A woman who legally changed her identity to escape an abusive ex-boyfriend was found anyway. He was a police officer, and he ran her plate through a Flock camera network.
That case went national this week. In Massachusetts, it is not an outlier. Over the past six weeks officers in at least three departments have been accused of using automated license plate readers to look up people in their personal lives, one town’s lawyers concluded the contract itself was unlawful, and a growing list of communities have pulled their cameras out of the ground.
What Flock cameras actually do
Flock Safety sells automated license plate readers, usually mounted on poles at town entrances and major intersections. Every passing vehicle is photographed and its plate converted to text, along with identifying details like color, make, and any distinguishing features. Those records go into a searchable database, and departments that subscribe can often search each other’s data.
The result is a queryable history of where a given car has been. That is the feature that makes it useful for solving crimes, and it is the same feature that makes misuse so damaging.
What happened in Stow
The clearest case is Stow, where a four-week internal affairs investigation found that Officer Jason Rogers ran Flock lookups repeatedly during 2024 and 2025 with no law enforcement purpose, and separately searched the state criminal records database at least five times without authorization, to get information about someone he knew personally.
A criminal complaint was filed on July 17, 2026 and referred to the Middlesex District Attorney. Rogers was placed on unpaid leave on July 31, and a Select Board employment hearing was scheduled for this week.
Chief Michael Sallese did not soften it: “Using that access for a personal purpose is a serious violation of that trust, and it is a crime.”
Stow terminated its Flock contract outright. The last camera came down in early August.
It is not one department
New Bedford. An officer was accused on August 11 of using Flock to track an ex-girlfriend. She was placed on leave, and a protective order in the matter was extended six months.
Lynn. Two officers were placed on paid leave on August 20 after Flock’s own auditing tool flagged an unusual search pattern. Worth sitting with: the system caught it, not a supervisor.
These are the cases that surfaced. Whether more exist depends entirely on whether departments audit their own searches, and most have no routine practice of doing so.
The contract problem, which is the bigger story
Hopkinton terminated its Flock agreement on August 20 after town counsel reviewed it and concluded there were statutory deficiencies that made the contract unlawful under Massachusetts law. The cameras are to be removed by September 30.
That is a different kind of finding than “an officer misused the system.” It says the arrangement itself did not comply with state requirements, which raises the same question in every other Massachusetts town that signed a similar agreement. East Bridgewater, Douglas, and Auburn have all moved to end their use.
Massachusetts has no comprehensive statute governing automated license plate readers. There is no state law setting retention periods, no statutory limit on which agencies may search shared data, and no standing audit requirement. What governs is a patchwork of public records law, the criminal records access rules that Rogers is alleged to have violated, procurement requirements, and whatever each individual contract says.
That gap is why the answer to “is my town’s camera legal” currently depends on who reviewed the paperwork.
What this means if you are being stalked
The domestic violence dimension is not incidental to this story. It is the pattern.
In the Stow, New Bedford, and national cases, the alleged misuse involved an officer looking up someone they had a personal relationship with. For a survivor who has relocated, changed a name, or obtained a protective order, a plate reader network defeats a great deal of that protection in a single search.
Practical steps if you believe this has happened to you:
Ask for the audit. Flock systems log who searched what and when. A public records request to the department for search logs involving your plate is the starting point, and departments have obligations to respond under the public records law.
Report it as a crime, not a complaint. The Stow chief’s framing matters. Unauthorized access to the state criminal records system is not merely a policy violation. Referrals go to the district attorney.
Bring it into your 209A case. If you have or are seeking an abuse prevention order, evidence that the person located you through law enforcement systems is directly relevant. Our guide on looking up Massachusetts court records explains how to pull the docket.
Ask your town what its contract says. Retention period, who else can search the data, and whether anyone audits. Hopkinton found out by asking.
Common questions
Are Flock cameras legal in Massachusetts?
There is no state statute specifically authorizing or banning automated license plate readers. Legality currently turns on the individual municipal contract and on existing law governing records access and procurement. At least one town’s counsel concluded its contract was unlawful under Massachusetts law and terminated it.
Can police look up my license plate for personal reasons?
No. Using law enforcement databases for personal purposes is a violation of access rules, and in Massachusetts unauthorized access to the criminal records system has been treated as criminal conduct, not just a disciplinary matter.
How long does Flock keep the data?
Retention is set by contract rather than by Massachusetts statute, which is why it varies between towns. Ask your municipality for its agreement.
Can I find out if someone searched my plate?
Flock systems maintain search audit logs. A public records request to the department that operates the cameras is the usual route.
Which Massachusetts towns removed their Flock cameras?
Stow terminated its contract and removed its last camera in early August 2026. Hopkinton terminated on August 20 with removal by September 30. East Bridgewater, Douglas, and Auburn have moved to end use.
Reporting current as of August 26, 2026. This is general information, not legal advice.