Dustin Milligan, August 25th, 2026

Terre Haute officials have maintained that the police department’s use of Flock Safety license plate reader cameras is controlled, monitored and protected by department policy. A review of publicly obtained search records, however, is raising questions about how those safeguards are enforced and whether independent oversight is needed.

Terre Haute Vice News reviewed Flock search records collected by the independent website Have I Been Flocked, which compiles information from law enforcement audit logs obtained through public-records requests nationwide. The records provide only a partial look at THPD activity because they capture searches that appear in other agencies’ Network Audit Logs.

According to Have I Been Flocked, a more complete record is contained in an agency’s Organization Audit Log, which can include the officer conducting a search, the license plate searched, the reason given and an associated case number.

THVN’s review identified one THPD officer who searched the same vehicle 316 times on 25 different days between August 2024 and March 2025. THVN is withholding the officer’s name while continuing to seek additional information about the searches.

Each search was labeled with some variation of “Drug Investigation,” but the records reviewed by THVN did not display an associated case number. That does not establish wrongdoing, and the searches could have been connected to a legitimate investigation, but the available records do not provide enough information to independently determine why the vehicle was repeatedly searched for months.

Questions About Oversight

THPD policy states that Flock technology is to be used for legitimate law enforcement purposes, including criminal investigations, locating stolen or wanted vehicles and finding missing or vulnerable people. Use of the system is logged and is supposed to be subject to review.

Mayor Brandon Sakbun discussed those safeguards during a June interview, saying access is restricted to authorized officers and each user has a unique identification. Sakbun said, “we can see exactly what they’re looking at,” and added that the department conducts an audit once a year.

Those assurances make the results of those audits particularly important. THVN has requested the audit documentation to allow an independent review that will determine whether the safeguards described by officials are working as intended.

THVN first raised questions about Terre Haute’s Flock system in December 2025, including who has access, how long information is retained and what oversight exists. Reporting continued through The Great American Dragnet and months of public-records requests.

THPD provided agreements related to the system and directed THVN to department policy in April. However, several later requests seeking records showing actual use of the system, including complete organization and network audit logs, have remained unresolved or resulted in limited records.

Flock also became a major topic during the June 11 Terre Haute City Council meeting, when council members heard an extensive presentation from THPD. THVN has questioned whether the public received adequate notice beforehand that Flock would become such a significant part of the meeting.

Public Records Censored

Independent scrutiny has become more difficult following changes Flock made to its Network Audit system in December 2025. According to Have I Been Flocked, officer names, specific license plates and other identifying information were removed from Network Audit records.

The website also published company communications indicating the changes came amid increased public-records activity and websites aggregating police search information. Older records can reveal patterns such as an officer repeatedly searching the same vehicle, while newer records may not identify either the officer or vehicle.

That matters because license plate reader systems can provide law enforcement with information about where and when vehicles have been detected. While the technology can assist legitimate investigations, meaningful oversight is necessary to ensure searches comply with policy.

If an officer were to use the system to track a spouse, former partner, neighbor or another person for personal reasons, there might be no legitimate criminal case number for the public to identify. Relying exclusively on internal audits would leave the same agency operating the surveillance system responsible for determining whether its employees followed the rules.