Flock used >100 times to track veteran who recorded traffic stop
Surveillance Retaliation: Navy Veteran Targeted by Flock Cameras
By Autumn Billings | September 2, 2026
A federal lawsuit alleges that the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Office weaponized Flock Safety technology to stalk a United States Navy veteran. The plaintiff claims the department conducted over 100 searches of his vehicle without a valid law enforcement reason, acting in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights.
🚨 The Initial Encounter
On May 4, 2025, Napoleon Jones was positioned in a private parking lot in Sussex, Wisconsin. While there, he observed a police officer from another jurisdiction conducting a traffic stop. Feeling the situation was suspicious, Jones decided to document the event.
"It just didn't sit right with me," Jones explained to TMJ4 News. "So I did what I legally could do, and I walked over and recorded it."
Despite maintaining a safe distance and avoiding any interference, Jones became the target of Deputy Brandon Shayhorn.
Sequence of Events: May 4, 2025
- Jones records the traffic stop lawfully.
- Jones returns to his vehicle to leave the private lot.
- Deputy Shayhorn initiates a second stop.
- The Pretext: Shayhorn claimed Jones' temporary license plate (in the rear window) was unreadable.
- Jones refused to provide his license, citing the illegality of being stopped on private property.
- Shayhorn forcibly removed Jones from the car.
⚖️ Arrest and Legal Fallout
Jones was arrested on charges of "resisting and obstructing." However, the legal foundation for this arrest was shaky from the start.
| Detail | Fact |
|---|---|
| Detention Time | 5 Hours |
| Outcome | Released with zero citations or charges |
| Internal Finding | Supervisor confirmed the stop was illegal |
Because the stop was unlawful, the deputy had no legal authority to demand identification. Following his release, Jones filed a citizen's complaint, alleging that the arrest was a direct act of retaliation for his filming.
Legal Objectives
- File citizen's complaint against Deputy Shayhorn.
- Retain legal counsel (Nate Cade).
- File federal lawsuit for unlawful detention.
- Seek damages for First Amendment violations.
🔍 The Discovery of Digital Stalking
During the discovery phase of the litigation, attorney Nate Cade noticed a discrepancy. The Sheriff's Office provided a single photo of Jones' white BMW captured by a Flock camera on May 30, 2025.
Wait... why is there a photo from May 30th for an incident that happened on May 4th?
Further digging revealed a disturbing pattern: over 100 searches for Jones' white BMW had been performed in the system following his arrest. Shockingly, Deputy Shayhorn—the officer involved in the original conflict—was among those conducting the searches.
The "Justification"
When questioned under deposition, the officers claimed they were acting under the orders of a lieutenant to investigate the citizen's complaint filed by Jones.
{
"search_query": "White BMW",
"frequency": ">100 times",
"period": "Post-May 4, 2025",
"authorized_purpose": "None (per user agreement)",
"claimed_purpose": "Internal investigation of complaint"
}
📉 Analysis of Power Abuse
The use of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) is already a point of contention regarding privacy. In this case, the math of government overreach looks like this:
Jones amended his complaint in July 2026 to include other officers. He argues that the system was used to protect the public to find a "potential crime" to justify the harassment.
Visualizing the Retaliation Cycle
Final Thoughts
While this case doesn't involve the more salacious abuses of Flock—such as officers stalking romantic interests—it highlights a systemic danger. If the simple act of filming police can trigger a weeks-long surveillance campaign, the protection of all constitutionally protected speech is at risk.
Related Stories from Reason:
- NYC Law vs. Uber/Lyft Drivers
- The Iraq War Cheerleaders' Error
- ICE Officer Indicted for Lying
- Texas Terrorism Law & Muslim Groups
