Incentives for: National

Carced News

Cops Justified License-Plate Searches With 'LMAO,' 'Idk,' And Keyboard Mash — And That Should Worry You

A surveillance system that can query tens of thousands of cameras shouldn't accept 'idk' as the reason for a search. Somehow, that was on the official log.

  • Flock Safety
  • ALPR
  • privacy
  • police surveillance
  • EFF
Automated license plate reader camera system used by police departments (Photo credit: Flock Safety)

The Justification Field Was Treated Like A Joke Box

Automated license plate readers are sold as serious tools for serious crime. An Electronic Frontier Foundation investigation found that in multiple departments, the free-text field explaining why an officer searched those databases was treated like a meme dump: “LOL,” “LMAO,” “Sexy,” “idk,” and raw keyboard gibberish.

The Examples Are Not Subtle

EFF says a Goshen officer ran a search spanning 6,474 ALPR networks and data from 82,413 cameras with the reason “idk.” Barberton, Ohio officers used “LOL.” Lake County, Indiana logged “LMAO.” Richmond, California used “Hehe.” Norton, Massachusetts had “Sexy.” Thornton, Colorado documented “driving around being weird.” Agencies in Georgia, Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Kentucky produced strings like “asdfga” and “fghjkl.”

Departments Say The Searches Were Still Legitimate

Several agencies told EFF the underlying investigations were real, or that officers were frustrated with the software. That may be true in some cases. It does not make “Sexy” a usable audit trail. If an inspector cannot tell why a query happened from the log, accountability is theater.

Flock’s Fix May Make Audits Worse, Not Better

Flock has moved from free-text reasons to a short dropdown of categories, arguing that simplifies and improves audit records. EFF’s counter is obvious: a generic category click can hide a weak or improper purpose even more cleanly than a silly free-text string. Axon’s Fusus approach still pairs an offense category with a written reason — and can require a case number. Simplifying the UI does not require deleting the obligation to explain yourself.

My Take

Whatever you think of ALPRs as a concept, a system that can search tens of thousands of cameras is not a toy. The lowest bar should be a clear, reviewable reason for every query. Replacing “LMAO” with a one-click dropdown is not the same as raising that bar. If your city is expanding plate readers, ask what the audit field actually requires — because the log is the only thing standing between “tool for investigations” and “tool nobody can meaningfully review.”

Does your local department publish ALPR audit standards? If you’ve looked into it, I’d like to hear what you found.