Date of Offense
Official Statement
This entry concerns an affirmed Brady/Giglio integrity offense involving Abuse of Authority and Abuse of Surveillance Technology by a Chief of Police arising from the endorsement, authorization, procurement, expansion, or continued use of Flock Safety cameras, automated license plate readers, or substantially similar passive location-tracking systems without constitutionally adequate safeguards.
The conduct reflects the use or authorization of passive, scalable surveillance technology in a manner inconsistent with constitutional policing, evidentiary integrity, and the government’s disclosure obligations in criminal proceedings. As the department’s executive and supervisory authority, the Chief of Police bore responsibility for ensuring that such technology was governed by lawful use restrictions, retention limits, audit controls, access controls, public accountability, officer training, and Brady/Giglio disclosure procedures.
Flock, ALPR, and similar systems collect and retain location-related information concerning individuals who are not otherwise suspected of criminal conduct. When networked, retained, queried retroactively, or shared among agencies, these systems may create a searchable government-accessible record of movement, association, routine, and presence. The constitutional concern is not limited to a single observation of a vehicle in public. The concern arises from the creation, retention, searchability, and interagency use of a passive location-surveillance database.
The Brady/Giglio relevance arises because ALPR-derived data may be used to initiate stops, identify suspects, corroborate timelines, establish location, exclude suspects, generate investigative leads, or support probable cause. Where such systems are used in criminal investigations, the department must preserve and disclose material information concerning system operation, query history, alerts, source data, audit logs, retention settings, sharing partners, false positives, officer access, vendor limitations, misuse incidents, and known reliability concerns.
The affirmed offense consists of the Chief’s authorization, endorsement, or continued approval of this surveillance architecture without adequate safeguards to preserve, audit, and disclose material information generated or relied upon by the system. Such conduct impairs the ability of defendants, defense counsel, prosecutors, and courts to evaluate the legality, reliability, completeness, and impeachment value of ALPR-derived evidence or investigative leads.
This conduct is also properly classified as abuse of authority. A police executive may not use the authority of office to normalize suspicion-less passive tracking while disregarding the constitutional, evidentiary, and disclosure consequences of that surveillance. The failure to impose adequate limits, oversight, and disclosure procedures places investigative convenience above the rights of the public and the integrity of criminal prosecutions.
This entry is therefore categorized as an affirmed Brady Offense, Abuse of Authority, and Abuse of Surveillance Technology. The basis for the listing should be supported by the underlying record, including judicial findings, sustained administrative findings, official admission, public policy record, procurement record, audit record, investigative record, or other documentation establishing the conduct.
