A case out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is raising serious questions about the growing use of surveillance technology.
Milwaukee Police Detective Tehrangi Chapman, who was assigned to investigate another officer’s alleged misuse of the Flock Safety system, is now himself charged with felony misconduct in public office and misdemeanor misuse of GPS information.
According to prosecutors, Chapman allegedly used Flock to search for people without a legitimate law enforcement purpose, using entries such as “test” and “training.” Investigators also allege he secretly placed a GPS tracking device on a person’s vehicle.
The allegations remain pending in court.
While This Didn’t Happen Locally, Could It?
There is no evidence this occurred in St. Tammany Parish. But the Milwaukee case raises an important question for every community using this technology:
Could it happen here?
Supporters say Flock helps recover stolen vehicles and solve crimes. But cases like this show that any surveillance system is only as trustworthy as the people using it and the safeguards designed to prevent abuse.
Flock has expanded far beyond simply reading license plates. Its platform now includes AI-powered video cameras, people and vehicle detection, searchable video, drone integration, and growing connections with private security cameras. Reporting has also highlighted training materials showing officers how to follow individuals across multiple camera locations, and concerns have been raised about facial-recognition capabilities within parts of Flock’s expanding platform.
At the same time, other surveillance technologies—such as SignalTrace—are capable of linking vehicles with signals emitted by phones, smartwatches, and other wireless devices, allowing investigators to associate people with vehicles even when a license plate is unavailable.
The question isn’t whether these tools can help solve crimes.
The question is whether enough safeguards exist to prevent someone with authorized access from using them for personal reasons.
Milwaukee is a reminder that powerful surveillance tools don’t have to be hacked to be abused.
Sometimes, the greatest risk comes from someone who already has permission to use them.