# Cop Uses Flock Cameras to Track Her Boyfriend’s Ex-Wife
# Crime Weekly — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VyPO4TJ4jw

[music]
Hey everyone, welcome back to Crime
Weekly News. I'm Derek Levasseur.
And I'm Stephanie Harlow.
So today we are talking about a story
that on its face sounds almost like some
bizarre relationship drama involving a
police officer, her boyfriend, and his
ex-wife. But the more you dig into it,
the more you realize the story is
actually part of a much bigger
conversation happening right now about
surveillance, privacy, and just how much
information law enforcement should be
able to access about where ordinary
people are going. Because a police
officer in Mooresville, North Carolina
has now been accused of using something
called the Flock camera system not to
track down a murder suspect, not to find
a kidnapped child, not to locate a
stolen vehicle, but allegedly to track
her boyfriend's ex-wife. Her name is
Elizabeth Ann Snowman, and according to
the Mooresville Police Department, an
internal audit discovered that she had
access their license plate reader system
31 different times for personal reasons.
Flock started as technology designed to
help neighborhoods and law enforcement
fight crime, but the exact same thing
that makes the system so effective at
finding a dangerous suspect also makes
it extremely powerful when it's pointed
at someone who hasn't done anything
wrong. So today we're going to be
talking about what allegedly happened
with Officer Elizabeth Snowman, but
we're also going to talk about the
bigger question her case raises. At what
point does a really effective
crime-fighting tool become a
surveillance system? And who exactly is
watching the people who have the power
to use it?
I love this kind of stuff. I love really
digging into things and looking at what
what things are created for and then
what they evolve to become, and Flock
has been a real issue lately. So the
officer at the center of it all is
36-year-old Elizabeth Ann Snowman, who
worked for the Mooresville Police
Department in North Carolina. She was
arrested on August 5th, 2026 after the
department says an internal audit
uncovered suspicious searches she had
made using its Flock license plate
reader system. So, the police alleged
that Snowman was using Flock for
personal reasons rather than legitimate
police work, specifically to obtain
information about and track her
boyfriend's ex-wife who lives in another
state. So, this is also something where
it's like, this isn't even your state.
This isn't even your jurisdiction. This
person has committed no crime, and yet
you are using a police tool for
investigations, for investigatory work.
Yeah, abusing a police tool.
So, according to the Mooresville Police
Department, Snowman allegedly accessed
the Flock system 31 times in connection
with this personal matter. Now, local
reporting adds an interesting detail.
Chief Ron Camparchiani said there were
29 searches involving a license plate,
while the department has described the
overall improper access as occurring 31
times. So, apparently two of those
alleged accesses occurred while Snowman
was off-duty, which that adds another
layer. The Mooresville Police Department
says the activity was uncovered during
an audit of its license plate reader
system. Investigators then began looking
into Snowman's searches. Police also
alleged that when Snowman was questioned
about why she'd access the system, she
was not truthful about her reasons for
doing so. So, the department's position
is essentially that its oversight
mechanisms of doing the audit eventually
worked, but normal people obviously
respond with the fact that this police
officer allegedly accessed the system
and used it improperly dozens of times
before the audit caught the problem,
dozens of times.
Fair.
So, Chief Camparchiani said Snowman was
taken into custody when she arrived for
work on August 5th. He later remarked
that although she technically worked
that day, she probably spent most of her
shift in jail. She was charged with
misdemeanor computer access under North
Carolina's law relating to unauthorized
access to computers. So, Snowman had
reportedly been hired by the Mooresville
police in 2025. She was relatively new
to the police department. But, the
department itself had already been using
Flock for approximately 5 years. The
chief emphasized that officers are
repeatedly told what they may and may
not use these databases for, which I
believe that they are told they're not
supposed to use it for that. But, they
also probably know that there's not a
ton of oversight, which is part of this
issue.
Yeah. Yeah, exactly. That's how we learn
from this. I will say I did not have the
Flock system when I was a police
officer, but we obviously had access to
NCIC, which is the ability to run
registration plates and run people. And
I will tell you that similar
conversations happened where you're
told, "Hey, you have this system at your
disposal. However, if you're running
friends, or family members, or
ex-girlfriends, the FBI monitors this,
the state police monitor this, and if
you're found to be using this system
improperly, you can be arrested." So,
those same conversations, even though
Flock is way more advanced than NCIC, I
remember those conversations as a
patrolman.
It's also not being monitored by the FBI
or the state police, right?
Yes, that's where that's where this is a
learning opportunity for sure.
police officers would know. They would
know that, and they would know that
there's not a huge system in place,
right?
Yes, there's not an oversight
administration looking at this like an
entity like the FBI, correct?
So, get this. It gets even worse,
because after this was uncovered, the
department said it was examining 10
additional employees for possible misuse
of the Flock system. The chief said
three of those cases appeared
potentially problematic, and he did not
rule out additional charges. That is
probably, I think, one of the most
important facts to mention in this
specific story, because suddenly this
isn't necessarily one rogue officer does
something stupid, It's one rogue officer
gets caught for doing something stupid
and when the department starts looking
more closely, it discovers several other
rogue officers that may also need
explaining and then that's just in this
one police department.
it would be unreasonable for someone to
say, oh listen, this is an isolated
incident, right? This is a much deeper
issue and as you pointed out, just
because this one person was caught, it
doesn't mean it's isolated to just them.
In fact, we know it's not.
We know it's not. So, the chief also
said, listen, our police department is a
heavy Flock user, which is another thing
to talk about, and he acknowledged there
isn't currently a simple automated
warning that would essentially tell
supervisors, hey, this police officer in
your department has searched the same
vehicle 10 times in 2 weeks, right?
No way to trigger some some suspicious
behavior.
Before the suspicious behavior goes on
for long enough where it might be an
issue. Like, oh maybe she's searching
this person. I'm not saying in this
case, maybe she's searching this person
cuz she wants to find out where this
person lives so that she can kill this
person.
Right.
Right?
Right. Or on the other hand, even if the
system triggers it where this person is
searching Derek Levasseur, right? It
notifies administrators so that they can
ask the officer about it. Now, maybe the
officer will come back and say, yeah,
Derek Levasseur is a drug dealer. We're
currently tracking his location. Here's
the investigation. Like, you can clear
it up pretty quickly, but there's no
system in place right now to even notify
administrators that they're doing it so
you can ask them about it. So, wild
west.
west and it's a very very massively
information gathering tool, a very
massively, I would say, privacy invading
tool
in the hands of normal human beings who
don't always do the right thing. And
with no oversight, right? Because the
chief said, hey, we have been discussing
better early warning capabilities that
could flag suspicious patterns
automatically.
But, it gets directly at what the
criticism is that most people have
because auditing a database after the
fact is different from preventing
something bad, abuse, while it's
happening. So, if an officer searches
somebody's vehicle once, maybe that's
legitimate. If an officer searches the
exact same private citizen's vehicle
over and over and over again, critics
argue the system ought to be saying,
"Why is this happening?" If you have
such a powerful system that's capable of
doing so much, then why does the system
not have checks and balances in place?
That's my big issue with the system
currently.
And this apparently made the police
chief even more frustrated because
Snowman's arrest came shortly after an
officer with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Police Department had also been arrested
for allegedly misusing law enforcement
databases and license plate reader
information. So, when we say, "Yeah, we
know this is happening." We know this is
happening
because it is, because we keep getting
news stories about it every week,
sometimes weekly and on the daily. So,
this news station WSOC interviewed Chad
Marlow, the senior policy counsel for
the ACLU, and Chad argued that the
larger problem obviously goes beyond
individual officers breaking the rules.
His position was that these systems all
ready surveil an enormous portion of the
public
who are not criminals, who, you know,
it's Minority Report, right? It's like
pre-crime. They are not doing anything
wrong. They're monitored in case they
do, but that becomes an issue. And he
said even when they're being used
according to policy, they're still kind
of taking in more information than was
the original stated intention of what
Flock was supposed to be. And he raised
a particularly compelling issue in a
situation like this police officer
Snowman's alleged conduct. Imagine
you're being tracked by an ordinary
stalker. You call the police, but what
if the person allegedly tracking you is
a police officer and is using police
tools to do it? Who does the victim feel
safe reporting that to? That's part of
why the abuse of law enforcement
surveillance technology feels far more
threatening. It's like state stalking,
state-sponsored abuse. It feels more
threatening than somebody simply looking
up information on Google. The alleged
abuser potentially has access to systems
ordinary civilians could never access.
So, we've kind of discussed what's going
on in Officer Snowman's case and how not
only in Officer Snowman's case, but now
apparently 10 other cases in that same
police department and then there's other
cases in different police departments
where this is kind of a dominoes falling
at this point.
And we see that this is happening.
There's no checks and balances in place
and we have to really understand why
this isn't some kind of like, oh
whatever, you know, they're looking up
license. No, it goes deeper than that
based on the depth of what Flock does
and we're going to talk about what the
Flock system does and what it was
intended to do and why it's a huge
concern
for a multiple variety of reasons, but
let's take a quick break first.
[music]
This episode of Crime Weekly News is
brought to you by Wildgrain.
Yeah, which I appreciate because fresh
bread at home makes you feel instantly
more impressive.
It really does. You put warm sourdough
on the table and suddenly everyone's
like, wow, you have your life together.
Yeah, even if five minutes earlier you
were staring into the freezer wondering
what's dinner going to be tonight.
And that is the magic of Wildgrain.
Wildgrain is the first bake from frozen
subscription box for sourdough breads,
artisanal pastries, and fresh pastas.
And the key to what you said right there
is baked from frozen. No thawing.
The second something says thaw overnight
or thaw beforehand even, I'm out. I
needed it tonight, I needed it right
now. That was the whole point.
Everything bakes in 25 minutes or less,
which gives you a timeline that you can
actually depend on. And Wildgrain uses
simple ingredients with a slow
fermentation process that can be easier
on your stomach and packed with
nutrients. Their sourdough loaves are
hands-down always my favorites. The
20-hour slow fermentation gives them
such good flavor, really good texture,
you know, that whole sourdough thing,
like crispy on the outside,
Yes.
uh nice and soft on the inside, and you
know that I'm not having any of these
these breads and croissants not without
their slow churned French butter. It's
over. Like you're a victim of this bread
now.
I'm at the point now where I'm like, do
I just take a spoonful of this stuff and
eat it, but I haven't gotten there yet,
Stephanie. I'm not going to
think it's like we're ridiculous like
over exaggerating like how different
could this butter be than any other
butter? And just try it.
Okay.
And the boxes are fully customizable
which I love. So I have a Wildgrain
subscription. I get a box every month.
So in there I'm going to make sure I
have my croissants. I'm going to make
sure I have my sourdough bread. I'm
going to make sure I have my gnocchis.
I'm also going to make sure I have my
cookies because
Yes.
Wildgrain has the most amazing like huge
soft chewy delicious cookies. But you
can also choose from the variety box.
They have a gluten-free box, vegan box,
or their new protein box. So it's easy
to find something that works for your
household.
Breakfast, dinner, dessert, busy week,
slow week, whatever you need, they got
you covered.
All of it. Croissants for breakfast,
pasta for dinner, cookies for dessert,
sourdough for, you know, literally any
moment when you want to feel like you
made a good life choice or you need some
quick to open mean.
Yeah, so the freezer becomes less of the
emergency food storage and more like a
secret bakery.
Oh yeah, my kids when their friends come
over they love it cuz they're like, "Ah,
we wish we had cookies or we wish we
had" and I'm like, "Really? Hold on. I
have everything you need."
I got you.
This is a a secret bakery that requires
no shoes, no store, and no small talk
with anyone in the public and that is my
favorite kind of luxury. So imagine
having fresh bakery quality bread,
pastries, and pastas at home without any
trips to the store. And don't just take
our word for it. Wildgrain has over
40,000 five-star reviews and they've
been voted the best food subscription
box by USA Today for three years in a
row. So for a limited time Wildgrain is
offering our listeners $30 off your
first box which is a great deal plus
free croissants for life which how could
you make a great deal even better? Free
croissants. And all you have to do is go
to wildgrain.com/crimeweekly30
to start your subscription today. That's
$30 off your first box and free
croissants for life when you visit
wildgrain.com/crimeweekly30
or you can use promo code crimeweekly30
at checkout.
All right, we're [music] back. So,
Flock Safety was founded in Atlanta in
2017 by Garrett Langley, Matt Fury, and
Paige Todd, all Georgia Tech alumni. So,
the original concept was fairly
straightforward. Give neighborhoods an
affordable way to capture information
about vehicles coming into and out of an
area after a rash of property or vehicle
crime. Now, Flock described its
beginnings as an effort to improve
neighborhood safety. These cameras,
understand, were not ordinary security
cameras. They were automatic license
plate readers. So, rather than somebody
sitting there watching hours of footage,
the camera would essentially say, I
think using like AI, a gray Toyota Camry
with plate XYZ123 passed this location
at 11:43 p.m. It pulls it up for you, so
you don't have to watch all the footage.
And importantly, Flock software could
identify more than the plate. It could
identify things like vehicle make,
model, color, and other characteristics
that could become searchable.
Distinguishing marks as well.
Yes, exactly. Uh bumper stickers.
Like dents and things and it's it's
roof racks is another one.
So, very early on, a DeKalb County
detective told Langley that one of these
cameras had helped investigators solve a
residential burglary. According to
Flock's founding story, that helped
convince the founders that law
enforcement would be a major market for
the technology. So, the trajectory was
basically neighborhood security camera,
like neighborhood watch kind of thing,
then useful police investigative tool,
and that turns into a enormous
interconnected law enforcement
surveillance network. And that's where
things got controversial in that third
step. Because from a police perspective,
obviously, I think you and I both, what
we do with true crime, when we talk
about missing children, and then the
person's like, I saw this car and this
guy, yes, we can see and immediately
understand the appeal.
Especially when time time is of the
essence. Like it's it's the difference
between life and death.
Of course. So, imagine there's an armed
robbery or a child abduction and a
witness says the suspect left in a black
Dodge Charger. I didn't get the plate.
Traditionally, the police might have to
pull nearby security footage. They have
to canvas businesses, find witnesses,
hope somebody caught the vehicle.
And like you said, go through all of
that footage, which could be hours.
Yeah, hope that somebody caught the
vehicle. Hope that somebody saw
something.
Yes. Yes.
But with Flock, investigators can
potentially search black Dodge Charger
at this particular location in this
particular time window. Or even better,
if they know the plate or the partial
plate of the stolen vehicle, the system
can alert officers when that plate
passes another Flock camera.
Correct. Correct. So, if they identify
the vehicle and they're trying to track
it and there's a child in the car,
going to be very difficult for them to
get away. Think about some of the cases
we've covered where you think about this
system just out of on the surface and
you think about
man, what if?
Yes.
would we be here discussing certain
cases and and not knowing what happened
if we had something like this?
I think the the best thing that a human
brain can do is hold two truths
Oh, yeah.
inside of it at once, right?
Completely agree.
Yeah, so we see this can be helpful.
People who are into true crime, who have
seen how many kids have gone missing
or how many suspects have gotten away.
And how many times have you and I been
like, how the hell did nobody see
anything?
[laughter]
Like it's like ridiculous, especially in
2026. It's insane.
We see that this can be incredibly
useful. And Flock now openly markets
itself as public safety infrastructure
and says thousands of law enforcement
agencies and communities use its
technology. And that is true. It's very
widespread. And if every department's or
neighborhoods' cameras kind of existed
in isolation, the privacy discussion
would probably look very different than
the one we're having now. But they
don't. They don't necessarily exist in
isolation. The criticism isn't really a
camera photograph my license plate. Your
license plate is visible to the public
once you go out, right? The concern is
what happens when tens of thousands of
cameras repeatedly photograph
everybody's cars, record when and where
they are seen, put those observations
into a searchable database, and allow
information to be shared widely across
jurisdictions. So, Flock reportedly now
has roughly 120,000
cameras operating across 49 states. This
is very wide spread. One camera would
tell police Stephanie Harlow's car went
through this intersection. And then a
network of cameras potentially tells
police Stephanie's car left her house at
8:04, passed this intersection at 8:17,
appeared near this doctor's office at
8:46, was downtown at noon, returned to
her neighborhood at 4:22. No officer
physically followed me, no GPS tracker
was attached to my car, but
technologically you can begin creating
something resembling a location history
anyway. No warrant was asked to to track
my location, where I'm at all day, but
they still can.
And and just to add another wrinkle to
that, and this is coming from a a police
officer. When I'm tracking someone, I
don't necessarily need a warrant to go
do that. So, for example, if I was
trying to track someone, I could go
around and physically go to different
houses and and and obtain ring camera
systems and and put together the pieces,
but it's a lot more work. You could
through investigative work piece
together different camera footage to
track them, but it's a lot more
involved, and it would be person or
vehicle specific. What you're saying,
which a lot of people are saying, is
this information is too readily
available. There's no There's no actual
work being done for specific person.
It's just out there for for
dissemination.
There's no work and there's no warrants,
because technically you could go if you
saw, like with the Chandler Halderson
case, right? They go to his
neighborhood, but they don't know
necessarily where his car goes after
that until they get a warrant for his
cell phone data, which then shows where
he's pinging, right? So, then they can
go to those companies.
Yeah, that would make sense, yeah.
But, you have to get a warrant for that
cell phone data, which means you have to
show that person did something wrong.
I do hear the argument of like, "Oh,
it's warrantless, warrantless." Yeah, to
get cell phone data, absolutely, which
would make my job a lot easier. You need
a warrant, you need to articulate the
crime that has allegedly been committed.
But, for going around like on foot, I as
a detective could go to Chandler's area
and ask neighbors for their footage and
not need a warrant. Now, if they said,
"No, I don't want to give it to you." I
would have to get said warrant and I
would have to do everything you just
said.
I'm talking about the step that comes
after that. When Chandler leaves that
neighborhood, where does he go? We have
to get a warrant for his cell phone
records to see where he where it's
pinging.
Yeah, yeah, you would have to get a cell
phone or you would have to physically
continue to go house to house and get
traffic cameras. It would be an
astronomical amount of work.
And we can both agree that in the case
of Chandler Halterson or other people
like him who are up to nefarious no good
things, that's fine. We want it to be
quicker. However, let's say there's a
police officer who's like, "I think my
wife's cheating on me. I'm going to put
her license plate into this and I'm
going to see everywhere she went. And
then he finds out that she was some
place she shouldn't have been. And then
she comes home that night and he kills
her.
No rebuttal whatsoever, no notes.
Because there was nothing he had to do
to give to a judge to prove his wife had
done something illegal to access that
information.
This is where it becomes problematic,
right?
couldn't agree more. Absolutely, I have
no debate to that. You're absolutely
right.
When even if it goes beyond that and it
goes to broader things, there's there's
issues about what are the police using
Flock cameras for. The EFF, which is the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, the
leading non-profit digital rights group
that defends online privacy, free
speech, and digital innovation, they
have basically analyzed the millions of
Flock searches and say that law
enforcement agencies are using the
network for much broader purposes,
including things like school residency
investigations, like for school
residency stuff, not criminal
investigations, background checks, noise
complaints, even things like obviously
immigration. And it has even invaded
medical privacy, things like terminating
pregnancies, which may be illegal in
some states. Now, they can say, "Oh,
this person was at a clinic." That
person should technically have had
medical privacy for that thing that they
were doing, right?
Yeah, I agree with that. I agree with
what you're saying that they shouldn't
be using it for that, to make that
clear.
And one of the most controversial
examples does involve a Texas Sheriff's
office using Flock data while
investigating a woman suspected of
self-managing a pregnancy termination.
According to documents obtained,
deputies searched a Flock network
containing information from more than
83,000
ALPR cameras, so the license plate
reading cameras. And this is exactly the
hypothetical privacy that advocates have
warned about, because suddenly the
question wasn't, "Can this help find a
stolen car or stolen child?" It became,
"Should law enforcement be able to
search a nationwide database of
Americans' movements to investigate
behavior that may be illegal in one
state and maybe legal in another?" Once
you have this infrastructure, which is
set up for the right reason, the
permissible use of that infrastructure
can change depending upon who's in the
government, what laws are passed, what
police department's conducting the
search, what police officer is
conducting the search. There's no
oversight. So, obviously, we have
immigration enforcement. This is a big
issue. Flock maintains that customers
control their data and say there's no
secret federal backdoor, but law
enforcement agencies have been using
Flock-related hot lists that could
identify vehicles on behalf of
immigration authorities.
Yeah, so basically, the local local
agencies can be working as an agent of
the state for federal agencies.
Yeah, you don't necessarily need ICE to
own their own cameras. If thousands of
local departments collect the data, and
then those departments share.
Yeah, I mean, let's say let's say
Stephanie's a local police officer, and
I work for ICE, right? And I go to
Stephanie and I say, "Hey, you know, hey
Stephanie, do me a favor. Run this Run
this plate real quick for me." What's to
stop you from doing it?
Right. Yeah, if a federal law
enforcement person, like an agent, is
contacting me. Technically, they're like
my boss, right?
No, they're not. They're not.
Well, I you might feel that way, though.
Yeah, you could feel intimidated. Yeah,
I guess I guess on individual basis, but
uh you could also tell them to go pound
sand, and there's nothing they can do
about
also going to look at it as like, "Hey,
we are fighting crime together. We are
on the same team."
Yeah, yeah, we're we're in this
together.
Realistically,
nobody really is saying we shouldn't use
these to fight legitimate crime.
Realistically, we're saying technology
is removing this practical limitation of
what police officers can do with
warrants, what they're allowed to do.
It's kind of becoming this warrantless,
like 1984 surveillance state thing that
people are becoming uncomfortable with.
There's a lot of things that are now
coming out recently, and you we were
talking about it before. People are
making videos. People are even in law
enforcement saying, "This is not really
good, and we don't we didn't really
understand how these were going to be
used, or how they could potentially be
used. We were just kind of told, 'Hey,
this is like a great crime-fighting
tool. It's going to make your job
easier. It's going to get bad people off
the streets faster. It's going to save
lives.'" And we were like, "Hell yeah,
give it to us." But people didn't
understand how big the network became.
One Flock camera doesn't necessarily
scare people, but tens of thousands of
searchable cameras potentially
communicating across jurisdictional
lines does. And then we see how these
actual examples of like the original
mission creep have emerged. We're not
really debating hypothetical scenarios
involving termination of pregnancy
investigations, immigration enforcement,
protests, petty administrative matters.
There's documented examples showing the
systems being used beyond serious
violent crime.
And obviously, this has happened over
and over again with technology.
Communities and people adopting the
technology faster than lawmakers can
create rules for it.
Yeah.
Right? We talk about that with the
internet all the time. People are
allowed to get away with a lot of stuff
on the internet that in real life there
are laws for, but there's really no laws
for the internet as of yet. They don't
really know how to make those. I think
that everybody on all sides of the
political spectrum are mad about this
for different reasons.
Yeah, for sure.
But mad about this. We can't even just
say this is a political thing anymore.
No, no, it's much it's much deeper than
that.
Yeah, we have people on the left who are
worrying about immigration enforcement,
investigations about termination of
pregnancy, uh protest surveillance. And
then we have people on the right who we
know like their privacy, don't like too
much government involvement, general
fourth amendment stuff, which is the
fourth amendment. What does it do? It
means
Illegal search and seizure.
So, we have everybody on all spectrums,
where you stand politically, where you
stand socially, even how where you stand
on technology. We don't really like
this. It makes us uncomfortable. So,
obviously, we have now seen a ton of get
Flock out campaigns.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We've seen campaigns
to actively go around and destroy the
Flock cameras.
I don't think that's necessarily what it
started as. It was more like, "Hey,
write your lawmakers."
But it became people physically
vandalizing.
FYI, this is how you destroy it. If you
cover your face Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah, it became people physically
vandalizing Flock cameras. Is that
right? Is that wrong?
Well, it's it's it's against the law.
It's against the law, but technically
some of the ways that this Flock system
is being used is also against people's
fourth amendment rights.
But two wrongs don't make a right. I
think you would agree with that. You
know what I mean? Like that's we we
learn that very young.
But if you want people to to be told,
"Hey, what you're doing is wrong." You
have to listen to the fact that they are
telling you, the government and law
enforcement, "Hey, what you're doing is
wrong."
Correct.
So, I think that's where it's converging
now. And and hopefully we see with this
case that we're talking about, we have a
police chief saying, "Yeah, this isn't
right. And this shouldn't be happening."
But it is. It's happening a lot more
than when than we really want it to be.
And we do need to put something in place
to prevent it from happening. So, that's
a good step.
First and foremost, let's just say this
is a a much larger issue than we're
going to solve here on Crime Weekly
today. But I do think there are some
general points that we we kind of all
agree on. A couple problems that you
identified that I think can be corrected
almost immediately. First and foremost,
the access to the system. Currently, as
it stands, basically any police officer
can access the system. You can have a
patrolman like Officer Snowman who's got
less than a year on the job and she has
access to the system. You can cut that
right out. That should never happen.
There should be Flock representatives
within agencies, maybe one or two
people. Like, for example, in most
police departments, we have what's
called evidence custodians. Basically,
these one or two people are the only two
people in the entire agency that have
keys to the evidence room. That's for
chain of custody, right? It It creates a
level of accountability for those two
people and they they usually take that
job very serious. And obviously, when
you're picking people to run those
certain agencies or those certain
departments or be in charge of those
responsibilities, that is something that
is taken very seriously. So, first and
foremost, accessibility. One or two
people within each agency that has the
ability to access the database
associated with Flock.
Yes, I agree. Accessibility needs to be
addressed. I would even go as far as to
say you should have to do the same thing
you'd have to do to get any warrant. Go
to a judge and show, "This is why I need
to access Flock because this person is
suspected of doing this." Then, you have
access to Flock and it is documented
that you're you're investigating this
specific person, not just your
boyfriend's ex-wife.
I would disagree with that is there's
going to be situations where you don't
know who you're investigating. For
example, if Stephanie Harlow calls in
and says, "I can't find my kid. I can't
find my daughter. She was outside
playing in the front yard. I can't find
her. She's been missing 15 minutes."
So, at that point, let's say Derek
Levasseur was in charge of the Flock
system database, but I wasn't working
that day. It would create a little bit
more timing, which is unfortunate with a
missing child, but basically, Sergeant
so-and-so would have to call Derek
Levasseur in and then I would be able to
access the Flock system. Even without
the warrant, there would be a path.
There would be an investigation that
would need to be opened. Derek Levasseur
would have to write up a report saying,
"I accessed the Flock system on this day
at this time because of call number 1772
where Stephanie Harlow called in and
reported her daughter missing from
Darling Street at approximately 3:50
Don't put that bad juju on me.
I I Yeah, [laughter] you're right. But,
there would have to be a lot of
documentation. Why would that be? Well,
this would be to my second point. And my
second point would be oversight. We
would need to establish an independent
agency, not Flock,
not the police department investigating
themselves, but a completely separate
agency made up of law enforcement
officials and private citizens who would
be able to audit said Flock access. So,
for example, if I was a private citizen
working for this entity that's
overseeing any usage of Flock, I could
see that it was used by Derek Levasseur
on June 16th, 2023.
I would be able to go in and access the
Flock access report that Derek would
have to file after the fact to say,
"Hey, this is why I used this system."
And then, I would have the ability to go
in and interview and question Derek to
if there was anything in that report
that didn't make sense. But, also I want
to add on to something you said.
If there's an exigent circumstance where
you have to go in and you don't have a
specific target that you're going after
yet, the Flock system would allow you to
get that warrant. And here's where I
think you're right, Stephanie. Let's say
there's break-ins in the area. And Derek
Levasseur, who is the Flock agent for
that agency, uses the Flock system and
identifies a specific vehicle that
appears to fit the description and
timing of these crimes.
At that point, Flock access is stopped.
You now have identified the vehicle. You
need to go get a warrant for that said
vehicle.
And that's where, again, this is all has
to be legislatively written out and
really articulated to a point where
there's not a lot of room for
interpretation. And this is something
that's going to happen over an extended
period of time. It's It's to be multiple
cases, but
let me just go back to my first point
for a second because and and Stephanie
and I were talking a little bit before
we started recording. I have seen this
problem with the NCIC system where we
have had individuals search
ex-boyfriends, ex-wives, looked up
attractive drivers as they're passing by
with no cause to do so.
So, we know that there's an abuse of the
system. And there also needs to be
something that is using AI to flag those
behaviors. So, for example, number one
thing we're going to do is create a
funnel where instead of allowing
everyone access, there might be one or
two people within each agency who has
access to it. So, we're going to
eliminate 90% of the people who can even
access Flock. But then on top of that,
we're going to create some type of
program AI that will monitor certain
behaviors. So, even though these people
have been vetted and reviewed and
approved to have access to Flock, there
will still be a system in place where if
there's a pattern of behavior displayed
by one of these Flock users, it will
notify the agency overseeing the Flock
access to say, "Hey,
Derrick Levasseur has accessed the Flock
system seven times this month. Why? What
was he searching for?" And we could go
in there and see that. So, there needs
to be programs put in place outside of
Flock. It can't be Flock policing
themselves, right? And it can't be the
police policing themselves. Again,
independent agency. So, those are just a
few of the things that would address
some of the major concerns that we have,
and then we would have to continue to
improve on those initial foundations in
order to vet the process. But, I know on
the other side of things, and this is
where you and I may split. I don't know
exactly. We haven't talked about it at
length. There are people who believe
that the Flock system should just be
completely dismantled and not used at
all because of privacy concerns.
Well, yeah, kind of until you have a
system in place, like don't use it.
Yeah.
I think it should be on pause. I think I
and I think that is fair. I think the
system should currently be on pause
until we iron out those details.
However, and I'm only one person and I'm
not here to convince anyone else to
believe what I believe.
But I'm just going to talk about where
I'm coming from without any agenda
behind it. In fact, I don't mind saying
this. I was again talking to Stephanie,
but I'll be honest with you guys. Flock
came to me for detective perspective and
wanted me to do an ad on Flock and I
refused to do it at this point because I
think there's a lot of things that need
to be addressed before doing so. So I
I'm with you guys, but here's my my
where I'm sitting from. We have
discussed as a community too many cases
where the Flock system may have
prevented it or at least saved lives. We
know that to be true. There's multiple
cases that Stephanie and I have covered
that I I've cried about on camera and
off camera where the Flock system might
have saved that person. So I don't think
the the answer is to get rid of it
completely. I am one of those people
that believe at this point when you step
outside your home,
you are being recorded. It's scary, but
you're being recorded everywhere from
toll booths to security cameras to the
cell phone companies having access to
your GPS data. Like there's people who
work at AT&T and Verizon who may have
ulterior motives who can track you as
well. Like if you live in a world of
technology and you're using it at all,
you're being tracked. So so to me,
that's not as much of a concern. Again,
it goes back to accessibility. And I
really think Stephanie did a great job
of articulating that in the first half
of this episode. So I do approve of
systems like Flock, but I think and I
don't want to be corny here, but with
great power comes great responsibility.
And because this tool is so powerful and
will only get more powerful,
the people who are allowed to have
access to it,
it should be so limited where we could
probably sit here and give you the list
in like 30 minutes where it could be 50
to 100 people. And by the way, like as
it goes up the chain, again, warrants
would need to be in place and higher
positions of authority within the Flock
accessibility hierarchy would have to go
in. So, like there has to be tiers to
the access that you have. There's so
many things you can do to limit the
availability of Flock, but I think at
minimum, all of these cases where we're
talking about patrolmen abusing the
system, well, we have to go after them
and hold them accountable, make sure
they lose their jobs, right? But, we can
also take away their right to do it.
None of these local police officers who
are working traffic
need access to the system. If there's an
exigent circumstance, if there's an
emergency
someone within their agency that they
can contact who even can be from home
needs to be notified to access that
system. So, there's one person who we
can go to and we can hold accountable if
something doesn't add up.
I agree with everything you said, but
here's the problem. Our government has
used these emotions you're describing
historically to enact things like this
to completely reduce and remove the
privacy that US citizens are entitled to
under the Constitution. I will bring
your attention to the Patriot Act.
That's another thing for Flock, by the
way. Terrorism is why I didn't even
mention that. Thank you.
The Patriot Act was enacted after 9/11,
and the government was like,
"Everybody's upset about this, rightly
so. We are upset." And the Patriot Act
sounded good at first until you found
out that now the federal government is
tracking its domestic citizens,
everything you're doing, right? At first
it was like, "Oh, it's checking what
kind of books we check out of the
library. That's crazy." But, then it was
like, "Oh, also, they're looking at your
emails. They're listening to your calls.
They're looking at your communications."
Things that you thought while you're in
the privacy of your own home, not
stepping outside.
Warrantless, by the way. Warrantless in
many cases.
Warrantless.
And And Edward Snowden exposed this, and
And now he can't even ever come back to
the United States.
By the way, I completely agree with you
there. I'm not I'm I completely agree
with you.
So, they use these things. Crime is
high. Children are being kidnapped.
People are being murdered. They use
these things to enact laws and policies
and infrastructure that reduces our
privacy to nothing. And because we are
like, yes, the general public, we care
about people, of course, we keep giving
it away, giving it away. And at at some
point there's not going to be a way to
get it back. And I think we've reached
that point, honestly.
There's definitely an overcorrection
when tragedy strikes, right? Like you
you know, like you just said, terrorism,
Patriot Act, all these things. And I
think at this point you got to reel it
in. So,
I'm on board with what you're saying and
I feel like right now giving access to
the Flock system to all police officers
was not the right decision. Should have
never happened. And so now there has to
be a correction. I don't think getting
rid of the system completely is the
answer. That's my personal opinion. I
know there'll be many of you who
disagree with me.
But you said put it on pause is okay.
Oh, for sure.
Yeah.
I would love to be on the committee to
oversee this because I'm someone who
worked in law enforcement but but I'm
also willing to call them out. I think a
lot of people would agree with me in my
in my opinions on it. I think it's a
valuable tool, but it has to be in the
right hands. It's a very powerful tool.
But like local traffic violations or any
medical stuff, get out of here. Miss me
with all of that, right? Like
protesting, no shot. You should be using
this for that, right? I'm talking
extreme circumstances, missing children,
murders, violent crime, terrorism. There
are cases where time is of the essence
and having something like this could be
the difference between life and death.
But this should be not something that is
used every day like it's a library card.
Like I wonder what this person is doing.
That's ridiculous.
It comes into like, okay, now if they
want to get me for this, but they don't
have evidence to get me for this, well,
they can just go and and follow me until
they have evidence to get me for
something.
Correct. Correct. And people are abusing
it. And that's always what happens,
right? People abuse these these
technologies. And I just also want to
add for disclaimer purposes, we keep
saying Flock because Flock is the
prominent system, but there are other
companies that are doing this as well.
So, we're not demonizing Flock
necessarily. It's the system itself.
Flock is just the biggest one right now.
So, we're not sitting here saying Flock
Flock Flock. There are other systems
that are by different companies that are
doing this a similar thing. I think Los
Angeles, there was just an article with
LAPD where they had put their
relationship with Flock on hold, but
then there were also reports they were
working with another company that does
the exact same thing not named Flock.
So, this is the overall system that
we're talking about and whether it's
Flock or Bozo the Clown, we're we're not
in agreement with the idea of local
patrolmen being able to access the
system on a daily basis cuz they're
sitting in the parking lot having a
sandwich and they want to see what their
ex-girlfriend is up to. That's the
problem here and that's just one of the
problems and I do think entities,
outside parties need to be put in place
to not only monitor those actions, but
the rights of the Flock system need to
be taken away from everyone for right
now and then slowly after much training,
processing, and vetting of said users is
taking place and then you slowly
disseminate that responsibility, that
accessibility back to particular
individuals with the understanding that
if that system is abused and it is and
it and it is found out through the
measures that are put in place, you're
looking at some serious charges against
you.
Some federal charges maybe cuz I've seen
I've seen the federal government go
after activists who are just releasing
like
academic journals. And I've seen them go
after them for like wiretapping and like
federal felonies.
There would be serious repercussions to
the point where you would have to ask
yourself, is searching so-and-so worth
spending the next 25 years in prison? It
would have to be that extreme to deter
people from this type of behavior. But
one way to do it is just to, again, like
I sound so trivial, but like to just
limit the access where we have talked
about this many times before and I am
someone who has said this publicly, not
all police officers are created equal.
I've worked with some absolute clowns.
Um I've I've talked to you off record
about fist fights that I've gotten in
with other police officers inside the
building because they're they're
scumbags. And so, do I want everybody
with a badge having access to these
types of systems? No. Former cop here
telling you that.
You can see how how this type of system
would be incredibly appealing to a
certain personality cuz how many people
have we known where they're like, "Man,
I just wish I could get into my
boyfriend's phone and like see where
he's going." And now here's a system
where you can see where he's going every
minute of the day.
And it's dangerous.
It should be scary for everybody and
there has to be some serious serious
changes. So, please everyone, we want to
hear your opinions on this. We know
going into it that everyone's going to
feel differently about it and I don't
think it's a binary answer. I I think
there's going to be nuance to this and
it's going to be a deeper conversation,
but nothing changes if you don't discuss
it, which is why we are. We'd love to
hear your thoughts on it. We appreciate
the love, we appreciate the support. I
don't really think there's anything else
to to talk about. Stephanie and I have
some things going on behind the scenes
that could be interesting and could be
fun later this year. We're in
discussions for them and we're excited
about those possibilities, but as
always, we appreciate you guys being
here. We appreciate the love, the
support, and we will be back later this
week with I believe the fourth and final
part of Chandler Halderson.
Yes, sir. Yep, absolutely.
This case has been something that you
guys have really attached yourselves to.
A lot of you knew about this case before
and and are saying that some of the
information Stephanie's breaking down
are things that you've never heard of
before.
You already know.
And so, we really want to make sure that
Krista and Bart's story is told
correctly and it's been a really
fascinating conversation. So, if you
haven't already, catch up with that
series. Part four will be out later this
week on audio on Friday and out on
YouTube on Sunday. Until then, please
everyone stay safe out there. We'll see
you soon.
Bye.
Mhm.