 |
| Flock LPR camera in El Dorado at US-167 Business & 19th Street |
By now, we have heard of Flock Cameras or seen them in our community. But what are they? How are they for our safety? Are they violating our constitutional rights to privacy?
Let's start with “What are they?”
Flock Cameras are automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems made by the company Flock Safety that capture still photos of passing vehicles to log vehicle data. According to the Flock Safety website:
Flock Cameras are automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems made by the company Flock Safety that capture still photos of passing vehicles to log vehicle data. According to the Flock Safety website:
https://www.flocksafety.com/what-is-flock
The company states that the cameras focus on vehicles and do not scan faces or occupants. Standard Flock units capture still snapshots rather than live-stream video, although the company offers live-streaming hardware options for specific public safety applications.
Flock cameras automatically capture license plates, vehicle makes, models, colors, bumper stickers, and decals. Police can use this information to identify vehicles associated with stolen cars, missing persons, and criminal investigations.
Flock also allows agencies to connect with thousands of law enforcement agencies to search for vehicles across city and state lines and share data.
In July 2026, The Drive published an article about Garrett Langley, CEO of Flock Safety, discussing public privacy, the Fourth Amendment, and Flock's technology. The article states that Langley does not believe there is a legal issue with the technology today or that there will be one in the future.
You can read the full interview here:
But what happens when the technology gets it wrong?
A Senate hearing was held on September 23, 2026, where the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee examined mass surveillance, police data access, and camera abuse. Flock CEO Garrett Langley did not appear. They invited CEOs from Axon, Motorola, and Verkada and they also did not appear.
Flock's Chief Legal Officer, Dan Haley, did send an email to U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, the chair of the subcommittee, expressing that “the rules that protect Americans should be set by law” and not by the “policies of any single company.”
The subcommittee also invited Lindsay Isaacs, a woman who was wrongfully arrested after being misidentified through the Flock Camera System.
In October 2025, a hit-and-run collision in Sanford, Florida, left three people dead. Ms. Isaacs was arrested in April 2026 in connection with the collision. She was facing life in prison and spent 13 days in a maximum-security prison, including 86 hours in solitary confinement.
You can listen to her testimony:
A federal jury also found Bexar County in Texas liable for violating a Houston salesman's Fourth Amendment rights in a case involving surveillance-driven traffic stops. The Institute for Justice, which represents the salesman, reported on the case on September 28, 2026.
A federal jury also found Bexar County in Texas liable for violating a Houston salesman's Fourth Amendment rights in a case involving surveillance-driven traffic stops. The Institute for Justice, which represents the salesman, reported on the case on September 28, 2026.
Read more here:
And this isn't just something happening in other states.
In Arkansas, a Flock camera reportedly misread a single character on an SUV's license plate, flagging it as a stolen vehicle. Police pulled over an innocent couple at gunpoint while their six-week-old baby was alone in a back car seat. Officers realized the error after detaining them.
It doesn't take much research to find cases of misidentification involving the Flock Camera System. It is much harder to find wrongful convictions or abuse of the system.
Why?
Because finding that information often requires us to take the extra step of filing public records requests.
The Institute for Justice has cataloged more than 200 incidents of ALPR abuse, including romantic stalking, wrongful stops and detentions, non-law-enforcement use, and other types of misconduct.
You can review the database here:
https://ij.org/the-ij-database-of-alpr-abuse/
Just this week, Futurism reported that five more officers were charged with abusing Flock. The article went on to state:
“Far from a few bad apples, the rate and distribution of ALPR abuse across the country points to a truly systemic issue, and one which isn't stopping.”
Read the article here:
https://futurism.com/future-society/cops-charged-flock-alpr-surveillance-abuse-misconduct
Another argument we often hear is that cameras are everywhere we go.
Well, there is a difference.
Law enforcement agencies do not have unlimited authorization to utilize private cameras without following applicable legal requirements. Flock does not require a warrant for its ordinary operation, and it leaves individual agencies to establish their own policies.
But what happens when the public has no knowledge that the system has been implemented?
Do agencies take the necessary steps to make sure the system cannot be abused?
With Flock, agencies can search vehicle information across a network that extends throughout much of the country. Flock promotes this nationwide connectivity as a public-safety benefit.
The Fourth Amendment explicitly states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…”
When law enforcement is given access to technology capable of tracking vehicles across thousands of cameras and jurisdictions, the question shouldn't simply be whether the technology can help solve a crime.
We should also be asking what happens when the technology is wrong, who is held accountable, and what safeguards are in place to prevent an innocent person from being harmed.
“It's for our safety.”
Then why are these systems being implemented without a City Council or Quorum Court vote?
Our tax money is being used to purchase and operate these systems. If these cameras are being implemented for the safety of the community, shouldn't the community have been given an opportunity to learn about them, ask questions, and have a voice before they were implemented?
So, how were they approved?
In the City of El Dorado, there was no formal vote or agenda item referring to Flock Cameras.
According to an email obtained from the El Dorado Police Department through an AFOIA request, Captain Primm raised the budget on a line item for the Flock Camera System and then emailed Flock Safety to let them know he had been able to get the funding approved.
Do you imagine them chest-bumping in celebration , like a bunch of frat boys from Cornell, when that meeting adjourned?
But seriously, this is where this technology becomes more concerning.
September 2, 2025, 404 Media released an article detailing how Texas law enforcement officers searched over 83,000 ALPR, looking for a woman who had a self- administered abortion, including cameras in states where abortions were legal. The report was made by the woman’s abusive partner. The article also disclosed that the officer who searched the woman through Flock never went to the woman’s home.
404 media went on to say that “so-called ‘welfare checks’ have repeatedly been used by abusers to harass women who have gotten abortions and, in Wisconsin, a police officer allegedly illegally used Flock to see if his ex-girlfriend had gone to an abortion clinic.”
In El Dorado, there have been three women we know of who have filed complaints with EPD after discovering they had been “Flocked.”
How did they find out?
Well…it started with me filing a records request after being tipped off that EPD might be tracking me because of my criticism of the investigation involving Ieshia Jackson, who disappeared from El Dorado on October 31, 2020.
The Mayor of El Dorado, Paul Choate, told me and a couple of other community members to “let it lie.” He went on to say that if I accused the police of mishandling the case, it would totally alienate myself from any communication with the police department.
While reviewing the audits received through the records request, it was discovered that EPD had not effectively redacted the license plate numbers of others who were searched through the Flock Safety system. As a result, we were able to view the license plates searched by Detective Rowland.
My own own license plate was searched on over 78,000 cameras and 6,186 agencies for nearly 105 days.
And we want you to pause here for a moment. Think about what happened.
A powerful surveillance tool was implemented without public transparency or discussion. The public was not given an opportunity to ask questions before the system was put into use.
Before becoming Chief of the El Dorado Police Department, Ricky Roberts served as Sheriff of Union County. During his tenure as sheriff, Flock cameras were implemented in Union County.
 |
| Roberts doing the Side Step Shuffle |
Chief Roberts was not coming into EPD unfamiliar with Flock technology. He had prior experience with the system.
So when he moved from the Sheriff’s office into the position of Police chief, there should have been no question about the importance of establishing policies, monitoring access, reviewing audit logs to make sure law enforcement officers with access were not abusing the system.
In Union County, it was just recently discovered that the former Sheriff, Ricky Roberts, approved those cameras a little over a year before becoming Chief of Police at EPD, along with the County Judge, Mike Loftin. The Flock camera system was not discussed or voted on at Quorum Court, and elected county officials did not vote to approve the system.
Elected officials represent us and oversee how our tax dollars are used to benefit the citizens of Union County.
Records we requested from ARDOT showed both Mike Loftin the County Judge and former Sheriff Ricky Roberts approved the Flock Cameras.
Chief Roberts had every opportunity to be transparent and chose to not disclose this to his constituents. In an email, he boasts about how transparent he is, having served over 40 years in law enforcement.
Any trust one has in Chief Roberts, is seriously tainted now.
What safeguards were in place to make sure the technology is not being abused?
Detective Rowland has been involved in a civil lawsuit concerning the use and interpretation of technology in an investigation. According to her deposition taken on July 18, 2025, she testified that she did not understand what she had done wrong until after the civil lawsuit had been filed.
When reviewing the audit logs, I discovered that my son, who lives in Northwest Arkansas, and one of my friends had also been searched by Detective Rowland.
Both my friend and I filed complaints.
On one of the dates in April when they were searched, my friend discovered that another license plate searched belonged to a security guard she worked with.
The night of the search, my friend, the security guard and myself had all been parked at the same location. It was the evening my friend and I were meeting with attorneys who had flown in from Missouri.
We cannot confirm at this time whether another plate searched by Detective Rowland belonged to the rental car driven by those attorneys, but they have been made aware of the search.
I received the findings of the internal affairs investigation. My friend received a phone call from Captain Primm and then requested that he follow up with an email of their conversation.
Another woman that I know decided to find out whether she had been searched through Flock.
She had. But not by Detective Rowland. She was searched by Karl Nichols.
The information she found on DeFlock identified “13th Drug Task Force AR” as the agency that conducted the search. She filed an AFOIA request with the prosecuting attorney, Jeff Rogers.
On the evening she submitted her request, DTF agent, Jonathan Messer, called her personal cell phone and told her that the information she requested was not subject to FOIA.
 |
| Jonathan Messer relaxing after a triple pork chop snack |
EPD responded and advised her that Karl Nichols did not have access to the Flock system.
However, she provided emails showing Karl Nichols communicating with Flock regarding training, setup, camera locations, and serving as the 24-hour contact for Flock.
She eventually received the audit logs and filed a complaint with EPD.
Her complaint was not handled properly either. According to the policy:
“The Chief of Police will record all complaints in the permanent record and assign an Internal Affairs report number.”
The policy requires two mandatory actions:
Every complaint must be entered into a permanent record.
Every complaint must receive an internal complaint report number.
Instead, she was told that no one had done anything wrong.
And that was apparently the end of it.
Are you feeling safe yet?
There are serious questions to be asked. Chief Roberts should go before the City Council and disclose on the record that the city and county have up to 19 cameras implemented throughout the area.
Who are the officers with access to the system? Do they have a clean disciplinary record?
We know women are being tracked. There are now documented cases. We know domestic violence/stalking plus a tool this powerful can lead to harm.
Take for instance Captain Ryan Landers. He thinks if women do not want to get pregnant, they should take the pill or don’t have sex.
With all due respect, Captain Landers, tell that to the men in the Epstein files, the dirty uncle that comes around for holidays, or the 57 men who participated in and/or watched a young lady be abused for hours and no one said a thing.
We do not feel safe!
A surveillance system this powerful should not be operated without proper guardrails, especially when law enforcement officers have demonstrated a lack of understanding or accountability..
It should have oversight, documented audits, restrictions, and consequences for misuse.
In May of this year Chief Ricky Roberts was invited to be the guest speaker at a NAACP meeting.
At the meeting, I asked if he would consider canceling Flock. Chief Roberts stated that he couldn’t cancel the system because they have a contract.
That is a lie!
A contract can be canceled. Several cities in Arkansas have canceled the contracts, put trash bags over the cameras, or physically removed them. Camden is the latest one to cancel the Flock System.
A Civil Service Commission Meeting was held on August 10, 2026. When the meeting was adjourned, Chief Roberts accosted me over my social media comment referring to him as a liar for saying he could not cancel Flock. A complaint has been filed with the Civil Service Commission regarding this incident.
Later in the evening on the date the complaint was filed, one of the women who filed a complaint after discovering she was searched through Flock was run off the road by a Sheriff Deputy.
We are not saying this is related or that it was retaliation. We are saying when we no longer have trust in our leaders.
We are saying Flock cameras are not for your safety.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” -Benjamin Franklin