Fight Flock,
Protect Privacy

Our question: Does the CSV capture a) searches that Beverly officers are performing, b) searches that other agencies are performing on our Bev data, or c) both?

Lt. Hathon's answer via email:

"Currently the public search audit feature only allows for our organization (Beverly Police Department) searches to be publicly made available. Network searches (other agencies) are not currently included in the public audit report.  

As a program administrator I continue to audit both our organization as well as network searches monthly.

In addition, our department ONLY allows network sharing with other Massachusetts law enforcement agencies. We do not provide sharing with any out-of-state agencies or federal agencies without receiving written request and as long as it is in accordance with our ALPR policy."

Our question: Would it be possible for the Transparency Portal to also include an additional CSV that contains network searches, both the automatic ones from MA agencies and also the case-by-case ones from other state/federal agencies that you manually approve?

Lt. Hathon's answer via email:

"The public audit feature that is on the transparency portal is facilitated through Flock Safety and currently only allows the public to see the organizational audit and not network audit, so that is beyond my control at this point. 

If any out of state or federal agencies provide a request to our department for information from our Flock data and it falls in accordance with our policy, a member of our department will conduct the search which will be visible from the public search audit."

Our question: For the NCIC hotlists that BPD subscribes to in the Flock admin interface, do you have the "Immigration Violater" one turned ON or OFF? Asking because I learned about it in this article and wanted to confirm the use of hotlist alerts aligns with BPD's updated Immigration Status and Detainer Policy (and the Mayoral Declaration and Joint Proclamation).

Lt. Hathon's answer via email:

"The immigration violator option has ALWAYS been turned OFF. 

Furthermore, the Immigration related search filter is toggled ON that will automatically block and prevent searches by any (organization and network) user related to immigration enforcement."

We emailed five quetsions on 9/13/26, and Lt. Hathon's responded on 9/14/26:

1. The BPD Transparency Portal still shows our data retention period as 30 days, even though Flock now recommends and defaults to a 7-day retention. Will you be updating to 7 days?

• Beverly PD is still currently utilizing a 30-day retention of data; however this retention period is being reviewed due to the recent update.

2. Have you enabled offense filtering for sharing? If so, which offenses for which cities? And when was it enabled?

• Offense filtering is and has been enabled with information sharing.  It is unknown when this was enabled as it occured automatically upon Flock updating the system.

• The following "Offense categories" have been filtered out so as users are unable to search data relating to the following topics: Immigration (civil / administrative), Property Recovery (Civil Enforcement), Secured area access control, Traffic Infractions, and "Other" (External  Organizations only).

3. Have you enabled Audit Assistance, which went live in late April? If so, when was it enabled? And have you gotten any flags? Note: Flock will require it by end of year. 

• Yes: Beverly PD enabled and has been utilizing Audit Assistance since it went live in April 2026. Since utilizing it (3) individual flags were populated requiring review.  All (3) flags were reviewed and determined to be appropriate use of the system and the searches were in accordance with our department's ALPR policy and procedures.

4. Have you enabled required case codes, which went live in July? If so, when was it enabled? Note: Flock will require it by end of year.

• Yes: Beverly PD had enabled required case codes when they went live in July 2026.

5. Can you confirm that any BPD staff logging into Flock must use multi-factor authentication, as of the beginning of August?

• I can confirm that Beverly PD Flock users are required to utilize MFA (Multi-factor Authentication) and have been doing so since 2024.

Boston told Flock not to allow outside access to its license plate data. It happened anyway. - Boston Globe 9/14/26

Behind the public backlash against Flock cameras - WBUR's On Point, 9/2/26

Flock Cameras Are Dividing U.S. Cities. Here’s What to Know About Them - New York Times, 9/1/26

Flock license plate cameras under fire as Mass. police misconduct cases mount - Boston Globe 8/21/26

More Mass. police officers placed on leave over alleged Flock misuse - Boston.com, 8/20/26

About Flock's changes:

• Flock Updates Privacy, Accountability, Security, and Transparency Safeguards - Flock blog post, 8/13/26

• As Public Opposition to Flock Grows, ACLU Responds to Surveillance Company’s “New” Updates - ACLU of MA, 8/13/26

• Flock announces changes amid backlash over its license plate reader network - Associated Press, 8/13/26

Why Flock surveillance cameras are drawing fierce backlash across Massachusetts - Boston Globe, 7/30/26

1. ACLU of Massachusetts v. Massachusetts State Police (2026)

A Suffolk Superior Court judge ruled that the Massachusetts State Police must disclose ALPR locations and audit records.

• Read the ACLU press release

• Read the ACLU memo to the court

• Read the judge's desicion and order

2. Chatrie v. United States (2026)

The Supreme Court of the United States held, "Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information."

• Read SCOTUSblog summary and access all the case artifacts

3. Commonwealth v. McCarthy (2020)

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said, "With enough cameras in enough locations, the historic location data from an ALPR system in Massachusetts would invade a reasonable expectation of privacy and would constitute a search for constitutional purposes.”

• Read the McCarthy ruling

• Read the Harvard Law Review analysis

• Read the Boston Bar Journal analysis

4. Carpenter v. United States (2018)

The Supreme Court of the United States said in the opinion announcement, "An individual retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in the CSLI corresponding to his cell phone number and law enforcement must generally get a warrant to access that information." And in the opinion itself, the Court stated, “an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI."

CSLI = Cell Phone Location Information

• Read the Oyez summary of Carpenter and access the opinions and audio

5. Commonwealth v. Augustine (2014)

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court "decided that a state resident retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in her location records residing with her cellular telephone company, and therefore that police could obtain extended historic cell site location information only pursuant to a judicial warrant supported by probable cause." (source: State Court Report)

• Read the ACLU summary of Augustine

• Read the Augustine ruling