Flock has never terminated a police department for misusing its automated license plate reader cameras, but the company says it would if a customer knowingly broke the law. Chief executive Garrett Langley made the comments to TechCrunch, and the company's own website acknowledges officers can abuse its systems and should face consequences.
The company is the largest of a handful of ALPR camera firms in the United States, and its technology has come under scrutiny because officers have used the data unlawfully, including to stalk former partners, love interests and rival business owners. Several officers nationwide have been fired or arrested over such misuse.
Langley framed the debate as one of proportion. "If a customer knowingly broke the law, we would fire them immediately. That's very easy," he said, adding that most of the argument comes down to what happens when two officers out of fifty are caught. "Today, we haven't fired any customers, but it's not off the table in the case of some pretty drastic law-abiding issue," he continued.
His broader point is that misconduct by a small number of people should not overshadow legitimate police work. Flock points to investigations involving missing people, violent crimes and theft as the reason its camera network matters.
Who is actually catching the mistakes?
The harder question is what counts as widespread abuse, and whether a department can be trusted to police its own use of the data. Two documented cases suggest the answer is mixed. In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, an employee searched his former fiancée's license plate several thousand times over several years. The sheriff's office investigated, but only after receiving questions from the media, and it ultimately fired him.
In Stow, Massachusetts, police said a victim's complaint alerted them to another officer's alleged misuse. In both instances the department was not catching the problem quickly; people outside the agency were doing the legwork long after the fact.
That pattern matters for Flock's argument. A network that helps recover stolen cars and locate missing people can still need meaningful restrictions, and the two are not in conflict. The tougher question is what happens when the organisation entrusted with enforcing those restrictions fails to do so.
What it means for departments on Flock's network
For police agencies, the practical takeaway is that Flock's willingness to terminate a customer is a promise, not a track record. Langley's own framing, that two officers out of fifty being caught is a nuance rather than a failure, leaves open how bad things would need to get before the company acted.
For drivers, the cases in Jefferson Parish and Stow suggest that if an officer misuses plate data, the discovery is more likely to come from a complaint or a media enquiry than from routine oversight. Verifiable accounts show departments across the country are not following the laws governing ALPR data.
