Attorney and YouTuber Steve Lehto is warning that automated license plate reader systems, including Flock cameras, are not just raising broad privacy concerns, but are also being misused in some cases by police officers accused of tracking romantic partners, exes, co-workers, and even strangers.
In a recent episode of Lehto’s Law, Lehto discussed findings from the Institute for Justice, which said it identified at least 14 cases nationwide where officers allegedly abused automated license plate reader data in what appeared to be romantic or personal stalking situations.
Lehto said he has long opposed Flock-style license plate readers because he does not want to live in what he called a surveillance state. But he argued this issue goes beyond his general discomfort with government surveillance.
“When there is a new technology or a new thing, whether it can be abused,” Lehto said, people have to take that possibility seriously when deciding whether the technology should be used at all.
A Tool Built For Policing, But Open To Abuse
Lehto’s report centered on an article by Christopher Ingraham for the Institute for Justice, which said communities around the country are rethinking automated license plate reader systems because of concerns over privacy, security, and constant government surveillance.
The concern is not only that police can use the cameras to investigate crimes. It is that the cameras create a searchable record of where people drive, when they drive there, and how often they appear in certain places.
Lehto said the technology can capture and store information such as a vehicle’s make, model, year, color, license plate, and sometimes other details like bumper stickers.
That may sound routine if the system is being used to find a stolen car or track a vehicle tied to a serious crime. But when that same database is available to officers without strong guardrails, the risk is obvious: a person with access can look up where someone has been.
The Institute for Justice warned that this puts private information about people’s movements into the hands of officers who may not always use it properly.
Lehto said that is the key issue. Any technology that can be misused, eventually, probably will be.
At Least 14 Alleged Stalking Cases
According to the Institute for Justice findings discussed by Lehto, police officers have reportedly used automated license plate readers to track romantic interests at least 14 times in recent years.
Those cases involved current partners, ex-partners, people with whom officers were romantically involved, and in at least one case, a stranger who allegedly caught an officer’s attention.
Lehto emphasized that 14 cases are only the known examples.
“Fourteen times that we know of,” he said.
The Institute for Justice review found that nearly all of the officers in those cases were criminally charged and lost their jobs, either by resigning or being fired. Lehto acknowledged that consequences did follow in many of the reported incidents.
But he said the deeper problem remains: if the system is easy enough to abuse that multiple officers across different states allegedly used it this way, then the public should question whether the safeguards are strong enough.
Flock Safety and other automated license plate reader providers say they have internal protections meant to stop misuse, according to the report Lehto discussed. Yet the Institute for Justice found that only a few of the 14 cases were discovered through internal investigations.
Most, Lehto said, came to light only after victims reported the officer’s behavior, often as part of a broader stalking complaint.
That is the part that should trouble even people who generally support police technology. A safeguard that catches abuse only after the target notices something is wrong may not be much of a safeguard at all.
Milwaukee Case Shows Scale Of Tracking
Lehto pointed to a case from Milwaukee as one of the more striking examples.
According to the Institute for Justice report he discussed, an officer resigned from the Milwaukee Police Department after allegedly using the department’s automated license plate reader network to track his romantic partner and one of that partner’s exes 180 times over two months.
The alleged misconduct reportedly surfaced only after the victims looked up their license plate numbers through a website called Have I Been Flocked, which collects audit data that some local governments have made public.
Afterward, Lehto said, the Milwaukee Police Department revoked most officers’ access to the Flock database.
That response may have been necessary, but it also shows the pattern Lehto was criticizing: the corrective action came after the alleged damage had already been done.
He also mentioned other Wisconsin cases, including one in Menasha, where an officer was placed on leave and charged with misconduct in office after an ex-girlfriend filed a complaint, and another in Kenosha County, where a sheriff’s deputy resigned after investigators found he used the department’s Flock system to monitor a co-worker with whom he was romantically involved.
Lehto noted with disbelief that the Kenosha deputy still received severance pay.
The Stranger Who Was Pulled Over
The case that seemed to disturb Lehto most involved a Monroe County, Florida, sheriff’s deputy.
According to the Institute for Justice article, the deputy allegedly used an automated license plate reader system to track and eventually pull over a woman he had met while providing security on the set of a television production.
Lehto described the allegation as especially alarming because it involved not an ex-partner or someone already known to the officer, but a stranger who apparently caught his attention.
He imagined the officer’s reasoning in plain terms: “Do you know why I pulled you over? No. Because I think you’re kind of cute.”
“That’s not the reason that you could actually use, is it?” Lehto said.
His point was that the abuse in that kind of case is not limited to the license plate database. It involves the uniform, the patrol car, the emergency lights, the authority of a traffic stop, and the fear that most people feel when police pull them over.
“Everything is wrong with that story,” Lehto said.
That example captures why the issue is so serious. A traffic stop is not a casual social interaction. When an officer uses state power to create contact with someone for personal reasons, the person pulled over may not know whether they are free to leave, whether they are suspected of a crime, or whether refusing to engage could make things worse.
Known Cases May Be An Undercount
Lehto said the 14 cases listed by the Institute for Justice are almost certainly an undercount.
Not all misconduct is detected. Not all victims report it. And officers using automated license plate reader systems may give vague or inaccurate reasons for searches, making abuse harder to discover.
The Institute for Justice list included cases in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania; Kechi, Kansas; Sedgwick County, Kansas; Costa Mesa, California; Riverside County, California; Orange City, Florida; Shelby County, Tennessee; Louisville, Kentucky; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Jerome County, Idaho; Kenosha County, Wisconsin; Menasha, Wisconsin; Bonner Springs, Kansas; and Monroe County, Florida.
Lehto said a simple media search produced those cases, which suggests there may be more that never made headlines.
That is a fair concern. Surveillance systems often depend on trust, auditing, and discipline after the fact. But if the public cannot easily see who searched for their plates, why they searched, and whether the search was legitimate, then misuse can remain hidden.
This is where the “nothing to hide” argument becomes weak. The problem is not whether someone’s driving history proves they committed a crime. The problem is that a person’s movements can reveal where they worship, where they work, where they sleep, whom they visit, what doctors they see, and whether they are trying to avoid someone.
That is sensitive information, even when the driver has done nothing wrong.
Lehto Says Safeguards May Not Be Enough
Lehto said manufacturers and police departments should do what they can to limit misuse, but he questioned whether any set of internal safeguards can fully solve the problem.
He said companies can design tools to reduce abuse, and departments can create policies, audits, and access controls. But he also argued that some systems may be too tempting to misuse when they contain powerful location information.
“I assure you that in the months coming, we will hear more stories about police officers misusing Flock,” Lehto said.
That prediction may sound cynical, but the pattern described by the Institute for Justice gives it weight. If multiple officers in multiple states have already allegedly misused the technology for personal stalking, then the problem is not one bad department or one bad officer.
It is a design and oversight problem.
Lehto also credited the Institute for Justice for doing the research and said the organization’s Plate Privacy Project is pushing back against warrantless mass surveillance through litigation, legislation, activism, and media attention.
A Privacy Debate That Is Becoming More Practical
For years, debates over license plate readers have often sounded abstract. Supporters say they help solve crimes and find stolen cars. Critics warn about mass surveillance and the Fourth Amendment.
But the cases Lehto discussed make the issue more concrete.
This is not only about whether the government can build a map of public travel. It is about what happens when an individual officer uses that map for private motives.
A police database is not supposed to become a tool for checking on an ex-girlfriend, watching a co-worker, monitoring a spouse, or tracking down a woman an officer met while working security.
The fact that several officers reportedly lost their jobs or faced charges is important, but it does not fully answer the question. If people only find out because a victim notices suspicious behavior and complains, then the system may be relying too much on luck.
Lehto’s warning is simple: the abuse of license plate reader systems is not hypothetical anymore.
The technology exists, the data is being collected, and according to the Institute for Justice, officers have already allegedly used it to stalk people at least 14 times.
For communities deciding whether to install or expand these camera systems, that should be part of the calculation. Not just whether the cameras can help police, but whether the public can trust that the power to track ordinary drivers will not be turned into a personal surveillance tool.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
