Florida police used a fake Flock camera in a sting, then charged a man with three felonies for destroying it

Daniel Sims

Posts: 2,608   +79
Staff
WTF?! Reports of people destroying or vandalizing Flock cameras have become frequent enough that authorities are attempting sting operations to catch perpetrators. However, one Florida case might test the limits of the strategy, as the subject did not technically destroy a camera.

News 6 Orlando reports that police in Oviedo, Florida, have charged a man with three felonies for destroying a Flock surveillance camera, even though the camera was fake. Even the mayor, who was unaware of the decoy operation before the arrest, admitted the charges are controversial.

Evan Meyer, 24, faces counts of criminal mischief causing more than $1,000 in damage, grand theft involving property valued between $750 and $5,000, and damaging or taking a computer, electronic device, or related equipment. However, although Meyer believed he was destroying a real Flock camera, which he estimated might cost up to $5,000 to install, what he actually destroyed was a 3D-printed decoy that was likely far cheaper. Police also said a Flock camera actually costs only around $800, not including installation fees.

Mayor Megan Sladek condemned Meyer's actions but admitted that she was unaware of the sting operation and that Oviedo's council recently agreed to consider ending its contract with Flock. Many of the approximately 6,000 communities in the US that use the company's AI-powered surveillance cameras have either deactivated them or are considering doing so.

Flock cameras primarily read vehicle license plates and automatically input them into a searchable cloud-based database, allowing authorities to track people's movements. However, they have also been used to track people on foot, can theoretically track phones, and dozens of officers have been caught using them to stalk ex-partners. HaveIBeenFlocked.com lets users check whether officers have searched for their license plates and contains other resources about the deployment of automatic license plate readers.

After several of Oviedo's cameras disappeared, authorities planted a decoy and waited until they caught Meyer removing it with pruning shears while wearing black clothing, gloves, and a face mask. Sladek, a lawyer who works part-time as mayor, later told 404 Media that even if the felonies do not stick, Meyer could still theoretically be charged with vandalizing art. A police spokesperson told the outlet that an officer printed the decoy at home using a personal 3D printer, so it did not cost the city any money.

Permalink to story:

 
If the police have time to manufacture crimes then they have time to arrest Epstein's co-conspirators.
This was in direct response to a string of crimes. The fake camera replaced a real camera that had previously been destroyed at the exact same location. In addition, the police did not prompt anyone to destroy the cameras. They merely caught someone attempting to do so on their own.
Corpo simp.
This was a crime that destroyed taxpayer funded/government owned equipment and has nothing to do with corporations lol.
 
This was a crime that destroyed taxpayer funded/government owned equipment and has nothing to do with corporations lol.

Read the article again. The cop printed it on his own printer, with his own money. Nothing about what was destroyed was "government owned". Hence why the mayor said the closest analogy was to it being a piece of "art". No electronics of any kind were destroyed, nor was any public property, not in this one instance.

And if the accused destroyed art, then the cop put up art without city approval and should be charged the same as anyone else that would install art on public property without public approval (e.g. graffiti). The cops can't have it both ways in this case.
 
This was a crime that destroyed taxpayer funded/government owned equipment and has nothing to do with corporations lol.
If it was taxpayer/government funded, to me this means Flock is acting as an agent of the state and should be treated as such, with required warrants for using the data. But as it is, because Flock is contracted, there's a loophole that allows corporations to be the surveillance arm of the state.

Read the article again. The cop printed it on his own printer, with his own money. Nothing about what was destroyed was "government owned".
Right, but Plutoisaplanet is referring to the original vandalism, which did involve such destruction.

And if the accused destroyed art, then the cop put up art without city approval and should be charged the same as anyone else that would install art on public property without public approval (e.g. graffiti). The cops can't have it both ways in this case.
Totally agree on that point. Same goes for why public property can be used to put up Flock cameras in the first place. My HOA sadly has a Flock contract, but I'm not convinced they actually have the authority to repurpose land next to public streets to put these up, there's a separate political body that controls and is responsible for that. In cahoots, I guess.
 
Read the article again. The cop printed it on his own printer, with his own money. Nothing about what was destroyed was "government owned". Hence why the mayor said the closest analogy was to it being a piece of "art". No electronics of any kind were destroyed, nor was any public property, not in this one instance.

And if the accused destroyed art, then the cop put up art without city approval and should be charged the same as anyone else that would install art on public property without public approval (e.g. graffiti). The cops can't have it both ways in this case.
One of the police department employees donated it. The police department replaced the old camera with it. Then they caught who destroyed the replacement. The cops did not go out of their way to entrap anyone. The local resident destroyed it unprompted thinking it was a real camera that had been replaced.

A city employee saved the city some money from buying a real replacement camera once the fake camera was put up an inevitably destroyed again. You suggest that the employee put the camera up there on their own. But once the second (or possibly even the original vandal) came and destroyed it again, they were arrested by the police. You're suggesting the police department wasn't involved and the employee acted on his own. The police department does not need permits to install its own equipment.
 
Remind me of an episode of cops I saw a long long time ago where the cops went around a park asking people if they want to buy a dime bag of weed, and arrested everyone who said yes.
Entrapment―which is where law enforcement instigates cause for a crime, in order to manufacture an arrest―is different from destroying property, real or not.

No, the actual question, in contention, is if the general public's hatred and destruction of Flock cameras constitutes a more valid stance the government's desire to surveil them. Does the public have the right to not be constantly observed by the state, even if the state uses a private/public corporation to get around constitutionally-protected rights? Well, since the Patriot act is still in effect and is renewed every couple of years, the answer seems to be "yes".
 
Flock surveillance cameras are like data centers. Nobody wants them, nobody votes for them -- but there they are. Understand – WE are the targets of the surveillance. The installation of Flock cameras to spy on us is unwanted, and the civilian destruction of Flock cameras is an appropriate response.

Evan Meyer should not take a plea but insist on a jury trial. At his trial, perhaps at least one person on the jury will have the strength and intelligence to vote “not guilty”.
 
This was in direct response to a string of crimes. The fake camera replaced a real camera that had previously been destroyed at the exact same location. In addition, the police did not prompt anyone to destroy the cameras. They merely caught someone attempting to do so on their own.

This was a crime that destroyed taxpayer funded/government owned equipment and has nothing to do with corporations lol.
The government doesn't own the cameras, they use a loop hole where they "allow" a third party to set up cameras and then they pay a subscription to that company to see the information that they collect. If the government owned the cameras it would be an immediate violation of the first and fourth amendment.
 
Back