The North Carolina Flock Misuse Tracker
A running record of the North Carolina law-enforcement officers criminally charged with — or under investigation for — misusing the Flock license-plate network. Every case comes to light the same way: only when someone finally audits the log.
Every argument for the plate-reader network assumes the people searching it are honest. North Carolina now has a documented, accelerating record of what happens when they aren’t — and of how the abuse surfaces: not by a warning light, but only when a human being reviews the search log. This page tracks the North Carolina cases as they come to light. Charges are accusations; each officer is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
| Officer | Agency (County) | Date | What the record shows | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Bean | Macon County SO | Fired Oct 20, 2026 | The Macon County Sheriff’s Office fired Deputy Jonathan Bean for “misuse of the license plate reader system.” Notably, the complaint came not from inside the department but from “a creditable outside agency” on Oct. 16, 2026 — another agency flagged the activity on the shared network. Bean was placed on administrative leave; Internal Affairs investigated and concluded the complaint was “founded,” and Sheriff Brent Holbrooks terminated him (announced Oct. 20). The office did not release how the system was misused and did not report any criminal charge. “Misuse of any kind will not be tolerated,” Holbrooks said. Update — the reports now conflict, and the charging question is unresolved. WLOS (Oct. 21) reported that no charges were filed because the statute of limitations had passed. The Smoky Mountain News (Oct. 28) later reported that Macon County is cooperating with an ongoing SBI investigation and that its own request for Bean’s Flock audit logs was denied as part of an ongoing criminal investigation — which does not square with a closed, time-barred case. We are treating this as open pending confirmation from a primary source. Macon County — in the western NC mountains, about 180 miles west of Charlotte — is the same county whose commissioners voted 5–0 to defund Flock in July 2026. Caught the way every case here is — after the fact; this time by another agency’s eyes on the log. (News & Observer / Charlotte Observer) | Fired; no criminal charge reported |
| Janet Leonard | Franklin County SO | Fired Sep 25, 2026 | Sheriff Kevin White ordered an audit of the office’s Flock system that “revealed a stream of highly unusual activity” — and found Detective Janet Leonard had been routinely using Flock to “track the every movement of a single private citizen.” White called it “unacceptable, unconstitutional, and a complete violation of privacy.” Leonard was terminated immediately, and the audit and investigation were forwarded to District Attorney Mike Waters (Prosecutorial District 11), who told WRAL that such misuse is punishable as a misdemeanor (the District Attorney cited no statute section or offense class; we will confirm the charging section from a primary source before citing one). As of Oct. 5, 2026, no charge has been filed. The office had used Flock for nearly a decade — and White has now indefinitely suspended its Flock cameras, equipment, and servers, with prior uses still under investigation. “Just because a tool can be useful doesn’t mean it can’t be dangerous… I will never allow it to come at the cost of your privacy and constitutional rights.” Caught the same way as every case here — by an audit, after the fact. (WRAL · ABC11 · CBS17 · Sheriff White’s public statement) | Fired; forwarded to DA; Flock indefinitely suspended |
| Tonya Baker | Wrightsville Beach PD (New Hanover) | Charged Sep 9, 2026 | Because the town’s Flock system was new (launched March 2026), town leadership ran an early audit — which flagged a discrepancy in one officer’s access to the database. WBPD opened an internal investigation and referred it to the N.C. State Bureau of Investigation (opened July 16) and the District Attorney. The officer was relieved of duty, and on Sep 9, 2026 a New Hanover County grand jury indicted former officer Tonya Baker, who was arrested that day on one count of misdemeanor misuse of a license-plate-reader system — warrants say she pulled two vehicle registrations without a law-enforcement purpose between Feb 10 and May 15, 2026. Her first appearance went forward Oct 12 and was continued to Nov 9, 2026 (no motion to dismiss filed). Caught the same way as every case here — by an audit, after the fact — and at a New Hanover beach town next door to Carolina Beach. (WECT · Port City Daily) | Charged — misdemeanor LPR misuse (Sep 9, 2026); first appearance Oct 12, continued to Nov 9 |
| Daniel Heith Little | Brunswick County SO | Oct 5, 2026 | Former lieutenant Daniel Heith Little was indicted Oct. 5, 2026 (True Bill) and arrested the same day on 18 counts: six of accessing a government computer (a Class H felony, up to 39 months), six of misuse of an automated license-plate-reader system (a Class 1 misdemeanor), and six of willful failure to discharge duties (a Class 1 misdemeanor). (The reporting did not state the specific statute sections; we will confirm them from the Clerk of Superior Court file before citing them.) The indictment alleges he used a county-issued cellphone to access Flock and obtain information on several license plates “without legitimate law enforcement purpose” between February and August 2026; he resigned Aug. 18. It surfaced the way every case here does — a routine Flock audit flagged it — and Sheriff Brian Chism referred it to the N.C. SBI (disclosed Sep 1). This is the first Cape Fear Flock-misuse prosecution, and the first in the state to carry felony government-computer charges. An indictment is an accusation; every person is presumed innocent. Court date Dec. 8, 2026. (our write-up · WECT (Oct 6) · WECT (Sep 1)) | Indicted Oct 5 — 18 counts (incl. felony) |
| Elizabeth Anne Snowman | Mooresville PD (Iredell) | Aug 5, 2026 | Ran the Flock database 31 times (29 on duty) to track her boyfriend’s ex-wife; caught by a Flock system audit, not a complaint — the victim didn’t know. She logged 29 of the 31 as “motor vehicle infractions,” a reason G.S. § 20-183.31(b) doesn’t even permit — the required reason field was filled every time and caught nothing. Charged under G.S. § 14-454(b). (Our write-up & the redacted warrant) | Charged; reports differ on whether she remains employed or was dismissed |
| Edward Florentino Jr. (ALPR-adjacent) | Cornelius PD (Mecklenburg) | Fired Aug 21, 2026 | Not a Flock-misuse case — an employment consequence of one. Florentino is Elizabeth Snowman’s partner, and the ex-wife she ran through Flock 31 times is his ex-wife. Cornelius PD fired him for conduct unbecoming, unsatisfactory performance, and violating General Order 25 — an alleged failure to notify a supervisor of information that could discredit the department, not for querying Flock. He says he never worked with Flock cameras, denies any knowledge or direction (“I did not tell her to do it. I was not aware of it”), offered to fund his own polygraph, and calls it guilt by association; the town’s stated grounds (WBTV) do not mention Flock. We log it as the first NC instance of collateral employment fallout radiating from an ALPR case to a second department — and, if he sues, the likely first NC civil filing arising from the Flock prosecutions. (WSOC · WBTV) | Terminated (not charged; no Flock-misuse allegation) |
| Seth Daniel Elliott | Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD | Jul 29, 2026 (warrant) | Records allege he ran an unauthorized query of an NC plate through Flock and CJLEADS to look up an undercover officer’s vehicle — at the request of the target of a Watauga County drug investigation. This isn’t a stalking case; it’s arguably worse — exposing an undercover officer to a narcotics suspect. Charged under G.S. § 14-454(b); SBI investigation; $15,000 unsecured bond; unpaid administrative leave. CMPD owns no cameras — it reached the network through a data-sharing agreement it released Aug 4. (The charge, and what our records show) | Charged |
| Ten additional officers | Mooresville PD (Iredell) | Aug 10, 2026 | Department audit complete: no additional criminal charges. The department found “several policy violations,” now in an internal administrative review it says it cannot discuss — shielded as personnel records the public can’t see. | No charges — internal review |
Three criminal charges in six weeks, from Charlotte to the coast; ten more officers audited in a single department — a review the department closed Aug 10 with no new charges but “several policy violations” sent to a personnel file the public can’t see. We add cases as they surface — if you know of one we’ve missed, write to mark@deflockilm.org.
A different kind of failure — the system accused the wrong man. Not every harm on this page is an officer abusing the log; sometimes the network itself is simply wrong. On Aug. 20, 2026, Reidsville police detained Amadeus Purcell in his own driveway on Amos Street, telling him a Flock camera had caught his car driving 100 mph on Scale Street — when he had just returned from a late-night Wendy’s run. “I have you on camera. I have enough to arrest you right now and seize your car,” an officer told him. His Ring footage shows at least four Reidsville patrol cars filling the street while officers felt his hood (“the car is still hot, it’s gotta be you”) and pointed at his tires.
What cleared him was a Wendy’s receipt in his cup holder — a timestamp showing he couldn’t have been on Scale Street when the reckless driving was reported. Only then did officers concede the car they were hunting had diagonal headlights; Purcell’s are square. A plate read had been treated as an identification, and an innocent man had to disprove it with a fast-food receipt. Reidsville PD calls it an “ongoing investigation” and has released nothing further; Purcell has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice and started a petition (400+ signatures) to ban Flock cameras in Rockingham County. It belongs with the wrongful-stop cases: the error surfaces only after the harm. (WXII 12, Sept. 3, 2026)
How every one of these came to light
Notice the pattern: none of these officers was stopped before the abuse. Snowman ran 31 searches; the review happened afterward. That is the whole problem with “the log is the safeguard.” A log is only a safeguard if a human reviews it — and North Carolina law barely requires that. G.S. § 20-183.31 requires only that an agency’s ALPR policy provide for “annual or more frequent” auditing, reported to the head of the agency. A once-a-year self-review is the legal floor. And it is thinner than it sounds, because the “reason” an officer types for each search is self-entered — the New Hanover Sheriff’s Office has already told WECT its own codes were simply “mislabeled.” If the labels can be wrong, reading the labels is not oversight at all. Flock says that from January 1, 2027 every search must cite a case number — but nothing checks the number is real. Snowman typed “motor vehicle infractions” 31 times.
It’s not just North Carolina — the pattern is national
The North Carolina cases are the local edge of a documented national problem. A Washington Post investigation identified officers accused of improperly accessing Flock in dozens of cases, and more than 50 officers nationwide have now been charged with ALPR misuse — many involving stalking or tracking women. The out-of-state cases keep the exact shape of the ones here:
- Kentucky — 2,000+ searches to stalk an ex. In August 2026 an officer was arrested after querying Flock more than 2,000 times to track an ex-girlfriend — and it surfaced only because of the audit tool Flock had rolled out that same month. The safeguard the industry now points to did not exist while the abuse was happening. (CNN)
- Sedgwick County, Kansas. A police chief personally ran the couple’s plates 228 times — 164 of them on his ex-girlfriend alone — the kind of concentration a log only reveals after the fact.
- Texas — an abortion dragnet. An officer searched roughly 83,000 cameras nationwide hunting for a woman who had self-managed an abortion — proof a “local” network is a national search tool. (The full account.)
- ICE & immigration. Local Flock networks have been queried in thousands of immigration-related lookups by or for federal agencies, without the local public’s knowledge. (Who is searching our cameras.)
The through-line is the same everywhere, this county included: every one of these came to light only after someone audited the log — never before the abuse. A running national tally of stalking and abuse cases lives on our national stalking record.
Why it matters here in the Cape Fear
The scale here is not abstract. New Hanover County’s Flock network was searched 2.98 million times in sixteen months — and the county redacted the name of every searching agency and officer. And it isn’t only the county: Carolina Beach’s five cameras were searched about three million times in a single quarter, and Kure Beach’s four 2.56 million times over five months — the same nationwide network, the same anonymous searchers. The one record that would catch a Snowman here is the record New Hanover won’t show the public, and that Wrightsville Beach withheld through a 45-day holdout. When someone finally audits, misuse turns up not one officer at a time, but by the handful. (The national stalking record · Every figure, sourced.)
The first cases used a 1979 computer law — then Baker was charged under the ALPR statute itself
Here is a detail worth knowing. North Carolina’s ALPR rules live in Article 3D (G.S. §§ 20-183.30 to .33): § 20-183.31(b) makes it unlawful to access or use plate-reader data without a legitimate law-enforcement purpose, and § 20-183.33 supplies the criminal penalty for a violation of the Article. Yet the state’s first two ALPR-misuse prosecutions — Seth Elliott (CMPD) and Elizabeth Snowman (Mooresville) — were charged not under the ALPR statute but under G.S. § 14-454(b), a general “accessing computers” law from 1979. That changed with the third case. In September 2026 the State charged former Wrightsville Beach officer Tonya Baker under the ALPR-specific statute, § 20-183.31(b) — and for accessing New Hanover County’s own Flock network, not the state highway system. So the ALPR law does reach a local agency’s cameras, and prosecutors have now used it. The takeaway is not that one statute is unavailable, but that the charging tool has varied case to case — a general computer-trespass law older than the internet for the first two, the purpose-built ALPR statute for the third.
The case we can’t classify — which is the whole point
Before either 2026 case, the same Mooresville department charged another officer, back in October 2024, under the same “accessing computers” statute (G.S. § 14-454(b)) used in the Elliott and Snowman cases above — for allegedly misusing government-issued devices and databases to obtain personal information about a woman. (The same department also runs a Flock-affiliated Aerodome Drone-as-First-Responder program — a reminder that the plate readers are one layer of a wider surveillance stack.) Those charges were dismissed in October 2025, and the court record now appears sealed. We do not name that officer, and we draw no conclusion about guilt. Here is the point: the public record never says whether those “databases” included Flock. It could have been a plate-reader search; it may not have been — under North Carolina’s rules there is no way for the public to tell. That unknowability — a surveillance network with no independent audit, and criminal records that seal on dismissal — is exactly the regulation-and-transparency gap we’ve written about. When the system is this opaque, even counting the misuse becomes guesswork.
You’re not a suspect. So stop being tracked like one.
It takes one minute. Add your name — then tell the officials who represent you to take the cameras down.