From the Public Safety edition of October 6, 2026
Fall River police ran 15,000+ Flock searches in 2025 with reasons like 'inv', '99' and '.', and under 3% carried case numbers from 2021 to 2025
Fall River Police Department (reported by The New Bedford Light) · Municipal policing / ALPR oversight · Fall River, Massachusetts, United States
- Publisher
- The New Bedford Light
- Original publication
- October 6, 2026
- Source retrieved
- 2026-10-07
What happened
The New Bedford Light reported on Oct. 6, 2026, from five years of Fall River Police Department Flock usage data, that officers ran more than 15,000 searches in 2025, more than half tagged 'investigation' or abbreviations, with other entries including periods, single letters, '99' (an 'all other' code, used by one officer more than 1,000 times) and strings such as 'gfgf'. From 2021 through 2025, under 3% of searches had case numbers; in the first half of 2026 under 10% had reference numbers, rising to about 70% in August after a policy change and Flock's drop-down reasons. The acting chief called the 2012-era policy deficient, adopted a new one in January, has found no misuse so far and called heavy '99' use a training deficiency, but said re-running years of searches line by line would be unreasonable; the policy does not set an audit frequency. EFF's Dave Maass said the design makes abuse 'almost impossible' to find. Flock says case numbers will be required for all searches by year-end, with an emergency bypass.
Why it matters
Shows why AI-enabled search tools in policing need structured justification and audit design: free-text reasons made years of searches effectively unauditable.
Evidence and measured results
Independent analysis of department-provided search logs plus interviews; plate numbers were withheld, so the review could not detect repeated personal lookups. Department statements are self-reported.
Limitations and uncertainty
ALPR search governance rather than a measured AI outcome; plate data withheld; no misuse found to date per the department; the archive already holds many Flock items, and this is included for its quantified log analysis.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-10-07; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- Police leaders cannot show the public that years of ALPR searches were legitimate because reasons were vague and unlinked to cases.
- Stakeholders
- Police chief and command staff
- City council
- Officers and union
- Civil liberties groups
- Regional partner agencies
- Discovery questions
- What share of searches carry a case or call number?
- How often are logs audited, and by whom?
- Can outside agencies' searches of your cameras be reviewed?
- Value hypothesis
- Interpretation: structured reasons and regular automated audits can make ALPR use defensible to the public.
- Potential engagement
- A retrospective log analysis and audit-policy design for one department.
- Unsupported claims
- The department's searches were misused
- Drop-down reasons ensure legitimate use
- Audits can detect all personal lookups without plate data
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- Relevant to any ALPR or AI search tool with free-text or menu justification fields.
- Architecture and integration
- Vendor search logs exported to agency storage and joined to records-management case numbers.
- Prerequisites
- Log export access
- Case-number data from records management
- Defined vague-reason list
- Constraints
- Vendor-hosted logs
- Emergency bypass requirement
- Plate data withheld from public review
- Security
- Named-user logs, separate bypass logging and review of outside-agency queries.
- Proof of value
- Measure the share of searches with valid case references
- Flag users with high vague-reason rates
- Track bypass frequency monthly
Delivery
Role takeaway
- Work
- Define audit cadence and triggers, implement automated log reports and train officers on search documentation.
- Dependencies
- Vendor log access
- Policy revision
- Supervisor time
- Ownership
- Police chief's office with a designated audit supervisor.
- Skills and adoption
- Officers trained on documenting searches; supervisors on reading audit reports.
- Governance checkpoints
- Written audit frequency in policy
- Public audit summaries
- Annual review of outside-agency access
- Acceptance criteria
- Proposed: 95% of non-emergency searches carry a case reference
- Proposed: monthly audit reports reviewed
- Proposed: all bypasses reviewed within a week
- Risks
- Menu reasons masking misuse
- Bypass overuse
- Audit fatigue
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
Search-reason capture, required case references and exportable logs are system design choices; drop-down reasons improve structure but can still be misused.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
Policy predating the technology, no audit frequency and reliance on complaints as audit triggers left oversight reactive; New Bedford now requires monthly audits and the state chiefs' association head recommends quarterly at minimum.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Without case linkage, misuse such as tracking partners, found in New Bedford, cannot be distinguished from legitimate use; network access by outside agencies with similarly vague reasons widens the exposure.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
The chief frames vague entries as training gaps; officers need training on documenting searches, and supervisors need time for log review.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
Agencies should require mandatory case or call references, named-user logs and audit exports in ALPR and AI search contracts rather than waiting for vendor roadmap changes.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
Audit cadence, triggers and responsibility must be defined in policy; the chief is reviewing logs daily with a captain while seeking a sustainable cadence.
Publication history
- 2026-10-06Public Safety · Issue 305 resources
Stable resource ID: fall-river-flock-search-reasons-unauditable-20261006