Rhode Island Officer Faced Five Investigations After Criticizing Flock Cameras

A Rhode Island police officer who publicly criticized his department's deployment of automated license plate readers says he was subjected to a pattern of internal investigations that effectively ended his law enforcement career.

Noel Pichardo, then a five-year veteran of the Pawtucket Police Department, noticed Flock Safety cameras appearing throughout his patrol district in fall 2023. The solar-powered devices, mounted on utility poles, can identify vehicles by license plates, bumper stickers, roof racks, and other features—then track their movements across jurisdictions.

Pichardo had attended a department briefing about Flock two years earlier but believed the proposal had been shelved due to cost. When he discovered the cameras were operational, he questioned how the deployment had been approved without his knowledge or apparent public debate.

After speaking with his city council representative yielded no clear answers, Pichardo took an unusual step for an active-duty officer: he contacted the local newspaper.

Public criticism, immediate consequences

The Valley Breeze published Pichardo's concerns on October 11, 2023. He called Flock a "grave threat" to privacy and warned the system was vulnerable to abuse. He questioned how the public could be informed about the cameras when patrol officers themselves knew little about the deployment.

Within two weeks, the department opened its first internal investigation. Chief Tina Goncalves filed a complaint stating that Pichardo had spoken to media without authorization, undermined departmental authority, and made statements "liable to cause harm to the reputation of the department."

The potential violations cited included the department's mission statement, code of ethics, media relations policy, and a rule against "Criticism & Malicious Gossip."

During his internal affairs interview, Pichardo defended his actions. When investigators accused him of violating public trust by speaking to the press, he responded that the department had violated public trust by deploying the cameras without transparency. Asked who should be held responsible, he named the chief.

A pattern emerges

The Pawtucket police union determined Pichardo's comments were constitutionally protected speech and warned the city that discipline could violate his rights. The department initially sought a six-month suspension but settled for 30 days unpaid after the union threatened litigation.

Before that suspension ended, a second investigation opened over a missed court appearance for a traffic citation, resulting in an additional two-day suspension. A third inquiry followed in March, concerning an incident allegedly occurring 15 months earlier involving a mental health transport. That investigation did not result in discipline.

By spring 2024, Pichardo had faced multiple investigations in rapid succession—all after years of service with a previously clean record aside from a single 2021 incident.

The broader Flock expansion

Pawtucket's cameras are part of what Flock Safety markets as the nation's largest fixed license plate reader network, processing billions of vehicle sightings monthly. The company offered Pawtucket a free 60-day pilot in 2021 that drew immediate criticism from the ACLU of Rhode Island for proceeding without public input.

After the pilot ended, local news reported in May 2023 that Pawtucket would not move forward. Four months later, records show the city approved a two-year, $128,000 deployment of 20 cameras along major roads.

Because departments can share access across jurisdictions, a camera installed by one municipality becomes searchable by investigators potentially thousands of miles away.

Why it matters

This case illustrates the tension between police surveillance capabilities and internal accountability. When officers who understand these systems from the inside raise concerns about transparency and oversight, the response from their own departments can determine whether meaningful public debate occurs. Pichardo's experience suggests that speaking out—even about matters of public policy rather than specific misconduct—can carry severe professional consequences that may discourage others from doing the same.

The details of Pichardo's case were first reported by Dhruv Mehrotra in WIRED.