* 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.