Another Arizona officer accused of misusing Flock system

For Tucson residents, the latest controversy involving Flock automated license plate readers is less about a single officer in the West Valley than about how police agencies across Arizona collect, share and monitor information about where people drive. A Goodyear police officer was placed on administrative leave after an internal review found possible criminal misuse of the department’s Flock system. The case follows similar allegations in Apache Junction and Chandler, while other Arizona agencies have reconsidered whether they want to continue using the technology.

Goodyear police said investigators audited activity in the department’s Flock system on July 21. The following day, July 22, the officer was placed on administrative leave. The review identified what the department described as a potential criminal violation, and Goodyear asked another law enforcement agency to handle the criminal investigation. The Glendale Police Department is overseeing that inquiry. Goodyear said it will continue its own investigation after Glendale completes its work, but the department has not publicly identified the officer or described the specific search that prompted the investigation.

Goodyear operates 33 Flock cameras. The devices photograph passing vehicles and record information including license plates, vehicle makes, models and colors. Police can then search the resulting database to determine where a vehicle was detected by a camera. Supporters say that capability has helped officers locate missing people and recover stolen vehicles. Flock Safety Chief Executive Garrett Langley told USA TODAY that the company’s cameras assisted with 1,000 missing person cases and 22,000 stolen vehicle cases in July alone.

The same ability to reconstruct vehicle movements has raised concerns among privacy advocates, who argue that the system can create a broad record of people’s activities without their knowledge. Critics have objected to limited transparency, potential violations of privacy and the possibility that immigration authorities could ask local agencies to search the system for them. Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said concerns about government surveillance are coming from people across the political spectrum, even when their reasons differ.

Arizona agencies have responded in different ways. Chandler ended its Flock contract on Aug. 7 after the police chief said an employee had misused the department’s data and the city detected an unusual pattern in camera use. The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office said it would not renew its contract, citing concerns related to the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Tempe stopped taking part in Flock’s national data-sharing program but continues to operate its own license plate readers. The Apache Junction case involved an officer who resigned after an investigation into alleged searches used to track his wife and a request for another department to check cameras during a purported welfare check.

The pattern extends beyond Arizona. Flock announced new safeguards on Aug. 13 after multiple cases in which officers allegedly used the technology for personal reasons, including stalking, harassment or searches unrelated to police work. In one Georgia case, a police chief was arrested and accused of using license plate readers to harass and stalk people. Another Georgia officer was arrested over alleged non-law-enforcement searches. In North Carolina, an officer was charged after allegedly searching for the vehicle of her boyfriend’s former wife 31 times, including twice while off duty. Another North Carolina officer faces a similar allegation.

Flock said its new controls are intended to make unauthorized searches easier to detect and stop. Every vehicle search will require a specific reason, a case code and the type of offense involved, rather than a broad entry such as “investigation.” The company also said its audit assistance feature, which flags unusual activity such as repeated searches of one plate or searches clustered late at night, will become mandatory. If the system identifies suspicious behavior, a user can be locked out while an administrator reviews the search.

The changes also shorten the standard period that data remains available, from 30 days to seven days. Information connected to an active case can be retained longer through an “evidence mode” tied to a case number. Departments will also be able to decide which kinds of cases other agencies may search. An agency could permit searches for kidnapping, homicide or theft while blocking searches related to immigration offenses. Previously, Flock said, its audit assistance tool was optional and only about one-third of law enforcement customers had activated it.

Goodyear Police Chief Brian Issitt said the department’s auditing process worked as intended by identifying activity requiring additional review and prompting an immediate response. The department released information about its policies, audits and investigation as part of what it called an effort at transparency. For Tucsonans, the unresolved question is whether safeguards like these provide enough protection when a camera network can reveal a vehicle’s movements, or whether more Arizona agencies will follow Chandler and Pinal County in limiting or ending their participation. The Goodyear investigation is still pending, and no finding of criminal wrongdoing has been announced.