A Revere police officer used the department’s license plate reader network to track his ex-girlfriend. He accessed the system and the state criminal records database more than a dozen times across four occasions. Internal affairs sustained the violations. He served an unpaid suspension and returned to duty.
Two days earlier, a Suffolk Superior Court judge ordered the Massachusetts State Police to disclose where its cameras are and who has been searching them.
These two stories are the same story, and they explain what a license plate reader actually is: a searchable record of where your car has been, available to any officer with a login.
What the court ordered
The ACLU of Massachusetts won summary judgment against the State Police. The court ordered disclosure of the locations of its Flock automatic license plate reader cameras and the audit logs showing which officers ran searches, with plate numbers redacted.
Kade Crockford, who directs the ACLU’s technology and justice work, framed the five-year fight this way: “For the past five years, the ACLU of Massachusetts has been trying to pierce the veil of secrecy surrounding these State Police surveillance operations.”
The ruling matters because of what the State Police argued to keep it secret.
Why the public records exemption failed
Massachusetts public records law starts from a presumption of disclosure. Under G.L. c. 66, § 10, records held by a state agency are public unless they fall within a specific exemption, and the agency carries the burden of proving one applies.
The exemption police reach for is subsection (f) of the definition in G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. Twenty-sixth, which covers investigatory materials where disclosure would prejudice effective law enforcement.
That exemption is not a blanket. Massachusetts courts require an agency to show actual prejudice, not a general claim that secrecy helps policing. A camera bolted to a public pole, photographing cars on a public street, is difficult to characterize as an investigatory technique whose disclosure would compromise anything. Drivers can see the cameras. Only the public record of them was secret.
The audit logs are the more consequential half. An audit log is not investigative material at all. It is a record of who used a government system and when, which is the ordinary stuff of public accountability.
We could not obtain the judge’s name, the docket number, or the written decision, and neither the ACLU’s release nor the news coverage supplied them.
The Revere case
Officer Michael Tiso accessed Flock and the criminal records system to track Marissa Todisco, with whom he had a relationship from March 2021 to October 2022. She filed a complaint in December 2025.
Internal affairs sustained policy violations. He served an unpaid suspension, returned to duty, and Revere referred him to the POST Commission. He had two prior suspensions in 2020.
Todisco: “I completely feel there is an invasion of privacy of my family.”
Officers in New Bedford, Stow, and Lynn have also been accused of misusing the system. Groton and Sharon have cut or paused their Flock contracts.
This is the argument for the audit logs in a single case. Misuse is invisible unless someone can see who searched what.
What you can actually do about it
If you believe an officer has run you through these systems for personal reasons, several routes exist and they are not mutually exclusive.
POST Commission complaint. The Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission, created in 2020, can discipline and decertify officers. A civilian may file directly. Decertification ends a police career statewide, which is a remedy no department-level process provides.
CORI misuse. Accessing the criminal offender record information system without a legitimate purpose is separately unlawful under G.L. c. 6, and carries its own penalties and enforcement route through the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services.
Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. G.L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I allow suit where someone interferes with secured rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion. The MCRA has a threshold the federal statute does not, so the facts matter.
Section 1983. A federal claim against an officer acting under color of law for violating constitutional rights.
A public records request of your own. After this ruling, audit logs are the thing to ask for. You cannot get other people’s plate numbers, but the record of searches is now established as disclosable.
The bigger question the ruling did not decide
Disclosure and legality are different questions. This case was about records, not about whether the surveillance itself is lawful.
On that, Massachusetts is more protective than federal law. Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights has repeatedly been read to give more privacy protection than the Fourth Amendment.
In Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 484 Mass. 493 (2020), the SJC addressed automatic license plate readers directly. It held that on the facts before it, four cameras at fixed points on two bridges did not amount to a search, because they did not reveal enough about the whole of a person’s movements. But it made clear the analysis turns on scale, holding that with enough cameras the aggregate picture could become a search requiring a warrant.
That is the reason camera locations matter. Whether a network is dense enough to trigger constitutional protection cannot be litigated if nobody is allowed to know how many cameras there are or where. The disclosure ruling is what makes the constitutional question answerable.
Common questions
Are police license plate reader records public in Massachusetts?
A Suffolk Superior Court judge has ordered the State Police to disclose camera locations and search audit logs, with plate numbers redacted. Agencies must prove a specific exemption applies; a general claim that secrecy aids law enforcement is not enough.
Can police track my car without a warrant?
Sometimes. In Commonwealth v. McCarthy the SJC held that a small number of fixed cameras was not a search, but said that a sufficiently dense network revealing the whole of someone’s movements could be, requiring a warrant. Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights is more protective than the Fourth Amendment here.
What can I do if an officer looked me up for personal reasons?
Options include a POST Commission complaint seeking discipline or decertification, a CORI misuse complaint, a Massachusetts Civil Rights Act claim, and a federal section 1983 claim. A public records request for audit logs is often the first step.
What is an audit log and why does it matter?
A record of which officer searched the system and when. It is how misuse becomes visible. Without it, improper searches leave no trace anyone outside the department can find.
Can I find out if there is a camera on my street?
That is what the disclosure order covers for the State Police. Municipal departments run their own contracts, and a records request to the individual department is the route.
Ruling and case details as reported by the ACLU of Massachusetts, Boston 25 News, and Boston.com, September 2 and 3, 2026; the docket number and presiding judge were not identified in available accounts. Statutory framework from G.L. c. 66, § 10; G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. Twenty-sixth; G.L. c. 6; and G.L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I. Constitutional analysis from Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 484 Mass. 493 (2020). The Revere officer’s internal affairs matter was resolved administratively; no criminal charge has been reported. General legal information, not legal advice.