Let’s talk honestly about license plate readers and Flock cameras, because there’s a lot of noise out there right now, and not all of it is helpful. Some of the concerns people raise are completely legitimate. Any technology used by law enforcement has to come with safeguards, accountability, transparency, and strong policies. I’m not going to dismiss those worries. But legitimate concerns should never become an excuse to spread misinformation about a tool that, when used the right way, can help police solve terrible crimes and protect innocent people. Let me be clear about where I stand: I’ve supported license plate reader systems since they first came on the scene. Back in 2023, I wrote a column for Suburban Life backing street camera systems because I believe law enforcement needs every legitimate investigative tool available to solve violent crimes, find missing people, recover stolen vehicles, identify dangerous offenders, and stop criminals from hurting more victims. I also want to clear up a common misunderstanding: Flock is not the same thing as license plate reader technology. There are many LPR and street camera systems operating across the country. Flock is just one company that makes this technology. And here’s the most important thing to remember: the technology is not a police officer. It’s not an investigator. It doesn’t decide guilt or innocence. It’s a tool that gives investigators information. That’s it. That’s what it’s supposed to do.
I know from experience that this kind of information can make a real difference. When I was police chief in Riverside, Flock didn’t exist yet. We used a system from a company called Griffin Systems Inc. I still remember the very first day our street camera system went live. We made an arrest that day. And that didn’t happen because a camera replaced a police officer. It happened because the technology gave officers information that helped them identify a suspect. Before we even turned the system on, I went to every roll call and talked to every officer about how it should be used. We put policies and procedures in place, and the village attorney reviewed and approved them. Officers were trained not just on how to use the technology, but also on their responsibilities and the potential liability that came with it. That’s how these systems should be implemented. It’s not enough to buy cameras and hope for the best. You have to build a culture of accountability around them from day one. You have to make sure everyone understands that this is a serious tool with serious rules. When that happens, the technology can be an incredible asset. When it doesn’t happen, you invite problems. The answer isn’t to throw the technology out. The answer is to do it right.
We don’t have to look back decades to see how LPR technology can change an investigation. Consider what happened in June 2026 in Pingree Grove, Illinois. A nine-year-old girl was riding her bicycle when she was forcibly taken and sexually assaulted. It’s the kind of nightmare case that every parent fears and every investigator dreads. The people working that case used every tool they had: neighborhood canvassing, surveillance footage, forensic evidence, and Flock license plate reader data. That LPR data helped investigators identify the vehicle and the suspect. Four days after the abduction, police made an arrest. The suspect was charged with aggravated kidnapping, predatory criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual abuse, and sexual exploitation of a child. That is not a theory. That is not a talking point. That is a real Illinois criminal investigation where Flock LPR technology helped investigators identify and arrest a suspect in a horrific crime against a child. Now, nobody is saying the camera solved the case all by itself. Police work is rarely that simple. Investigators have to piece together evidence from many different sources. LPR information can be one of those pieces. Sometimes it’s the piece that gives detectives the break they desperately need. In that little girl’s case, it made a difference. And that’s exactly what this technology is supposed to do.
Another powerful example is the Brown University mass shooting. On December 13, 2025, a gunman walked into a building on the Brown University campus and opened fire, killing two students and wounding nine others. Investigators were desperately searching for the shooter when a critical tip identified the suspect’s vehicle as a gray Nissan with Florida license plates. That information allowed Providence investigators to search their network of Flock cameras. The Flock system repeatedly detected the vehicle. Investigators used that data to establish the vehicle’s movements, link it to a rental car, identify the renter, and ultimately track the suspect across state lines. Even after the suspect covered the rental vehicle’s original Florida plate with a different one, investigators were still able to track the vehicle using other identifying characteristics. The investigation eventually led authorities to a storage facility in Salem, New Hampshire. The suspect, Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, was found dead there from a self-inflicted gunshot wound before police could take him into custody. I want to be precise here because facts matter. Flock did not arrest the Brown University shooter. But saying the LPR system was unimportant to that investigation would be just as misleading. It was a critical investigative tool that helped police identify, track, and locate a dangerous suspect. It didn’t do the job alone, but it gave investigators the information they needed to keep following the trail.
Now let’s talk about the concerns, because I don’t dismiss them. I believe law enforcement leaders have an obligation to address them head-on. No device used in police work is one hundred percent misuse-proof. There is no such thing. The answer is not to eliminate the technology. The answer is strong leadership, clear policies, thorough training, real accountability, and independent auditing. Every agency operating an LPR system should have written policies that clearly establish who may access the system, when searches are permitted, what justification is required, how searches are documented, who supervises system use, how long data is retained, under what circumstances information may be shared, and what happens when an officer violates the policy. I would go even further. Every agency using an LPR system should have its system independently audited by an outside organization at least once a year. There should be an electronic audit trail, and every search should be traceable to a specific user. If an officer improperly accesses the system, leadership should be notified. If an officer intentionally misuses the system, there should be serious consequences. I also believe communities should be involved before an LPR system is implemented. If a city or village is considering a street camera program, don’t decide behind closed doors. Create a public committee that includes police leadership, elected officials or trustees, legal counsel, and residents. Make the committee public. Explain how the technology works, what information is collected and what is not, how searches are conducted, the retention policy, who has access, and how the system will be audited. Let residents ask questions before the cameras are installed. Transparency builds trust.
I’ve also advocated for an even stronger deterrent. A police officer who intentionally abuses an LPR system should face serious criminal consequences. I believe Illinois should consider a strongly worded statute within its official misconduct laws that establishes severe penalties for an officer convicted of intentionally misusing an LPR system. I would support a minimum five-year prison sentence upon conviction for a police officer’s serious intentional misuse of an LPR system. If we want to prevent abuse, we should make the consequences unmistakable. Use the system lawfully, and you have nothing to fear. Abuse your authority to stalk, harass, intimidate, or improperly investigate someone, and you should lose your badge and potentially your freedom. I’ve spent my career in law enforcement. I understand why people want accountability, and I also understand what happens when police officers lack the information they need. Imagine a child abduction. Imagine a violent offender fleeing a crime scene. Imagine a stolen vehicle used in a carjacking. Imagine a homicide suspect leaving one community and entering another. Time matters. Information matters. Technology can matter, too. LPR systems do not replace good police work. They enhance it. That’s why I reject the argument that because a technology can be misused, we should eliminate it. There is room for debate about privacy, retention periods, data sharing, community oversight, and whether certain searches should require additional authorization. I welcome that debate. What I do not welcome is misinformation. When misinformation supplants facts, the public cannot have an honest conversation about public safety. I’ve seen LPR technology work firsthand. We now have examples, including the Pingree Grove child-abduction investigation in Illinois and the Brown University mass-shooting investigation, that demonstrate how this technology can provide investigators with critical information when seconds, minutes, and hours matter. Keep the technology. Strengthen safeguards. Involve the public. Audit the system. Punish abuse. That is how we build an effective and accountable law enforcement system. We don’t make our communities safer by eliminating tools that work. We make them safer by ensuring those tools are used responsibly.