|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Two police officers, in Fairhaven and Westport, used false labels for their searches of Flock license-plate camera photos, entering “welfare check” for searches that weren’t actually for welfare checks, according to data obtained by The Light and interviews with police leadership.
As with other police departments on the South Coast and nationwide, Fairhaven and Westport officers frequently used vague reasons for their searches. They entered “inv,” “invest” or “investigation” for hundreds of searches over the years, and in some cases did not correctly enter why they were running a plate.
A Fairhaven officer entered only “welfare check” as his search reasons between January and August of this year, accounting for more than 750 searches of plate numbers, according to Flock search data obtained by The Light.
Fairhaven Police Chief Daniel Dorgan said in interviews that the officer did it to protect the “integrity” of his narcotics investigations from public sites that publish Flock search data.
The officer was worried, Dorgan said, that the subjects of his investigations could see his searches on sites like Have I Been Flocked, which publishes search information by police officers across the country.
“He was under the impression that people involved in his investigations” could access such sites, Dorgan said.
That might be possible if the department released the data with license plate information in response to public records requests. Outside agencies can also share such data, including license plates, through network audits, but Flock has clamped down on those — redacting the searching officer’s name and plate information.
Fairhaven Police withheld license plate information in response to The Light’s records request.
The officer, the chief said, is part of a multijurisdictional task force. Dorgan said he spoke to the officer to correct the issue. From August through September, the officer’s search reasons started being variable, and included narcotics as a reason.
In Westport, a detective repeatedly entered “welfare check – test” as a search reason (welfare checks accounted for 38% of his searches since 2024). In some searches, other reasons were cited in addition to a welfare check.
Westport Police Chief Christopher Dunn told The Light that the detective said it was the first option on his phone when entering the plate in the system.
“We had a talk with him about using the proper drop-down going forward,” Dunn said, adding that the detective is “a very honorable person.”
The departments’ policies on automated license plate readers do not specify appropriate search techniques. They only read that the searches must be conducted for legitimate law enforcement purposes.
Critics of Flock say it is insufficient for officers to only write “investigation” as a search reason: it is too vague and makes oversight challenging.
On Tuesday, Fairhaven’s town meeting will consider a citizen’s petition to require the removal of the Flock system.
Fairhaven audits
Dorgan, who became Fairhaven’s chief in 2024, said the police department has reviewed Flock data weekly since July.
“Our department wasn’t using, and still isn’t using, the technology in any nefarious way. We don’t have any issues that other departments are having.”
— Fairhaven Police Chief Daniel Dorgan
He said the department also conducted an audit of Flock use in 2025 and early 2026 using Flock’s audit assistance tool, which flagged repeated searches for the same plate in a small period of time. He said reports verified that each plate was linked to a matching case number.
Fairhaven has used Flock since 2023. Dorgan said the department reviewed 2023 and 2024 use manually, also looking for repeated searches, and linked them all to valid cases.
“Our department wasn’t using, and still isn’t using, the technology in any nefarious way,” Dorgan said. “We don’t have any issues that other departments are having.”
In New Bedford, two police officers were fired after an internal affairs investigation found each used Flock to surveil a current or former romantic partner. Other police departments across the country have also found that officers abused the Flock system to track romantic partners.
In Fairhaven, a vague investigation search reason accounted for more than 70% of searches through 2025. (In December of that year, departments adopted a drop-down menu through Flock that allows the selection of specific search reasons.)
“I get that the label is vague,” said Dorgan, “but it wasn’t used to mask any type of misuse.”
This year through mid-September, officers searched the system more than 3,600 times. They’re accessing data collected by Flock cameras in other states — and other states are accessing Fairhaven’s.
Dorgan said the department opted into nationwide sharing because it has had to use data from other states. He said Fairhaven turned off sharing with federal agencies in late August or early September. At the same time, it turned off sharing if other agencies list “immigration” as the reason for a search.
Massachusetts’ PROTECT Act, signed by Gov. Maura Healey in August, prohibits the use of state or local resources for federal immigration enforcement.
But Flock could enable passive assistance if outside agencies access the data of police departments that have regional or national sharing activated.
Gideon Epstein, policy counsel with the ACLU of Massachusetts, said that the PROTECT Act does not contain any language on automated license plate readers. But Massachusetts law enforcement agencies that share information with out-of-state agencies puts “immigrant communities at risk and frustrate[s] the purpose of the PROTECT Act,” Epstein said.
“ICE and other agencies… are actively tapping into local license plate reader databases maintained by companies like Flock,” Epstein said in an email. “Several Massachusetts police departments’ audit logs show searches from external law enforcement agencies using keywords like ‘immigration’ and ‘ICE,’ while other searches use vague terms like ‘investigation’ or ‘info’ that are impossible to clarify.”
The Light requested and obtained one network report from Fairhaven showing how other agencies accessed the system before the town shut off sharing for immigration reasons.
It’s just a snapshot in time, covering July 26 through Aug. 25, 2026, but it shows that in just one month, more than 3,000 law-enforcement organizations across 44 states conducted searches. The organizations ranged from sheriff’s departments and investigative bureaus to prosecutors’ and district attorneys’ offices and university campus police.
Though U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol did not directly use the system, multiple agencies cited search reasons that suggest that some police used the system to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
Across the audit log dataset, The Light identified 52 search-reason phrases potentially related to immigration, in a total of 286 individual searches. Some included the acronym HSI, for Homeland Security investigation, or “ICE request” and “ICE investigation,” or included references to human trafficking, wanted person, and narcotics investigations.
Of these immigration-related searches, more than 85% came from out-of-state agencies. However, 42 came from Massachusetts: the Marlborough Police Department made 41 searches with the reasons listed as Homeland Security investigations into human trafficking and a wanted person. One search came from the Peabody Police Department, with the reason listed as “Immigration (criminal), Human Trafficking.”
This Tuesday, Fairhaven’s town meeting voters will decide on a citizen’s petition to require the removal of the Flock system.
Dorgan said he will make the case to voters for retaining Flock “through education and examples of how we’ve been using this technology.” He said he hopes the town meeting members will agree that the technology’s benefits outweigh any perceived risks.
Andrew Romano, chair of Fairhaven’s Select Board, told The Light in mid-October that the town attorney will have to go through the article language to make sure the town has authority to adopt it.
Romano framed the article as a recommendation for the five-member Select Board to act. He said he would defer to the town meeting’s vote for how he will vote as a Select Board member.
Westport police searched Flock 2,681 times in about two years
From August 2024 through August 2026, Westport police made 2,681 unique search queries in Flock, including a dozen by a dispatcher and the remainder by six police officers.
Search reasons were mostly listed as “Investigation” or abbreviations of it, “Drugs / Narcotic,” and “Arrest Warrants.” Other reasons included “Welfare Check – TEST” and “Welfare Check – Investigation” and “Traffic Infraction – Investigation.”
In Westport, the Police Department provided Flock data with license plates included.
About 151 plates were searched multiple times on different dates. For example, one officer searched for one plate 50 times on 13 separate dates from January to July. The reasons he entered included “Drugs/Narcotics – Investigation” and “Welfare Check – TEST.”
One license plate had the widest variety of recorded search reasons. Three officers searched for it 16 times between February and April 2026, entering seven different reasons, including stalking, assault and battery, threats and harassment, disorderly conduct or disturbance, and wanted person.
“We’ve established safeguards where, if an officer wants to put a plate in Flock, they have to contact the detective, state the reasoning, and if that detective determines that the plate should be in Flock, they will do it and they’ll provide the reason why.”
— Westport Police Chief Christopher Dunn
Dunn, who became Westport’s chief in 2024, told The Light in a November interview that the department has begun conducting quarterly audits, which are performed by lieutenants. Dunn added that the department has also established rules governing how the five officers with access to the system conduct searches.
“We’ve established safeguards where, if an officer wants to put a plate in Flock, they have to contact the detective, state the reasoning, and if that detective determines that the plate should be in Flock, they will do it and they’ll provide the reason why.”
Dunn said the department switched from nationwide to local access about a month ago.
“It’s just Massachusetts and departments within a 50-mile radius,” Dunn said. Because Westport borders Rhode Island, he said, the department needs to maintain open communication with Tiverton, Little Compton and other nearby communities.
Dunn said federal law enforcement agencies seeking access to the system can reach out, but access will depend on the purpose of the search.
“If the request is for criminal activities, then yes, we will work with all partners, both state and federal. If it’s not for criminal activity, then we do not do that,” Dunn said.
The Westport Police Department is developing a public-facing transparency webpage where residents will be able to see how the department uses the Flock system.
“Somerset Police Department has one, and we’re kind of reaching out to them and seeing how they’re doing things and creating our own,” said Dunn.
Updates from Dartmouth, Acushnet
The Dartmouth Police Department, which opted not to renew its Flock contract at the end of September, said it is still waiting for Flock to remove some cameras in town.
The company has already removed two cameras, according to Lt. Keith DaCosta. As of early October, he said the department was still getting notifications from Flock on things like stolen plates, for example, despite no longer having a contract.
Andrew Smith, a spokesperson for Flock, said by email this week that the devices “are being decommissioned and we are working with the Dartmouth Police Department to remove the cameras.”
DaCosta said the department has not received a timeline for that as of Oct. 13.
The Light requested Flock data from Dartmouth through a public records request, but the department assessed a fee of over $9,000 for audit data.
Other police departments provided Flock data through public records requests for free, or for a fee of less than $200.
Acushnet no longer has a Flock camera. Town officials were prepared to remove it after the Select Board voted to terminate the system, but on Oct. 1, a Flock employee removed it, according to Select Board member Ryan Rezendes.
He told The Light that Flock “wanted to charge us $500 to remove the camera” before the contract expired in summer 2027. But the town cited a safety concern in an email to Flock, writing that the pole to which the device was mounted lacked a “breakaway slip plate” and would pose a severe injury risk if a vehicle struck it.
Smith with Flock did not respond to emailed questions about Acushnet.
The Light requested audit records from Acushnet as well. The town did not respond within 10 business days, as required under Massachusetts public records law. In a later response, the town said it attached audit logs, but none were included.
After several follow-up inquiries, Acushnet Police Chief Gary Coppa said the department no longer had access to data because it terminated its contract with Flock.
The Light has also requested audit data from the Wareham Police Department. The agency provided one month of data, saying it did not have access beyond the previous 31 days.
Lt. Michael Smith said he has contacted Flock’s “Evidence Division” which partners with a third-party data management company for assistance in accessing older search data.
Email Eleonora Bianchi at ebianchi@newbedfordlight.org.
Anastasia E. Lennon, a former reporter for The Light, contributed reporting to this project while she was on staff.
