08/09/2026
Public audit logs list 261,590 Flock searches tied to seven Southeast Georgia agencies
More than 91% of the entries showed no case number, though the summary records alone do not establish that any search was improper.
By News Now Georgia
SOUTHEAST GEORGIA — Public audit-log summaries list 261,590 unique Flock Safety search records associated with seven Southeast Georgia law enforcement agencies, with 239,092 entries — 91.4% — showing no case number.
The figures come from screenshots of agency pages on Have I Been Flocked, an independent website that compiles Flock automated license plate reader audit logs obtained through public-records requests. The screenshots were supplied to News Now Georgia and display an update time of July 31, 2026.
Agency| Search records| No case number| Percentage
Long County Sheriff’s Office| 11,239| 10,906| 97.0%
Liberty County Sheriff’s Office| 32,547| 27,835| 85.5%
Jesup Police Department| 21,532| 20,521| 95.3%
Bryan County Sheriff’s Office| 7,977| 6,855| 85.9%
Richmond Hill Police Department| 23,475| 22,108| 94.2%
Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office| 156,373| 142,604| 91.2%
Tattnall County Sheriff’s Office| 8,447| 8,263| 97.8%
Combined| 261,590| 239,092| 91.4%
Bulloch County accounted for 156,373 records, or nearly 60% of the combined total. Liberty County followed with 32,547, while Richmond Hill had 23,475 and Jesup had 21,532.
Tattnall County had the highest percentage of records without a case number at 97.8%, followed by Long County at 97% and Jesup at 95.3%.
The reporting periods are not identical. The Richmond Hill records begin in March 2022, while the newest starting point belongs to Jesup in November 2024. The most recent searches shown on the pages occurred on various dates in June 2026. The figures therefore should not be treated as equal-time rankings of agency activity.
What a missing case number means
The absence of a case number does not, by itself, demonstrate that a search was unauthorized, unlawful or unrelated to legitimate police work.
Flock says its system requires users to provide a reason for every search. The company also provides a separate case-number field, but agencies determine through their own policies how that field must be used. Flock has described case numbers as a free-text field and has encouraged agencies to establish local rules governing search documentation and auditing.
Still, case numbers provide one way for supervisors, elected officials and the public to connect a database search to a documented investigation. Without one, independently determining why a search occurred generally requires reviewing the underlying audit record and additional agency documentation.
Have I Been Flocked says its results represent searches entered into the Flock system. A record does not necessarily mean the searched vehicle was stopped, was under investigation or even passed a Flock camera. The website also cautions that a system user is not necessarily a sworn police officer. "Read the project’s methodology and limitations." (https://haveibeenflocked.com/about/faq)
Redactions and “unfiltered” searches
Across the seven agency pages, 108,041 records — approximately 41.3% of the combined total — were classified as having redacted plate information.
The percentage of redacted records ranged from 36.6% for Bulloch County to 73.6% for Tattnall County. Redaction may protect sensitive vehicle information, but it can also make it difficult to identify repeated searches or determine whether different records involve the same vehicle.
Have I Been Flocked warns that inconsistent redactions can cause both overcounting and undercounting. The project removes exact duplicate records, but differently redacted versions of an otherwise identical entry may be treated as separate searches. "The project explains its duplicate-handling process here." (https://haveibeenflocked.com/about/duplicate-handling)
The screenshots also classify 51,231 entries as “unfiltered searches” among 92,001 uses of Flock’s primary search tool. The summary pages do not provide enough information to determine what filters, if any, were omitted or whether those searches complied with each agency’s policy.
Potential reach extends beyond local cameras
Every agency page listed a maximum search scope exceeding 98,000 devices and more than 6,400 networks. Those numbers should not be interpreted as the number of cameras owned or operated locally.
Have I Been Flocked describes Flock’s primary search tool as operating across cameras an organization can access through sharing agreements. Its Lookup tool can provide broader access through statewide or national networks. "The website outlines the different search tools here." (https://haveibeenflocked.com/about/search-types)
Flock says participating agencies may share camera access individually, regionally or statewide. Agencies can also join National Lookup, which permits full-plate searches across cameras contributed by other participating departments.
What Georgia law requires
Georgia law permits law enforcement agencies to collect automated license plate reader data, but says the information may be accessed only for a law enforcement purpose. Agencies may share the information with other law enforcement agencies for those purposes.
State law also requires agencies deploying the technology to maintain policies governing its operation and the training of officers. Captured plate data generally must be destroyed within 30 months unless it relates to a toll violation or another law enforcement purpose. "See Georgia Code § 35-1-22." (https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-35/chapter-1/section-35-1-22/)
Flock’s current policy says queries are retained for auditing and include the username, date, time, stated purpose and search criteria. The company says plate-reader data is deleted after 30 days by default, although customers may use a different retention period when required by law or policy. "Read Flock’s license plate reader policy." (https://www.flocksafety.com/legal/lpr-policy)
The summary figures do not establish whether any of the listed searches violated Georgia law or an agency policy. Reaching that conclusion would require reviewing individual search reasons, user identities, agency policies, case files and supervisory audits.
The records nevertheless raise questions for the seven agencies: Do they require case numbers? What qualifies as an unfiltered search? How frequently are audit logs reviewed? Which outside networks can personnel access? And what steps are taken when a search cannot be connected to a documented law enforcement purpose?
Those answers cannot be found in the summary screenshots alone.
