|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
NEW BEDFORD — The Police Department found two officers abused the Flock system to track their ex-romantic or current romantic partners, according to findings released on Thursday. The department referred the cases to the Bristol County District Attorney’s office for possible criminal charges.
Police Chief Jason Thody is recommending the termination of Detective Emily Pacheco, who has been on leave since last month, and Sgt. James Marinelli. As they are union members, they will get a hearing as part of the process.
The department was not conducting audits of officers’ use until July, The Light confirmed.
“A typical audit would be pull X number of random searches on a given month and make sure they’re legitimate,” Police Chief Jason Thody said.
“And that was not happening?” The Light asked.
“No, it was more of a supervisory review,” Thody said, adding he thinks the policy needs to be stronger.
The department found the misuse by Pacheco and Marinelli by using Flock’s new audit assistance feature, which flags anomalies and which was rolled out this year.
The department’s existing policy states that Flock audits “should be conducted on a regular basis,” though it doesn’t define “regular” or specify who is responsible for doing it.
Thody said monthly audits will now be required.
The Light in July filed a request for all audit records, but the city this week said it was withholding records because the department is “in the process of conducting and completing the internal audits that are the subject of your request.” The Light asked for audits dating to 2025.
According to recommendations of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, New Bedford’s Flock policy with regards to auditing is not sufficient.
Executive Director Michael Bradley, a retired police chief, said departments should be auditing quarterly at a minimum. In an early July interview with The Light, Thody said he thought audits were happening biannually, or twice a year, but that he would have to check with Capt. Justin Kagan, who he said was in charge of it.
Bradley said the policy should also specify who, by name or title, will be conducting the audits. The New Bedford policy does not do that. Further, it does not seem to mandate auditing, with the one line stating audits “should” (not shall or must) be conducted.
Michael Soyfer, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, said the policy reads more like “window dressing”: “If a department were really interested in doing robust oversight and protecting peoples’ privacy and ferreting out abusive searches, they would be doing audits regularly … I would say at least once per month.”
Soyfer believes a warrant should be required to search. In New Bedford and most departments, officers don’t need reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search.
However, Thody said reasonable suspicion will be required going forward for searches.
“How can you tell [misuse] if all you’re requiring officers to enter is investigation or letting them choose from a drop-down menu in the privacy of a police car with no one having to approve their search?” Soyfer said. “The bottom line is, you can’t.”
In the case of Marinelli, he entered seemingly legitimate reasons — trespass, hit and run, disorderly conduct, and welfare check — for searches into a woman he was dating. He was also found by internal investigators to have searched the plates of the ex of his romantic partner.
The Light inquired with the department about Marinelli on Aug. 12, but the department declined to comment. Records show the department opened the case into him on Aug. 5. He invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and declined to provide a statement as part of the investigation.
As the Police Department conducts an audit of use going back almost two years to when New Bedford quietly adopted the system, The Light reviewed data from January 2025 through June 2026.
The city redacted some of the data it provided to The Light, though neither the city solicitor’s office nor the Police Department would answer questions on what columns were withheld (for example, license plate and search filter) and whether case numbers were redacted.
According to the columns of Flock data provided by Westport Police Department, it seems New Bedford redacted the following columns: filter (officers can search by state or car model); license plate; and “case #”.
Because the city redacted the “case #” column, it is challenging to independently review how frequently (or infrequently) officers were complying with department policy, which states searches should be memorialized by a “case number, call for service, or report number in ‘search reason’ field.”
However, in reviewing unredacted network data from the Salem Police Department (which shows how outside agencies searched the system), The Light found some New Bedford officers in 2025 consistently did not enter a case number in the reason field or “case #” field. Other officers did so more consistently, or sometimes entered the case number in the search reason field.
Some officers vaguely entered “investigation” or an abbreviation (like “inv” or “investigate”). Some officers entered single characters, including “s,” “f,” “3,” and “m” – terms that don’t sufficiently explain a law enforcement reason for the search.
The Light previously highlighted Pacheco frequently entered “traffic infraction” as the reason for her search. The internal affairs report the department released on Thursday confirmed many of these “traffic infraction” searches were used for non-law enforcement purposes.
Thody said Pacheco also misused other department systems to pull information on people, and that her explanation of a “drug investigation,” which she testified about in court last month for a restraining order, did not bear out.
“Officer Pacheco provided an elaborate account of a narcotics-related investigation that she claimed was the reason for the searches,” Thody said. “The investigation did not find this information to be credible.”
| Policy (dated February 2025) | In practice |
| The system should be audited on a regular basis. | The Police Department was not conducting audits. |
| It is a violation of this policy to use the Flock system for any personal purpose. | Two officers have been confirmed to have abused Flock to track romantic partners or exes. |
| Department personnel may only access and use the system for official and legitimate law enforcement purposes, memorialized by a case number, call for service, or report number in “search reason” field. | Officers sometimes did not include a corresponding case or call number in most of the searches, according to data provided by the city. (The city would not answer questions as to whether it redacted case numbers from the provided data.) Some officers did not enter specifics in the search reason field. Some officers entered single characters, including “s,” “f,” “3,” and “m.” |
Reports from across the country show police departments were not auditing use by officers. In some cases, departments only learned about misuse after reporters inquired.
“My biggest concern is that many departments just don’t run these audits at all,” said Soyfer. “In Norfolk for instance, we found out in discovery that they didn’t even download their audit data until we asked for it.” (Institute for Justice represented residents and sued Norfolk over Flock, alleging Fourth Amendment violations.)
As of this week, more than 25 municipalities in Massachusetts have canceled, chosen not to renew, or suspended their use of the system, according to tracking by the ACLU of Massachusetts. Dartmouth and Acushnet are among those departments.
New Bedford officials are seemingly intent on continuing use of the system. They’ve issued a request for community feedback, and will be convening a working group including business owners and residents. They say they are building guardrails and issuing recommendations to the City Council that will “balance” public safety interests and privacy concerns.
The City Council is set to meet early next week to discuss the drafting of an ordinance regulating the city’s use of Flock and other surveillance technology, and possibly contemplate barring the system in the city.
The Police Department is seeking feedback at shareyourthoughts@newbedfordpd.com or www.surveymonkey.com/r/WSVZP5L.
This is a developing story.
Email Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org.
Flock cameras are obviously a powerful and perhaps necessary tool in the investigation and prevention of crime but there need to be much stricter protections for the public such as limiting access to detectives and superior officers and also correlating each and every inquiry to a specific case/report number or if monitoring ongoing drug distribution, gang activity, prostitution or in the immediate aftermath of a mass casualty event documented as such and retained in a document reviewed regularly by command and legal staff. If a regular beat cop feels they need access to this data they should be able to submit a request(with a report number and written justification) to their commanding officer for review and approval and one of the designated users can provide them with the information(but not grant direct access). Unfortunately police departments today don’t seem to be getting the caliber of officers that universally warranted the public’s trust and until that changes this is probably the only way to keep the bad apples from snooping where they don’t belong.
What does the “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing worry about” crowd have to say about this?
Misuse by local officers is one concern. There are also many other reasons why we should care about automated, networked technology:
US government ramps up mass surveillance with help of AI tech, data brokers – and your apps and devices
https://theconversation.com/us-government-ramps-up-mass-surveillance-with-help-of-ai-tech-data-brokers-and-your-apps-and-devices-277440
Feds Under Fire for Mass Surveillance of Americans, Lacking Oversight
https://davisvanguard.org/2026/03/federal-data-surveillance-loophole/
DHS-built surveillance apparatus to surge in year ahead, documents show
The agency is expanding detection and tracking technology projects while simultaneously loosening the reins on oversight.
https://fedscoop.com/dhs-surveillance-technology-ai-funding-document-spyware/
Supporting our new Police Chief Jason Thody 100%, it’s time to put some faith in him, and give him a chance to do what he was hired to do, lead our city’s law enforcement agency. Supporting the BLUE 100%.
Next week, our City Council Ordinance and Public Safety Committees will meet to work on a local ordinance that will protect our community from misuse of automated, networked technology such as Flock automated license plate readers.
Because the technology is changing so fast, we do not now have national standards or laws to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, so it now falls on local and state governments to develop those standards.
I am glad to see that our City Council and mayor now have at their disposal a model city ordinance that has already been used by a number of municipalities, and wish them success in their efforts.
https://www.aclu.org/files/communitycontrol/ACLU-Local-Surveillance-Technology-Model-City-Council-Bill-January-2017.pdf
Unfortunately, criminal enterprise now requires public agency surveillance techniques not readily available in the past.
Human trafficking and the illegal drug industry along with myriad other criminal endeavors are major drivers of this evolving technology,
Private citizens utilize this technology within their businesses and homes and extend usage to their external private property and public streets to both deter and document crimes. These private surveillance videos are usually requested by public agencies to assist investigation into crimes where public surveillance is either lacking or deficient. Sometimes it is provided, as requested, and sometimes it is not provided.
As criminal networks and endeavors evolve and expand, so will technology networks and endeavors evolve and expand to prevent and/or deter these activities. Ring, Nest, Flock and many others are some of the components of this technology.
The New Bedford Police Department has been lax in the general oversight of its Officers and now technology. Utilizing Flock’s oversight system,in conjunction with strong “robust” internal controls, is a start.
Termination of NBPD Officers, who have utilized this Flock system and other available systems for unofficial and personal reasons, is an initial step to regain the integrity of this municipal Department.
Yes, but until the last two years, our federal government has not attempted to gather information from many of these surveillance systems into one centralized database. AI is now being used to do this. Everything there is to know about an individual citizen can now be gathered by the central government. (Please see links in my previous comments.) We don’t yet have federal regulation or laws to prevent abuse, so we need to act at the local and state levels. Our elected council and executive officials need to scrutinize the technology now being used for both the contract language and the software vulnerabilities. Until this is done, the technology should not be used. Our city needs an ordinance which protects our rights and also helps our laws enforcement officials to keep us safe.
Unfortunately criminal enterprise is a centrally organized endeavor, as New Bedford’s MS 13 Chapter has demonstrated with the order to kill a member originating in Central America and carried out in Westport, MA.
All technology is vulnerable to “hacking” and language is “interpretable”. Also, abuse by local Police Officers is the bigger problem at this time in New Bedford.
Utilizing the Flock provided oversight ( they found the malicious acess) along with “local” access controls should allow use of needed technology.
Local abuse is the problem “at this time” .
We also want to prevent the bigger abuses I have listed in previous comments from happening.
We can want protection for constitutional rights and still support our law enforcement.
We need a city ordinance which can protect our rights, protect our city from lawsuits, and support law enforcement.
There is a class action lawsuit against Flock for a reason. Investigators have found over 50 security vulnerabilities in the Flock system.
Security vulnerabilities of Flock software
https://simeononsecurity.com/articles/flock-safety-camera-security-vulnerabilities-research-2026/
Let our elected council and executive officials and their respective legal and tech advisors really scrutinize this program AND the contract language. We want to be certain that the city will not be liable in the future for violations of our rights.
Flock, and all surveillance tech, are products. They are sold by corporations who have one motivation – profit. They are not motivated to keep you safe, or solve crimes. They actually do better the more unsafe you feel! The more unsafe you feel, the more you’re willing to accept surveillance tech in your neighborhood collecting data on you for the corporation (and the police, sure, if they need). So while you’re glued to your Facebook feed, looking at all the crime reporting on NB Guide (and generating revenue for them from your clicks and page views), you start to think “gee New Bedford sure is unsafe!”
In fact, the opposite is true. NBPD, to their credit, has an over 50% reduction in crime over the last decade (according to their own reporting). The majority, the vast majority, of this decline was achieved without Flock. Cops don’t need Flock. Criminals don’t care about cameras. But, Flock needs us to be afraid.
The only problem I have with this flock camera technology is that the company Flock Safety stores and shares the information that is collected. That should be a violation of the United States Privacy policy. Plus the money that it costs the city to pay for them and operating them would pay to keep Station 9 open.
The City Council is limited in what they can do, they can hold all the meetings they want, but in this form of government the mayor calls the shots (examples closing fire station 9 and his support parallel products). If you want change in this city it has to start with replacing the mayor.
The City Council can write an ordinance and submit it for mayoral approval. If this is denied, I believe that the Council can override the veto.
Please see comments at end of previous article:
https://newbedfordlight.org/city-council-advances-four-motions-on-flock-cameras/
Not everyone feels the way you do, a lot of people feel cameras help solve crimes. And where have you been, even if the council did pass something the mayor would find a way to work around it. But even more than that this city council has always talks tough but than they always cave, (we have a budget that has doubled because of year after year they approved them, it has gone on for decades). Do you really think this council is going to pass an ordinance to handcuff the police department because 100 lunatics came out and stomped their feet. If your against flock cameras fine, everyone has a right to their opinion, but till you can confirm the majority of New Bedford residents support and are behind banning flock cameras, it means nothing.
Anyone, especially in a city department who crosses the line and uses a person’s personal information should be legally liable and charged as such! ALL!
No one is above the law, if the police chief did such he should be charged, if the mayor or his staff, they should be charged, if the superintendent or his staff, they should be charged!
Flock says it does not sell your data. In this video, the narrator, Dr. Jon Padfield, is speaking from his Business Reform Podcast. He is an engineer, legislator and professor who will be speaking at the Electronic Frontier Forum in Atlanta this weekend.
He offers proof that Flock HAS sold data. He cites language in the contract that gives them the right to use the data beyond the time customers can retain it.
Flock Says It Doesn’t Sell Your Data
I have just shared this with our Mayor and City Council. Please view it and share it widely. If you know of any tech professionals who are attending the Electronic Frontier Forum in Atlanta this weekend, ask them what they think about Dr. Padfield and his work. Ask you lawyer friends what they think about the language in the Flock contract.
Repeat, repeat, repeat, say it as many times as you want, this all comes down to political persuasion. Everyone knows the mayor and the city council have both failed this city for the past decade. But the New Police Chief Jason Thody has not failed anyone, he has shown he is a man of integrity, and he deserves to be given a chance to run the police department for the city of New Bedford. Backing this chief and always supporting the Blue 100%.
Flock Says It Doesn’t Sell Your Data
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78RFtdRnU6U
d
That doesn’t mean they don’t share it!
I agree with the comment above, we should give our new Police Chief Jason Thody a chance to run the New Bedford Police Department, he brings years of integrity and law enforcement experience to this position.
No one is questioning the integrity of Chief Thody. I thanked him publicly for terminating remote sharing when he did, before there was any demonstration from the public.
You can want your constitutional rights protected and also want to support your police department The two are not mutually exclusive.
Flock DOES use AI. (I originally thought that it was accessed by a central AI program, but Flock IS an AI program that can “talk” to other AI programs.) I am still trying to improve my understanding of AI.
Open AI recently had its AI program go rogue. It not only escaped Open AI security but also hacked into another company’s AI program and went undetected for some time. Even tech people are horrified about this because they understand more than everyone else how dangerous this could be to our society.
This video explains it better than I can. Please look at it and talk it over with people you know, especially tech people and lawyers. Ask them what they think:
When AI Goes Rogue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4J27XIMtYs
We get it, you don’t trust or like Flock, but to keep repeating yourself, and going on and on about all this, it’s not helping. If you say you believe that Police Chief Jason Thody has integrity, give him a chance to use his extensive law enforcement experience, and try and resolve this problem. Enough is enough already. Supporting our new Police Chief Jason Thody 100%.
It is not just Flock. Please look at the video.
You’re always welcome to your opinion but the majority of links that you post are from far left sources.
I agree with the previous comment, it’s time to give Police Chief Jason Thody a chance and let him use his thirty years in law enforcement (five years as the Chief of Police in Hartford from 2019 to 2024) to lead the city and use his experience in addressing the issues that face New Bedford.
The PBS program, When AI Goes Rogue” is the one I refer to which describes how AI computer agents or bots collaborated with one another to break out of the Open AI security, and committed what would be a felony by hacking into another AI program.
AI is used in many of our vital government infrastructure. Since AI is virtually non-regulated, we need regulation to protect our vital infrastructure resources, and also to protect our business and government agencies from liability for rights violations by AI vendors.
Here is the bias and reliability rating for media companies. Look at it. PBS is high on the list of customer approval.
https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/55045-trust-in-media-2026-which-news-sources-americans-use-and-trust
Even monthly audits are not sufficient. There should be alerts to a supervisor when the same user has searched 3 times for the same person or related person, plate #, address or any other column used in the search field. There should be a pull down menu for reasons for searching that can be edited, and added to, as the need occurs. That still leaves open how to handle the misuse that will happen by certain officers that have “family” or “close friends” looking for a “favor”. The security of the public needs to be protected. I understand the great need of the cameras in this city. Crime is out of hand and they frequently will help in many situations.
My recommendation would be to get rid of the out of town police chief that only shows up when he feels like it.
If you are calling out Police Chief Jason Thody, you are out of your mind, and need to leave politics behind.
This Administration and the police are at war because of contract issues. They can’t and won’t give the4-4-4 contract. Once again making the police in our city goto other cities and towns for more mone. This toxic environment makes an officer in New Bedford looking to move on. The truth doesn’t always paint a pretty picture.