Ronald Scott, a 35-year-old former Pinellas County sheriff’s deputy in Florida, was arrested on Nov. 5 and charged with three counts of accessing a computer or electronic device without authority and one count of official misconduct. Investigators say he used Flock license plate cameras more than 100 times to follow his estranged wife, her new boyfriend and other relatives.
The day in tech, in one email: TLDR is the daily newsletter with links and TLDRs of the most interesting stories in startups, tech and programming.
We may earn a commission if you sign up.
The searches ran from Feb. 14 to June 19, according to the sheriff’s office, and surfaced only after the agency tightened its audits. Scott resigned on Nov. 4, a day before the arrest. The allegations have not been tested in court.
Pinellas audit counts against Scott
Sheriff Bob Gualtieri laid out the case at a Nov. 5 press conference, summarized in a sheriff’s office statement. Scott, hired on Feb. 8, 2016, allegedly queried the Flock automated license plate reader system and other state databases without authorization to look up his estranged wife, her boyfriend and other family members. An enhanced audit, built on software changes from the camera vendors that flag suspicious queries, counted more than 100 instances.
Carscoops, which reported the story, adds that the audit caught the pattern roughly eight and a half months after the searches began and that Scott gave several false explanations for them. The outlet also notes that police generally need no warrant to search these databases and sometimes no case number, which leaves little besides the chance of discovery to deter misuse.
The conduct maps onto Florida’s law on offenses against computer users. Statute 815.06 makes it a crime to knowingly access a computer or device without authorization or while exceeding authorization, and its default penalty is a third-degree felony. The sheriff’s office did not specify, in the material available, the level of each count against Scott.
Scott had worked for the office for about ten and a half years before he resigned, and he was booked into the Pinellas County Jail after the arrest. The sheriff’s statement describes the audit window as running from Feb. 14 to June 19, which means the activity ended months before anyone noticed it, and the office has not said what prompted the searches to stop in June.
Gualtieri’s defense of the cameras
The sheriff continues to back the technology. In the statement, Gualtieri said the episode is a people problem, not an ALPR problem, and that the office will monitor and act whenever misuse turns up. He also said the agency has finished its historical audits and believes Scott’s is the last past case of ALPR misuse it will find.
Carscoops frames that confidence skeptically in its report on the arrest, calling Scott the third Pinellas deputy arrested for this kind of misuse in recent months and arguing that audit logs only work as well as the people enforcing them.
The two earlier cases came to light on Sept. 30. WUSF reported that Karl Gwynne and Travis Stanton were arrested and charged with unlawfully accessing law enforcement databases. Gwynne allegedly ran 381 searches across five databases on a woman he wanted to date. Stanton allegedly used the systems to find a 17-year-old he met at a restaurant, and his case did not involve license plate readers.
Pinellas County is where all three arrests took place, and the sheriff has said repeatedly that the cameras are not the failure. The statute, the audit counts and the policy text give outsiders a way to judge that claim, since each depends on what the logs record and who reads them.
Oversight gaps the sheriff conceded
After the September arrests, Gualtieri acknowledged the problem went beyond individual deputies. Tampa Bay 28 reported that he called the earlier audit approach inadequate, saying audits existed but had not focused on unusually high search volume. The office’s written policy, General Order 12-16, revised on July 28, does not require a case number for every plate search, and it describes no process for reviewing unusual activity.
The same reporting says the system also lets authorized personnel search Flock’s shared network, which includes cameras run by other agencies and private groups, and that Gualtieri could not say for certain the office would have caught Gwynne’s searches without a media inquiry.
In Gwynne’s case, according to the same reporting, 207 of his 381 searches happened while he was off duty, and he did not enter case numbers for them. That detail bears on Scott’s case too: when a policy does not demand a case number, a search of a spouse’s plate looks the same in the logs as a search tied to a real investigation unless an auditor goes looking for volume.
Planned changes include flags for high search volume, repeated searches of a single plate and several users searching the same plate, along with random checks and more frequent audits. Vendors are working on making the case-number field mandatory.
Those fixes arrived after Scott’s searches had begun in February, which leaves an open question the sheriff has not answered: whether the new flags would have stopped a deputy searching for a relative from running months of queries before anyone looked.
This article was produced with the assistance of AI and reviewed by Morning Overview editors prior to publication.
The day in tech, in one email: Get TLDR →
We may earn a commission if you sign up.
More from Morning Overview
