A former Milwaukee police officer is now facing criminal charges after prosecutors say he used a powerful police surveillance tool not to solve crimes, but to keep tabs on his girlfriend and the man she used to date.
That is the case attorney Josh Sanford broke down on his America’s Attorney channel, where he said the facts are so strange they sound less like normal police misconduct and more like a jealous boyfriend turning a law-enforcement database into what he called a “jealousy management app.”
The officer at the center of the case is Josue Ayala, and according to Sanford’s summary of the criminal complaint, the allegations do not involve a traffic stop, use of force, or body-camera scandal. Instead, the controversy centers on repeated use of the Flock license-plate recognition system, a surveillance network designed to help police track vehicles tied to actual investigations.
Sanford’s point was simple: this case matters because the alleged misuse was not tied to public safety at all.
If the complaint is accurate, the system was being used to monitor private citizens caught up in the officer’s personal life.
What Flock Is, And Why Sanford Thinks It Is Creepy
Before getting into the allegations, Josh Sanford spent time explaining the technology at the center of the case.
He said the Flock safety system is a network of automated license-plate recognition cameras placed on roads, intersections, and neighborhood entrances. Those cameras capture passing vehicles, log the plate number, and record the time, date, and location.
Police agencies can then search that database to see where a vehicle has been detected across the network.
Sanford acknowledged that the technology can be useful for legitimate purposes, such as locating suspects, identifying stolen vehicles, or tracking cars connected to crimes. But he also made his own feelings very clear.
He called the system “super creepy” and said he wishes it did not exist at all.
That frustration runs through the entire case, because as Sanford sees it, systems this powerful are always going to tempt abuse. And when that happens, the public finds itself living with a level of surveillance that can start to feel a lot less like policing and a lot more like a government tracking grid.
The Officer Was Apparently Caught By The Same System He Used
One of the more remarkable parts of the story, as Josh Sanford told it, is how the case began.
He said the investigation did not start because a supervisor noticed something odd or because the police department proactively spotted misuse through internal review. Instead, according to the complaint, one of the people involved found out on their own that something unusual was happening.
Sanford said that person used a public transparency website called Have I Been Flocked, which lets people request certain audit information from the system. Through that process, the individual learned that their vehicle’s plate had been searched repeatedly inside the police database.
That discovery triggered a complaint.
Milwaukee police detectives were then assigned to investigate the possible misuse of the system, and according to Sanford, that is when the audit logs became devastating. He put it in a sharp way: the officer used a system designed to track people, and then got caught by the system designed to track him.
That is not just ironic. It is also a reminder that surveillance systems do not just create power. They also create records, and those records can be very hard to explain away.
The Search Numbers Are Hard To Ignore
According to Josh Sanford’s reading of the complaint, investigators reviewed Flock audit logs covering the period from March 26 through May 26, 2025.
During that two-month stretch, prosecutors say Ayala searched the license plates of two private individuals while on duty. Sanford said one vehicle was searched 55 times in 60 days.
Then came the number that made him stop and hammer the point.
The second vehicle, he said, was searched 124 times in the same 60-day period.
Sanford emphasized that this was not a typo. It worked out to more than two searches per day, every day, for two straight months. Each search required a justification, and according to the complaint, Ayala entered the word “investigation” every single time.
That justification is where the case really sharpens.
If a police officer is using a law-enforcement tool for an actual criminal investigation, that is one thing. If “investigation” is just a typed-in excuse for checking on someone’s love life, that is something else entirely.
And based on Sanford’s summary, prosecutors believe it was the second thing.
Why Prosecutors Say This Was Personal, Not Police Work
Josh Sanford said investigators concluded the searches were not tied to any legitimate law-enforcement matter.
Instead, according to the criminal complaint, the two license plates belonged to people connected through a prior romantic relationship. Sanford said victim one and victim two had dated in the past, and after that relationship ended, victim two began seeing Ayala.
That, Sanford argued, is the whole story in a nutshell.
Detectives say Ayala used the Flock system to monitor both his then-girlfriend and her ex while he was on duty and being paid by the city of Milwaukee. Sanford was openly mocking the idea that this could somehow be explained as a legitimate public-safety effort.
His sarcasm made the legal point sharper, not softer.
If these allegations are true, this was not surveillance in service of the badge. It was surveillance in service of insecurity. And that is exactly what makes the case feel so ugly. The public tends to grant police departments extraordinary tools on the assumption that they will be used sparingly and for serious reasons. Using one of those tools to manage romantic suspicion breaks that trust fast.
The Charge Is A Misdemeanor, But Sanford Thinks The Facts Are Brutal
Josh Sanford said prosecutors charged Ayala with attempted misconduct in public office, specifically for acting in excess of lawful authority under Wisconsin law.
As Sanford explained it, the legal theory is actually pretty clean. Police officers are allowed to access databases like Flock, but only for legitimate law-enforcement purposes. The moment an officer knowingly uses that access for personal reasons, he steps outside the lawful authority of the job.
That is where a policy violation can become a crime.
Sanford said the charge is a Class A misdemeanor, carrying up to nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine if Ayala is convicted. He also noted that Ayala has pleaded not guilty.
Legally, Sanford said the central question is not whether Ayala used the system. The audit logs reportedly establish that. The real question is why he used it, and whether prosecutors can prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is where the defense would have to do some heavy lifting.
Sanford said a defense lawyer could try to argue the searches were connected to legitimate police work or that the state cannot prove intent. But he also made clear how hard that road looks. One hundred seventy-nine total searches involving two people tied to the officer’s personal life is, in his view, an awful factual record for the defense to explain.
The Department’s Response And Chief Norman’s Statement
Sanford also described how the case was handled once the complaint reached the department.
He said Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman directed Internal Affairs to launch a criminal investigation immediately. Ayala was placed on full suspension while that moved forward. Once detectives completed their review, the case was referred to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, which filed the charge.
Ayala has since resigned from the Milwaukee Police Department.
In a public statement, Chief Norman said he was “extremely disappointed” by the incident and stressed that officers are expected to meet the highest ethical standards when carrying out their duties. Sanford made a dry observation about that wording, saying Norman did not claim to be surprised, just disappointed.
That may sound like a joke, but it carries some weight.
Cases like this land hard because they do not just raise questions about one officer. They raise questions about oversight, internal controls, and how much misuse is spotted only after a citizen stumbles onto it first.
Why Josh Sanford Thinks This Case Matters Beyond One Officer
Toward the end of his breakdown, Josh Sanford widened the frame.
He said cases like this are becoming more important as departments rely more heavily on powerful surveillance technologies. Systems like Flock can track vehicle movement across cities and store that information in searchable databases, which can absolutely help solve crimes.
But, as Sanford kept emphasizing, that same power creates obvious opportunities for abuse.
This case matters because the abuse alleged here was not especially complicated. It was not some elaborate conspiracy. It was one officer, one badge, one database, and what appears to be an astonishing inability to separate public authority from private obsession.
That is what makes the story so unsettling.
People can accept strong tools when they believe those tools are aimed at kidnappers, stolen vehicles, and violent offenders. It gets much harder to accept them when they appear to be used like a digital pair of binoculars in a relationship drama.
Sanford’s bottom line was sharp and probably fair: if you are going to abuse power, doing it in a system that logs every keystroke is a bad idea. Better still, do not abuse power at all.
And if prosecutors can prove what they say happened here, that may end up being the clearest lesson this case leaves behind.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.
