 |
| Protect and Harass |
My son was sick that day, so I hadn't been out that morning. After lunch, I decided to go outside and take a look for myself. When I did, I noticed duct tape covering the lens, the battery pack was missing, and it was, in fact, a real Flock camera.
There were QR codes on both the solar panel and the camera. One led to a phone number that didn't work, the other directed me to a link indicating that the camera was not registered to an entity.
Given my history with the local police department, I decided to wait until my husband got home that evening before reporting it.
In the meantime, I went around to businesses in the area, asking whether anyone had seen or heard anything about a Flock camera being placed at the corner of our neighborhood. I assumed one of the businesses would contact the police department, considering the camera had been placed on its property.
That evening, we contacted the El Dorado Police Department. The officers seemed genuinely confused by what we were reporting. In fact, they initially didn't even believe it was a real Flock camera until they arrived and saw it for themselves.
They indicated that they thought I was messing with them or attempting some sort of prank. According to one officer, all of the department's Flock cameras were functioning.
Not long afterward, Detective Nichols showed up in my yard asking questions. He wanted to know when and how I first noticed the camera, what time it had been spotted, why I had waited to report it, and why no one else had contacted the department.
This was around 8:30 p.m. In other words, the camera had apparently been sitting there for an entire workday and then some without the police department realizing .
Captain Nichols seemed genuinely confused as well. At one point, he even asked out loud, "Why here?"
My response: "I can tell you why."
He appeared to understand what I was suggesting and didn't attempt to dismiss my concerns about possible retaliation. Of course, that doesn't establish retaliation, but given my history with the department, it was and is a logical thought.
The following day, I was contacted by Detective Ryan Landers, who I will say has been very professional thus far. He has maintained consistent communication with me and assured me that if the investigation revealed this was an inside job involving law enforcement, those responsible would be fired and decertified.
 |
| Det. Ryan Landers |
I genuinely want to believe that. But I don't.
Given my previous experiences with the El Dorado Police Department, I have little confidence that level of accountability will actually happen.
Take Detective Shelly Rowland, for example.
Rowland remains employed by the El Dorado Police Department despite the concerns I've raised about her use of Flock technology. She is also facing litigation involving allegations of wrongful arrests and the interpretation of information obtained through law enforcement technology.
Then there's my own experience.
Based on the Flock audit information I've reviewed, Rowland conducted searches involving my vehicle over a period spanning approximately 105 days. Within just nine of those days, there were 28 searches. Three referenced Ieshia Jackson's case, Ieshia disappeared in October of 2020 and remains unsolved, raising questions about the justification for searching my vehicle's location information.
Yet, Rowland remains employed.
The day after the report was filed concerning the camera found pointed toward my driveway, I received a response to an outstanding Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (AFOIA) request seeking statistical data that law enforcement agencies are required to maintain under Arkansas law.
The El Dorado Police Department was unable to produce the historical data. Instead, I received another explanation for why the information wasn't available.
This is the data sent. Not even close to what the law requires.
What the data should look like.
This technology has been available to the department for nearly three years, yet the department cannot produce complete statistical records. That's another reason I'm skeptical that disciplinary action will happen at all.
From what I've experienced, it appears the department has figured out how to use this powerful technology to track people but has failed to demonstrate that it has the oversight and safeguards necessary to prevent abuse.
What safeguards are in place to ensure law enforcement aren't abusing their access? Who reviews the searches? And what happens when an officer uses this technology for reasons unrelated to legitimate law enforcement purposes?
Allowing employees continued access to this technology without oversight is a dangerous position to take. It contributes to the very "us versus them" mentality that damages trust between the government and the people it serves.
The people should always be their first priority.
There's another detail I can't ignore.
The night before the camera was found pointed toward my driveway, I had submitted an AFOIA request to the 13th Judicial District Drug Task Force concerning recordings reportedly released to the El Dorado News-Times during the investigation involving Andre Rucks, who was running for mayor at the time.
Just one day after the camera was discovered, Rucks won the mayoral election.
My FOIA request, however, remains outstanding. To date, I have not received the requested records.
What I have received is harassment from a Facebook account using the name "Zach Ford," involving the very information I had requested.
Why hasn't the Drug Task Force fulfilled my lawful request for these records, while information related to the investigation appears to be circulating elsewhere?
Mr. Ford also appeared to know what my request involved, that information was not available in my Facebook post he shared.
Rather than addressing the actual premise of my post, Mr. Ford seemed more interested in attacking me for exercising my right to request public information.
It makes me wonder why my request for transparency bothered him so much.
And then there's the investigation itself.
I would be embarrassed if I had gone out of my way to investigate and ultimately arrest a Black man running for mayor of a small city in South Arkansas, only for the charge to be a misdemeanor.
When did this become such a priority for the Drug Task Force?
And then there's another coincidence.
The 13th Judicial District Drug Task Force office is within walking distance of my home, which certainly raises questions for me about whether anyone associated with that agency could have been involved in this stunt.
I have no evidence establishing who removed the camera, but given the circumstances and my recent dealings with the Drug Task Force, I can't simply ignore the possibility. It wouldn’t be far-fetched if Jonathan Messer got his baby feelings hurt given I did call him out in my last story.
The pole wasn't cut, and the bolts were neatly placed in the holder where the pole had been mounted rather than scattered on the ground. Whoever removed it took the time to cover the camera's lens with duct tape and remove the battery pack from the back.
That doesn't look like someone who simply ripped a camera off a pole and tossed it aside.
Another question raised is: Did the person responsible know how these cameras operate?
Covering the lens could prevent the camera from capturing usable images, while removing the battery pack could disable its power supply.
And speaking of the battery pack, where is it?
Detective Landers advised me that it could take up to a year for DNA evidence to be processed and the results returned.
However, I brought up another potential avenue of investigation: Flock's own system records.
I suggested obtaining information from Flock Safety concerning when the camera was last operational and whether the system recorded any tampering or disconnection alerts.
Flock cameras have features designed to detect certain equipment issues, including potential tampering. Whether those features were enabled on this particular camera, and whether any alerts were generated, are questions investigators should have.
From my conversations with the department, I am left wondering whether those possibilities had even been explored.
And once again, we're back to the same issue I've been raising for months.
Why are we allowing law enforcement agencies to have such broad access to powerful surveillance technology without requiring them to demonstrate that they understand how it operates, how to monitor its use, and how to protect the very citizens they're supposed to serve from potential abuse?
This isn't just about a Flock camera that mysteriously appeared pointing at my driveway.
It's about the unanswered questions, the lack of transparency, the incomplete records, and the concerns about accountability that continue to surround this technology.
I don't know who removed that camera, who placed it near my home, or why my neighborhood was chosen. But I do know that I have every right to ask questions, request public records, and expect honest answers from the agencies entrusted with protecting our community.
And I shouldn't have to wonder whether exercising those rights will make me or my family a target.
If these cameras are about public safety, then public accountability should be just as important.
Because who is protecting the public when the very people entrusted with surveillance technology are not being monitored themselves?
In the end, I am thrilled we have one less camera. This is just another example of why I question the claim that these cameras are primarily for public safety. They are also powerful surveillance tools abused by law enforcement for building a historical record of an individual’s movements, revealing where they go, when they go, and how often.
#Deflock
###