never want to look them in the eye and say, ‘We could have used technology that might have helped, but we chose not to.’”
Addressing privacy concerns, Blankenship defended his program but explicitly called for legislation — including consequences for abusers.
“I support legislation that clearly defines when systems like Flock are to be used, who can access them, how long the information can be retained, mandatory audits, transparency, and reasonable limits on the number of cameras that can be placed in a single area. And real consequences for anyone who abuses that system.”
“We should not just take tools from deputies and punish our victims by abolishing our Flock program because of the misuse or overuse of Flock in another jurisdiction or other states.”
“My pledge to you is that if at any time I am made aware of factual evidence that our federal government is misusing our cameras to infringe on the rights of innocent citizens, I’ll cut them down myself and destroy them.”
Announced the arrests of three more of its own employees (after a first on June 26) for searching plates “for reasons unrelated to official law enforcement duties,” found via “a routine audit.” All four were charged and terminated. The office declined to say whether policy changes or additional safeguards would follow.
Issued an in-depth statement, framed as an effort “to educate the public and stop the spreading of misinformation on the use of the technology.”
“Camera placement complies with applicable state law and relevant court decisions governing the use of technology in public spaces.”
“Access to LPR data is strictly limited to authorized personnel for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The system operates under departmental policies governing data access, retention, auditing, and appropriate use to ensure accountability.”
After a Flock camera on Northeast 23rd Avenue was cut down ($7,000 in damage), Kramer attributed part of the backlash to bad information, citing incidents cataloged on DeFlock.
“I know there is a lot of controversy over cameras of this nature in general. Part of it, I think, is a little misinformation. These cameras don’t track people or follow people around.”
Responding to Rep. Tim Burchett’s call to “ban these dadgum things,” Chandler rebutted:
“The use of automated license plate reader technology is not inherently unconstitutional.”
“Claims that ALPR technology automatically violates the Fourth Amendment are not supported by current federal case law.”
“I welcome strong legislation that ensures law enforcement across our State and Nation use license plate readers responsibly with clear policies, limited access, auditing, and a continued commitment to protecting the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of the public.”
#July 24: Grand Traverse County Sheriff’s Office (MI)
Speaker: Sheriff Michael Shea
Defended internal-only auditing of a system that 1,400+ agencies nationwide can query: twice-yearly audits conducted by the office’s own detective captain.
“The audits [of the Flock searches] are done by our detective captain. That report is forwarded to me. It’s done on a regular basis, so that if there were an attempt on something nefarious, it would be identified immediately.”
“We are trusting the captain to uphold public trust and do things appropriately. I think there is a level of confidence that we have to put in that individual.”
Announced new Flock installations while attributing community fear to “a considerable amount of misinformation,” saying inaccurate information had fueled “unnecessary fear, misunderstandings about Fourth Amendment protections.”
“I believe our community deserves accurate information so residents can make informed judgments based on facts rather than assumptions.”
After firing two employees for Flock misuse, Lewis pointed to coming legislation criminalizing abuse — framed as prediction more than advocacy, but supportive in tone.
“I think in January, you’ll see the legislator going forward, much like other parts of the country, enact some legislation that if you misuse this information, you can be charged criminally.”
“The Flock camera’s not doing anything wrong. It was the person who went in there and looked up the data when they shouldn’t have.”
Speaker: Department Facebook post (no individual named)
Posted a point-by-point statement on Facebook to “clear up misconceptions” circulating about the city’s seven cameras — including a rumor that it had 14.
“These are automated license-plate readers, not traditional live-surveillance cameras.”
“They do not use facial recognition or collect biometric information.”
Speaker: CEO Garrett Langley, video posted to Flock’s YouTube account
Narrated the company’s three priorities: privacy, security, and legislation.
“We push states, communities, and cities to adopt regulation. This is a technology that needs to be regulated. It is the most impactful technology to be built for criminal justice and public safety. That deserves regulation. … Until every state passes an ALPR regulation, we’re not done.”
The inversion case: Franklin has no Flock contract and no plans for one, and issued a statement correcting false social-media claims that it did — while warning that “communicating threats could result in criminal charges.” Neighboring Macon County had voted unanimously to remove its 12 cameras.
#July 28–31: Alabaster and Birmingham Police Departments (AL)
Speakers: Department statements; Deputy Chief Rodarius Mauldin (Birmingham)
As Flock misuse cases renewed debate in Alabama, both departments assured the public existing oversight suffices.
“We believe the combination of department policy, training, user accountability, the audit capabilities and the supervisory oversight that we do have safeguards and promotes appropriate use of the system.” — Alabaster PD
“Every search is logged and subject to audit to ensure accountability and prevent misuse.”
Announced the completion of a six-month audit finding no misuse by any agency member — while reporting $7,000 in vandalism damage to cameras across the county.
“The Flock camera system is an important public safety tool that helps law enforcement investigate crimes, locate stolen vehicles, and identify suspects while maintaining strict accountability through regular audits.”
“This successful audit demonstrates our continued commitment to transparency, responsible use of technology, and protecting the privacy of our community.”
#July 30: Rhode Island Police Chiefs’ Association / Barrington PD (RI)
Speaker: Chief Michael Correia, RIPCA president
After South Kingstown’s council voted July 27 to drop Flock (following hundreds of opposition letters), Correia — whose own town has no Flock cameras — called the ACLU’s warning “not based on fact” and the controversy “born from misconception.”
“There’s this misconception that this is just a free-for-all, and it’s anything but a free-for-all. It is closely monitored, audited, to make sure it’s not abused, because it is a powerful tool.”
“The data that’s collected and only held for 30 days is not an intrusion. It’s not an unreasonable search or seizure. You have no expectation of privacy when you register your car and drive down the roadway.”
Speaker: Chief Lenny B. Gunther; department statement
Placed six employees on leave for searches “unrelated to law enforcement purposes, including searches involving personal acquaintances and family members”; one allegedly gave an outside agency access. The department stressed the misuse was “discovered through its auditing and oversight processes as part of the Flock Safety Audit Assistance Program,” noted every search is logged, and added weekly audits.
“Misuse of law enforcement tools and technology by SPD staff will not be tolerated. The public places tremendous trust in us, and that trust must be earned every day.”
#July 31 (meeting July 21): Mt. Sterling Police Department (KY)
Speaker: Police Chief Aaron Noel
Briefed the city council “to dispel some of the misinformation being spread on social media”: 30-day retention, plates only, no facial recognition, no access to Social Security or bank data, and the claim the department would sell the data is “simply false.” Citizens, he added, have no right to privacy on public roadways.
Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office (NC) — July 8, after a vandalized camera drew 20,000+ comments on the agency’s own post: “We’re seeing a lot of misconceptions that these cameras collect more data than they actually do.” (WLOS)
Cameras capture only license plate text, vehicle attributes, date/time, and camera location; no driver photos, no names, addresses, phone numbers, driver ID, or race data.
Retention is 21 days, recently reduced from 30 in light of a pending Virginia court ruling.
The county owns the images; Flock stores them, has “no contracts with any federal agencies and does not resell data.”
System is CJIS-certified for NCIC access; searches require an active case number; every entry creates a permanent audit trail; access audited every 90 days.
No arrests made on an alert alone; “It all has to be verified.”
Seven cameras, not 14 as rumored; still images only, no live feeds monitored.
No facial recognition or biometric collection; not speed or red-light cameras.
Access restricted to authorized law enforcement; data auto-deleted after 30 days unless preserved as evidence.
Past 30 days: 54,389 unique vehicles captured, 16 search sessions; top use was hit-and-run/accident investigation. City council knew of the program for at least 7 months.
Alabaster: policy, training, user accountability, audit capabilities, and supervisory oversight together “promote appropriate use.”
Birmingham: every search must be tied to a specific offense; users trained before access; searches audited every 30 days; “every search is logged and subject to audit.”
Every Flock search is recorded: user, date, time, and stated reason.
The misuse was caught by the department’s own “auditing and oversight processes as part of the Flock Safety Audit Assistance Program”; weekly audits by the Office of Professional Standards added.
ALPR use in Rhode Island is “closely monitored, audited”; access limited mostly to investigators with a specific log-in; “you can’t just go on and start looking around.”
30-day retention “is not an intrusion”; no expectation of privacy on public roadways.
Both invoked “misinformation” without specifying corrections — Fletcher offered only the program’s purpose (prevent/solve crime, recover stolen vehicles, locate missing persons); Hahn cited stolen-vehicle recoveries and suspect identifications but no operational specifics.
How to Speak to City Councils About Public Safety Technology (Flock Safety, undated PDF). The manual cannot prove any individual chief read it; the convergence claim rests on the document plus reporting by The Oaklandside that Flock trains police to present to city councils via the webinar this ebook is built from. ↩︎
He is “SVP, Customer Experience” on page 1 and “Director, Product Consulting & Training” on page 11; maybe he got a promotion halfway through the book. ↩︎
