Police Chiefs Ran Ex-Partners' Plates 140 Times: Flock's Warrant Problem

A police chief in Holiday Hills, Illinois ran a romantic rival's license plate 140 times over 18 months, 86 of those searches while off duty. Three of the six people he tracked were women he had been in romantic relationships with. He was arrested June 18, 2026, charged with two counts of official misconduct.

Flock's CLO Called Stalking 'the Most Common' Abuse

Flock Chief Legal Officer Dan Haley made an offhand admission on Maine's Morning News in May 2026: "Very rarely, someone does something stupid. They use it to figure out where an ex-girlfriend is or something like that. That's actually the most common thing." He calls it rare. He also calls it the most common. That contradiction is the gap Flock's trust page cannot paper over.

The Institute for Justice counted at least 18 such cases nationwide as of mid-2026 and described the total as "almost certainly an undercount." A Braselton, Georgia police chief was arrested in November 2025 after a GBI audit. A Jerome County, Idaho sheriff ran his wife's plate more than 700 times in three months, labeling each search "test." A Sedgwick, Kansas police chief ran his ex-girlfriend's plate 164 times and her new boyfriend's 64 times before resigning. Lower ranks follow the same pattern: a Milwaukee officer tracked a partner and her ex over 100 times; a Costa Mesa officer continued accessing Flock to locate his mistress after being placed on administrative leave.

Flock Denies Tracking People, But Its Own Execs Say Otherwise

Flock's public position, stated by Chief Communications Officer Josh Thomas in a company video, is that the system "tracks vehicles, not people." Yet Haley on the same Trust page stated that license plates "are required specifically to correlate to ownership of that vehicle." A plate read is legally tied to a person. A chief running a rival's plate 140 times is not tracking a car; he is tracking a person through the car.

The rank of the abusers matters. Police chiefs set policy, supervise officers, and write the rules. When the most experienced law enforcement officials misuse the tool, internal training and audit logs are not adequate checks. Romantic jealousy is one of the strongest human emotions, and Flock places precise real-time location data at an officer's fingertips with no prior authorization.

Warrants Are the Only Check That Survives This Pattern

The ACLU, EFF, and Institute for Justice all support warrant-based use of LPR. They accept the technology's value for violent crimes and missing persons. But the documented abuse by chiefs who wrote the rules proves that voluntary compliance fails. Flock argues that warrant requirements would cost lives. The answer is the same courts have given for each generation of powerful tracking technology: require a warrant first. The alternative is more chiefs running plates 140 times on the people they used to love.

Source: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed
Domain: ipvm.com