A former Savannah police officer was dismissed after sharing her Flock Safety surveillance login with her husband, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent who used the account to search for people his agency wanted to locate.
The case raises questions about how local police surveillance systems can be accessed by federal officers, particularly when departments have not authorised that access.
Internal records obtained by WJCL show that Amber Harpe gave her husband, Tyler Harpe, her username and password because he did not have his own Flock account through the Department of Homeland Security. Savannah police do not list ICE among the agencies with which they share their Flock data.
According to records, investigators did not find that Harpe had violated Georgia's law governing automated licence plate readers. She was not criminally charged, but the department concluded that sharing her credentials breached its rules governing access to police software.
Flock Surveillance Searches and the Savannah Police Investigation
An internal audit flagged unusual activity on Harpe's account between January and July 2026. Investigators identified 983 search entries involving 97 licence plates across Georgia, New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina.
South Carolina accounted for 788 entries, and investigators found that most registered owners associated with searches in that group were Hispanic, according to WJCL's report.
During an interview on 3 August, Tyler Harpe explained why he had requested his wife's credentials. He told investigators that ICE had already developed target packages for people with arrest warrants and that access to Flock would help agents locate them while working in the field.
'Every name that I ever ran was an ICE target,' he said.
When an investigator questioned why ICE did not have its own access, Amber Harpe replied, 'No one really wants to work with them, sir.'
Amber Harpe acknowledged sharing her login but argued in her appeal that the searches were conducted for law enforcement purposes rather than personal gain. 'Every search he conducted was for law enforcement use only and not for personal gain,' she wrote.
Georgia law permits law enforcement agencies to share captured licence plate data with other law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes. However, this provision does not establish that an officer may share individual login credentials with another agency's employee.
Savannah officials said the searches breached departmental policy because ICE was not authorised to access the system through Harpe's credentials.
Interim Major Max Nowinsky reportedly recommended a one-day suspension, citing the state law. However, Major Michelle Halford recommended termination, citing the intentional sharing of credentials, repeated unauthorised access and the scale of the activity. Assistant Police Chief Robert Gavin agreed with the termination recommendation.
Harpe initially appealed the decision, but Assistant Police Chief Robert Gavin denied the appeal in August, and her termination took effect the following month, according to WJCL.
She was one of six Savannah police employees dismissed in August following audits that included Flock's Audit Assist tool. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation subsequently arrested four of the other former employees over alleged searches for non-law enforcement purposes.
Harpe was not among those charged. ICE has also confirmed that it is investigating its agent's involvement, according to WTOC.
In a joint statement to WJCL, the mayor's office and police department said: 'Unauthorized access to police technology by anyone is a breach of Savannah Police Department policy and public trust.
In this case, SPD determined that department policy was violated and terminated the employee. An outside law enforcement agency's investigative purpose does not, by itself, authorize access to SPD's system.'
Flock Safety Privacy Concerns and Wider Police Misuse Cases
Flock Safety operates automated licence plate reader networks that allow participating law enforcement agencies to search vehicle data. Police departments use the technology to assist investigations, including locating vehicles linked to reported crimes.
However, the ability to search records across jurisdictions has prompted questions about how long information is retained, who can access it and how searches are monitored.
In October 2026, the Associated Press reported that Flock had announced changes intended to strengthen safeguards. These included mandatory audit tools for law enforcement customers, reducing standard data retention from 30 days to seven and requiring searches to be linked to specific case numbers.
The company also said agencies would be able to restrict certain types of access, including immigration enforcement searches. Many of the new requirements were due to become mandatory by 1 January 2027. Privacy advocates continued to question whether the measures offered sufficient protection.
Savannah's case follows other reported disputes involving the technology. Five Indianapolis officers were charged in September over alleged misuse of Flock cameras, including one case involving alleged stalking, according to Gizmodo.
Separately, a Colorado woman sued Flock after police used surveillance data in an investigation that led to her receiving a summons over a package theft she says she did not commit. The lawsuit contains allegations rather than a final judicial finding, according to reports.
The debate also extends beyond individual officers. In May 2025, 404 Media reported that local police were conducting Flock searches for ICE despite the federal agency having no direct contract with the company. The reporting raised concerns about federal access through local law enforcement rather than through a direct agreement.
Flock has pointed to its audit logs as a way to identify and investigate misuse. Its chief executive, Garrett Langley, previously said those records helped hold officers accountable.
The Savannah investigation illustrates both the value and the limits of such monitoring: audit records can reveal unusual activity, but preventing unauthorised access also depends on account security, agency rules and enforcement.
The central issue is how access to licence plate reader data is authorised, recorded and controlled when multiple agencies may have an interest in the same information.
