Flock used >100 times to track veteran who recorded traffic stop
Flock used >100 times to track veteran who recorded traffic stop
Flock 系统被使用超过 100 次，用于追踪一名拍摄交通执法的退伍军人
While standing in a private parking lot in Sussex, Wisconsin, on May 4, 2025, Napoleon Jones witnessed a traffic stop made by an out-of-county police officer. “It just didn’t sit right with me,” Jones told TMJ4 News, a local NBC News affiliate. “So I did what I legally could do, and I walked over and recorded it.” 2025 年 5 月 4 日，拿破仑·琼斯（Napoleon Jones）站在威斯康星州苏塞克斯的一个私人停车场时，目睹了一名外县警察进行的交通拦截。琼斯告诉当地 NBC 新闻附属机构 TMJ4 News：“这让我感觉很不舒服，所以我做了我合法能做的事——走过去并将其记录下来。”
Jones, a United States Navy veteran, was well within his rights to record the police stop. But even though he recorded from a safe distance without interfering, that didn’t stop the Waukesha County Sheriff’s deputy, Brandon Shayhorn, from later unlawfully stopping and arresting Jones. After Shayhorn completed the traffic stop, Jones returned to his vehicle. But before Jones could exit the parking lot, Shayhorn turned on his lights and initiated a second stop, claiming Jones’ temporary license plate, displayed in the rearview window, was unreadable, reports TMJ4 News. 作为一名美国海军退伍军人，琼斯完全有权记录警察的执法过程。尽管他在保持安全距离且未干扰执法的情况下进行了拍摄，但这并没有阻止沃基肖县（Waukesha County）治安官副手布兰登·谢霍恩（Brandon Shayhorn）随后非法拦截并逮捕琼斯。据 TMJ4 News 报道，在谢霍恩完成那次交通拦截后，琼斯回到了自己的车里。但在琼斯离开停车场之前，谢霍恩打开了警灯并进行了第二次拦截，声称琼斯展示在后窗的临时车牌无法辨认。
Shayhorn demanded to see Jones’ driver’s license, but Jones refused, arguing that he’d been unlawfully pulled over on private property. Video clips of the encounter show the deputy opening Jones’ door and pulling him from his vehicle. 谢霍恩要求查看琼斯的驾照，但琼斯拒绝了，理由是他是在私人领地上被非法拦截的。现场视频片段显示，该副手打开了琼斯的车门并将他从车里强行拉出。
Jones was subsequently arrested “for resisting and obstructing,” according to a federal lawsuit he filed against the arresting officers and police department. But after being held in custody for five hours, he was released with no citations or criminal charges. An internal post-arrest memorandum reviewed by Reason revealed that Shayhorn’s supervisor informed him shortly after the arrest that he’d, in fact, illegally stopped Jones, and he therefore could not compel Jones to produce his identification. 根据琼斯对逮捕他的警官和警察局提起的联邦诉讼，他随后因“拒捕和妨碍公务”被捕。但在被拘留五个小时后，他被释放，且未受到任何传票或刑事指控。《Reason》杂志查阅的一份逮捕后内部备忘录显示，谢霍恩的上司在逮捕后不久就告知他，他实际上非法拦截了琼斯，因此无权强迫琼斯出示身份证件。
The next day, Jones filed a citizen’s complaint against Shayhorn for the illegal stop and said he believed Shayhorn retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to record. Jones then sought legal counsel to pursue claims against the arresting officers and the police department for his unlawful stop, detention, and arrest. 第二天，琼斯针对谢霍恩的非法拦截行为提出了公民投诉，并表示他认为谢霍恩是因为他行使第一修正案赋予的拍摄权而对他进行报复。随后，琼斯寻求法律援助，就其被非法拦截、拘留和逮捕一事，向涉事警官和警察局提出索赔。
While litigating those claims, Jones’ attorney, Nate Cade, found something odd: A single photograph of his client’s vehicle, provided by Flock Safety, dated May 30, 2025. Provided in the sheriff’s office’s response to Jones’ complaint “was a single photograph of [Jones’] white vehicle, a white BMW,” Cade told TMJ4 News. “The incident occurred on May 4, so that starts me thinking, what’s going on? Why do you have a photograph of his vehicle 25 days later?” Cade continued. 在处理这些诉讼的过程中，琼斯的律师内特·凯德（Nate Cade）发现了一件奇怪的事情：由 Flock Safety 提供的一张其客户车辆的照片，日期为 2025 年 5 月 30 日。凯德告诉 TMJ4 News，治安官办公室在回复琼斯的投诉时，“提供了一张（琼斯的）白色车辆——一辆白色宝马的照片”。凯德继续说道：“事件发生在 5 月 4 日，这让我开始思考，到底发生了什么？为什么你们会有他 25 天后的车辆照片？”
Further investigation revealed over 100 Flock searches for a white BMW in the weeks following Jones’ unlawful arrest. Some of the searches were made by Shayhorn himself, a clear conflict of interest. When asked about the searches during a deposition hearing, Shayhorn and others replied they’d been ordered to conduct the searches by their lieutenant in connection with Jones’ citizen complaint, according to TMJ4 News. 进一步调查显示，在琼斯被非法逮捕后的几周内，Flock 系统对一辆白色宝马进行了 100 多次搜索。其中一些搜索是由谢霍恩本人进行的，这显然存在利益冲突。据 TMJ4 News 报道，在证词听证会上被问及这些搜索时，谢霍恩等人回答称，他们是奉中尉之命，针对琼斯的公民投诉而进行的搜索。
“I was extremely shocked,” Jones told TMJ4 News, “I couldn’t understand why or how that would even be a possibility from what happened at the beginning of May would lead me to be searched in the Flock system because from my understanding, it’s for criminal stuff.” “我感到非常震惊，”琼斯告诉 TMJ4 News，“我无法理解为什么 5 月初发生的事情会导致我在 Flock 系统中被搜索，因为据我所知，那是用于处理刑事案件的。”
In July 2026, Jones amended his complaint to include the additional officers who searched for his vehicle without “a legitimate law enforcement purpose” as required by the county’s user agreement. There was no Flock camera in the parking lot where the unlawful arrest took place, and Jones was not accused nor suspected of any wrongdoing when the investigative searches took place. Indeed, Jones alleges that the officers instead used Flock to track Jones “in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right of recording a traffic stop” and as a “means to attempt to find a potential crime against Jones.” 2026 年 7 月，琼斯修改了诉状，将其他在没有“合法执法目的”（根据县用户协议要求）的情况下搜索其车辆的警官也列为被告。非法逮捕发生的停车场并没有 Flock 摄像头，且在进行这些调查性搜索时，琼斯并未被指控或怀疑有任何不当行为。事实上，琼斯指控这些警官使用 Flock 追踪他，是“为了报复他行使第一修正案赋予的拍摄交通执法的权利”，并将其作为“试图寻找琼斯潜在犯罪证据的手段”。
At a time when police use of automated license plate readers is facing fierce public backlash for invading Americans’ privacy, Jones’ case serves as a reminder of just how easily government power can be abused without proper oversight. While the officers involved aren’t being accused of attention-grabbing misuses of Flock Safety—like, say, using the tech to outlandishly stalk their romantic interests—their alleged abuses are still concerning. If lawfully filming a police officer can set off a weekslong surveillance campaign against the videographer, how can Americans expect other constitutionally protected speech and actions to not be met with similar retaliation? 在警方使用自动车牌识别系统因侵犯美国人隐私而面临激烈公众抵制的当下，琼斯的案例提醒人们，如果没有适当的监督，政府权力是多么容易被滥用。虽然涉事警官并未被指控滥用 Flock Safety 进行耸人听闻的行为（例如利用该技术疯狂跟踪其恋爱对象），但他们被指控的滥用行为依然令人担忧。如果合法拍摄警察就能引发针对拍摄者长达数周的监视行动，美国人又怎能指望其他受宪法保护的言论和行为不会遭到类似的报复呢？