It’s just a bill
Thursday, Sep 24, 2026 - Posted by Isabel Miller
* Naperville Sun…
A Naperville police officer used Flock Safety license plate reader technology to track a girlfriend and her ex-fiance, according to documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Naperville Sun.
Oscar Maldonado, who no longer works for the Naperville Police Department, tracked license plates for non-police-related matters hundreds of times between June 18, 2025, and Sept. 15, 2025, records show. When the department received a citizen complaint about the cameras’ misuse, an investigation was conducted. […]
But [Maldonado’s attorney, Patty Kalkanis,] disputes the claim that Maldonado’s actions rise to the level of official misconduct due to a lack of state legislative clarity regarding Flock misuse.
“This is Illinois case law and it is very clear that it is not breaking the law using Flock right now. … There is no law to have been broken. Maybe a violation of an employee manual but I think that’s about as far as it can go,” Kalkanis said.
* ABC Chicago…
Automated license plate readers like Flock can create a detailed record of where you’ve been in an ever-expanding dragnet. But in Illinois, there may be a troubling gap. A police officer abusing that technology to track someone who hasn’t committed a crime could violate department policy without committing a crime themselves. […]
Some action is being taken on the state level. State Rep. Nicolle Grasse introduced legislation earlier this year to make sure municipalities in Illinois have safeguards around the technology.
“There is great benefit that can come from these. But with that benefit comes great responsibility and risk. That brings in the responsibility part, especially for those who are entrusted with public safety,” said Rep. Nicolle Grasse, (D) Arlington Heights.
That bill is now in the rules committee. It is unclear if or when it may be considered by the full Illinois legislature.
* From the bill…
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who violates the provisions of this Act is subject to legal action for damages, to be brought by any other person claiming that a violation of this Act has injured the person’s business, the person, or the person’s reputation. A person so injured is entitled to actual damages, including mental pain and suffering endured by the person on account of violation of the provisions of this Act, or liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees, and other costs of litigation.
Any person aggrieved by a violation of this Act shall have a right of action in a State circuit court or as a supplemental claim in federal district court against an offending party. A prevailing party may recover for each violation:
-against any offending party that negligently violates a provision of this Act, liquidated damages of $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater;
- against any offending party that intentionally or recklessly violates a provision of this Act, liquidated damages of $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater;
-reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees and other litigation expenses; and
-other relief, including an injunction, as the State or federal court may deem appropriate.
Any law enforcement agency or government entity aggrieved by a vendor’s violation of this Act may file suit in any court of competent jurisdiction for injuries sustained as a result of the vendor’s violation. Each individual search or share of information constitutes a separate violation. If such violation is found to occur, the court may assess a civil penalty of $10,000 per violation, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. This subsection shall not constitute a limitation on any other private right of action.
- localgovhero - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 9:47 am:
Lots of nuance with this issue. Do not see it being taken up during veto session.
- Sam N. - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 9:54 am:
Why make it something you have to sue over instead of just making it a crime?
- Irreverent - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 9:58 am:
@Sam
Because even when their misdeeds are front-and-center, cops still aren’t held to the same standards as the rest of us. That said, stalking is already a crime. Oscar Maldonado should already be in jail for crimes that were already in ILCS at the time he did what he did. So it’s also largely a degree of lip service, pretending to address a problem with a mechanism that is, in actuality, clunky and largely useless to normal people trying to get by day-to-day.
Lock him up. We don’t need a special new law for it.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 10:00 am:
Long ago science fiction stories would tell about a future hellscape where the government tracked your every movement.
What they didn’t imagine was a for-profit business that would track your every movement and sell that information back to the government.
The issue of cops tracking their exes with this technology is an important one that someone needs to address. But the real issue is that the the future is here and it’s scary.
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 10:32 am:
===The issue of cops tracking their exes with this technology is an important one that someone needs to address. ===
This kind of abuse of authority has been around for a very long time, the only thing that is different is that the Flock database keeps track of who is looking up what and some people are going back and checking it.
The technology changed. Police officers using public resources to stalk and harass people has not.
- SKI - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 10:48 am:
Ban them. Plain and simple. Ban their use on roadways and ban their use on parking lots.
Police have to obtain a warrant to obtain GPS data or place a tracker on a vehicle. These cameras allow for police to create a likely path of travel for a vehicle for the last 30 days. The same standard should apply here. Unfortunately, it doesn’t and clearly the abuse of this system is already out of control.
Just as your first and second amendment rights extend to the public space outside of your house, your Fourth amendment rights should also apply in the public space and these cameras should be prohibited from operation. Police were solving crimes prior to these cameras, and they can continue to solve them after these cameras are gone.
- Jocko - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 10:55 am:
Maldonado’s attorney has a lot of nerve arguing that his client had “legitimate safety concerns” for his ex.
- Benniefly2 - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 11:14 am:
Add me to the list that thinks that unauthorized use should also be a minor felony and tack on a mandatory minimum of one month jail time per violation. Stalk your ex 50 different times, get 50 months.
Unless I missed it, how is a victim supposed to know that they are being stalked? They definitely need to add something mandating FOIA access to search records. Without that, how would something like this even be enforced?
- best in the world - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 11:21 am:
I wonder if the regulatory outlook would look different if a rogue PD were to use Flock to track the happenings of particular legislative license plates or of their relatives?
If ALPR’s are weaponized for creepy love triangles, they will be used for opposition research.
Though I want them banned statewide, I truly hope the Feds make the best of the cameras to wrap up corruption investigations into members of the HDEM caucus like Thaddeus Jones who is in court for allegedly extorting an elderly city employee and firing them after extended sick leave that rendered them financially unable to meet their monthly $3k ransom.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/01/02/calumet-city-thaddeus-jones-extortion-lawsuit/
- Siualum - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 11:23 am:
Sauk Valley News this morning reports a Whiteside County deputy sheriff being investigated for inappropriate use of Flock camera.
- Homebody - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 11:28 am:
These penalties are not sufficient, and should be even higher. Further, information collected like this should not be shared with outside jurisdictions without warrants.
I think the technology has legitimate uses for law enforcement, but it is so obviously ripe for abuse, and is already being abused constantly.
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 11:56 am:
“Maldonado’s attorney has a lot of nerve arguing that his client had “legitimate safety concerns” for his ex”
Why won’t a lawyer run over a snake?
Professional courtesy.
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 12:05 pm:
“There is no law to have been broken.”
Really? I doubt an attorney is that dumb. She just thinks we are.
https://www.ilga.gov/Documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K12-7.3.htm
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 12:30 pm:
- any person who violates the provisions of this Act is subject to legal action for damages -
Let the victim sue the vendor, the stalker needs to face criminal charges.
But it would be a whole lot easier just to ban them.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 12:36 pm:
===the stalker needs to face criminal charges===
As explained by another above, that would be a very rare thing. I’d rather there are two ways to get at these folks.
- charles in charge - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 12:45 pm:
==Lots of nuance with this issue.==
That’s a rather peculiar comment to post on this particular story, which seems to involve a clear and obvious instance of alarming misconduct (at least to everyone besides Maldonado’s attorney). Where exactly is the “nuance”?
- Almost the Weekend - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 1:40 pm:
The bigger question is Maldanado eligible to be a police officer anywhere else in Illinois?
This law or previous legislation should be updated for these violations.
- Mason County - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 2:09 pm:
GA needs to specifically define what these cameras can and not be used for.
I am very, very suspicious of them There are 3 Flock cameras being used in a nearby town of only 1300 population that is very rural.
- Remember the Alamo II - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 2:09 pm:
=== your Fourth amendment rights should also apply in the public space ===
You don’t have an expectation of privacy in a public space
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 3:55 pm:
===You don’t have an expectation of privacy in a public space===
Until the legislature changes the law.
- Give us Barabbas - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 4:12 pm:
It should be interpreted it as cyber- stalking, for which there are already laws.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Sep 24, 26 @ 4:44 pm:
- You don’t have an expectation of privacy in a public space -
Great, let’s celebrate that. Do you at least have an expectation not to be stalked?