Wharton Post

Wharton Post reviewed public records detailing how the city’s 14 license plate readers have been used, including arrests, documented misreads, investigative searches, authorized access and separate local and state data-retention rules.

WHARTON — A Flock camera alerted Wharton police to a stolen license plate: VTK0909.

Officers located the vehicle and stopped it. But the plate displayed on the vehicle was VTK0900.

The person was identified and released. Wharton Police documented the incident as a “Flock camera misread.”

Other records reviewed by Wharton Post show very different outcomes.

Flock alerts have helped Wharton officers locate stolen vehicles, recover stolen property, find people wanted on felony warrants and make arrests.

Those incidents are part of public records obtained and reviewed by Wharton Post that provide a detailed look at how Wharton’s network of 14 automated license plate reader cameras is being used.

The records go beyond the number of cameras around town. They show what has happened after alerts, examples of misreads, who is authorized to access the system, what officers have searched for, how those searches are reviewed and how license plate information is handled under separate local and state systems.

Wharton Started With Nine Cameras

Wharton City Council approved the original Flock system in 2023.

Resolution No. 2023-28 authorized nine fixed, pole-mounted automated license plate recognition cameras at a cost of $56,750. The resolution states that funding was available through remaining Wharton Police Department Operation Lone Star grant funds.

The purchase also included Flock Safety’s Advanced Search service.

The agreement describes capabilities including visual searches, searches across multiple geographic areas, common-plate analysis and convoy analysis. Those are capabilities included in the agreement and should not be interpreted to mean Wharton officers have used each feature.

Wharton later added five cameras, bringing the system to 14.

Wharton Police policy says cameras may be located to maximize license plate captures at entrances and exits to the city, natural traffic “choke points” and locations selected based on criminal activity.

Records Show Flock Alerts Assisting Police

Police activity records provide examples of how the cameras have been used in actual cases.

On Feb. 21, 2024, officers received a Flock alert involving a vehicle reported stolen through the Houston Police Department. Officers located the vehicle while it was being towed. The police record noted it was headed toward Mexico, and the driver was taken into custody.

On March 30, 2024, an alert involving a stolen Cadillac led officers to the vehicle at Buc-ee’s. Police conducted a felony stop, and records list an arrest for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and marijuana possession.

On May 13, 2024, an alert involved a vehicle connected to a person wanted on two felony warrants. Officers located the vehicle at Murphy USA and took the wanted person into custody.

On June 13, 2024, an alert involving a stolen GMC Sierra/Denali led officers to the vehicle at Buc-ee’s. The incident resulted in an arrest for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

A July 25, 2024 Flock-related stolen-vehicle stop also resulted in an arrest. Police records list unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, drug-related charges and an outstanding Harris County warrant.

Flock alerts have also produced results without an arrest.

In January 2026, officers located a vehicle at Scottish Inn & Suites following an alert involving a stolen license plate. Officers confiscated the plate, while the shift report listed no arrest.

Other records document Flock-related activity involving stolen plates, warrants, wanted people and missing-person investigations.

Not Every Alert Has the Same Outcome

The police records also provide important context for what a Flock “hit” represents.

Some alerts led to arrests or recoveries.

Other reports show officers received an alert but were unable to locate the vehicle. In other cases, officers investigated the circumstances and made no arrest.

A Flock alert therefore represents information provided to officers for investigation. It should not automatically be counted as an arrest, recovered vehicle or solved crime.

Police Records Document Misreads

The records also document instances where information generated by the system did not match what officers found.

The VTK0909/VTK0900 incident is one example.

Officers received an alert for stolen plate VTK0909, located the vehicle and conducted a stop. The actual plate was VTK0900.

The person was identified and released, and WPD documented the incident as a “Flock camera misread.”

Another police entry dated Aug. 1, 2026 involved an alert associated with a vehicle reported stolen through the Houston Police Department. Officers investigated and documented the outcome as a “misread.”

Other records reviewed by Wharton Post contain references to a “wrong LP read” and an instance where the system did not obtain a good license plate read.

The records also show a separate type of inaccurate alert.

In at least one case, the camera appears to have read the plate displayed on the vehicle correctly, but officers determined that incorrect stolen-plate information had apparently been entered by another law enforcement agency.

That distinction is important. A camera can incorrectly read a plate, while an accurately read plate can also generate an incorrect alert because of information associated with it in another law enforcement database.

The records reviewed by Wharton Post do not provide a systemwide error rate, so the documented incidents are presented as individual examples rather than a measure of overall Flock accuracy.

Officers Are Required to Verify Alerts

Wharton Police policy requires additional verification before enforcement action is taken based on an alert.

Personnel are instructed to visually compare the plate captured by the system with the wanted or suspect plate.

They must then manually verify wanted information through the National Crime Information Center to determine whether the information remains active.

The policy says subsequent action depends on the type of hit, officer observations and circumstances.

Flock’s agreement with Wharton separately states that the company does not warrant that its services will be uninterrupted or error-free.

The verification process provides an additional step between an automated alert and police action.

Police Can Search Flock — They Don’t Have to Wait for an Alert

Wharton’s system is also an investigative database.

WPD’s ALPR policy states that Criminal Investigation Division personnel have search access and may search the database for “vehicles, persons, or animals.”

When ALPR information helps identify a suspect or vehicle involved in criminal activity, the policy says the information is to be downloaded and attached to the investigative report as evidence.

Separate records released to Wharton Post identify 13 authorized accounts/users associated with Wharton’s Flock system, including police personnel and a dispatch account.

Being listed as an authorized user means the account has access to the system. It does not by itself establish that the person conducted a particular search.

Records of actual searches provide additional context.

The records reviewed by Wharton Post include searches with stated investigative purposes involving theft, stolen property, financial crimes, hit-and-run investigations, narcotics, motor vehicle theft, vandalism and robbery, among other law enforcement matters.

WPD Reviews a Sample of Searches

Wharton Police adopted an additional Flock audit protocol dated Aug. 7, 2026.

The protocol requires users to provide a legitimate law enforcement reason for a search and associate it with an incident or case.

Personal and curiosity searches are prohibited.

Supervisors are required to review a random 10% sample of Flock searches each month.

Wharton Post reviewed completed audit records released by the department. The sampled records reviewed for this report were not identified as improper personal searches.

The audit requirement applies to a sample of searches rather than every search conducted through the system.

Wharton Owns Its Agency Data

The City’s Flock agreement also addresses ownership.

Under the agreement, Wharton retains its rights in its Agency Data, while Flock receives contractual rights to use the information as necessary to provide its services and for other purposes specified in the agreement.

The agreement states that Flock does not own or sell the City’s Agency Data.

Flock retains ownership of its cameras, software and other technology.

The agreement also provides for certain authorized law enforcement sharing and access, meaning ownership and access are separate issues.

Wharton’s Local Policy Generally Uses a 30-Day Retention Period

Wharton Police policy states that ALPR capture data is purged after 30 days unless it is evidence or necessary for an ongoing case.

The City’s Flock agreement contains a similar 30-day provision. It states that Flock automatically deletes footage older than 30 days, giving Wharton a 30-day window to view, save or transmit footage before deletion.

Information preserved as evidence or transmitted for an authorized purpose is treated separately from the routine 30-day deletion process.

Wharton Police also operates under a separate agreement involving the Texas Department of Public Safety’s license plate reader database.

That agreement has different rules.

DPS Agreement Has a Three-Year Minimum Unless Shortened

The records identify the Wharton Police Department as a user agency under a Texas Department of Public Safety Automated License Plate Reader User Agreement.

The DPS database is a separate statewide system containing information from participating local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, along with information collected by DPS.

Information maintained there can include a license plate number, latitude and longitude of the capture, date and time of the capture and information identifying the agency that collected it.

Wharton’s access is restricted to official criminal justice purposes.

The agreement also provides for information contributed by participating agencies to be shared with other authorized criminal justice or law enforcement agencies. A contributing agency retains ownership and responsibility for the information it contributes.

The retention provision is substantially longer than Wharton’s routine local retention period.

Under the DPS agreement, information maintained in the statewide LPR database has a minimum retention period of three years unless the contributing agency notifies DPS that a shorter retention period is required.

The records therefore establish two separate retention frameworks.

Wharton’s local Flock capture data is generally subject to a 30-day purge unless preserved for evidence or an ongoing case.

Information maintained in the separate DPS statewide LPR database is subject to the three-year minimum described in the DPS agreement unless the contributing agency requires a shorter period.

The three-year provision applies to information maintained in the DPS database; it should not be read as a statement that every capture made by one of Wharton’s 14 Flock cameras is automatically retained for three years.

Texas Has Spent Millions Expanding Flock Cameras

Wharton’s system developed during a much broader expansion of license plate reader technology across Texas.

The Texas Tribune reported that the Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority has devoted at least $30 million toward Flock cameras, helping fund at least 3,200 cameras statewide since 2023. The Tribune reported that at least 95 grants helped local law enforcement agencies purchase or maintain about 2,000 cameras, while another $15.9 million is helping DPS install nearly 1,200 additional cameras.

The funding is connected in part to a $1 increase in an annual Texas auto insurance fee approved by lawmakers in 2023 as part of legislation aimed at combating catalytic converter theft. The legislation itself did not specifically mention license plate readers, according to the Tribune.

The Tribune reported that the additional fee has generated an estimated $81 million, with $50.8 million flowing into 234 grants supporting motor vehicle crime programs.

Texas Tribune investigation into Texas Flock funding

The Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority has also cited law enforcement uses of the technology. According to a 2025 activity report cited by the Tribune, license plate reader data was searched about 62,000 times in 2025 and was associated with approximately 1,660 cleared catalytic converter theft cases statewide.

Those figures describe statewide activity, not results produced by Wharton’s 14 cameras.

State Funding Has Been Paused

The statewide expansion has also brought increased scrutiny over access, privacy and misuse.

Gov. Greg Abbott’s office directed state agencies to pause funding for local grants used to purchase Flock cameras while the state reviews the technology.

The action does not require Wharton to remove or deactivate its existing 14 cameras.

Texas Tribune report on Abbott’s Flock funding pause

What Wharton Post’s Review Found

The records provide a broader picture of Wharton’s Flock system than the cameras visible along local roads.

Police reports document alerts that assisted officers in locating stolen vehicles, recovering property, finding people wanted on warrants and making arrests.

The same records document plate misreads, inaccurate information, alerts where vehicles could not be located and encounters ending without arrests.

Records also show that authorized personnel can search the system as part of investigations. Thirteen authorized accounts/users were identified in records released to Wharton Post, while search records show stated investigative purposes ranging from theft and narcotics to hit-and-run cases, financial crimes and robbery.

Department rules restrict those searches to law enforcement purposes. WPD’s newer audit procedure prohibits personal and curiosity searches and requires supervisors to review a random 10% sample each month.

The records also establish the distinction between ownership, access and retention.

Wharton retains rights to its Agency Data under its Flock agreement. Authorized law enforcement access and sharing are permitted under applicable agreements and policies.

Locally, Wharton’s routine ALPR capture data generally operates under a 30-day retention period, with exceptions for evidence and ongoing investigations.

Separately, the DPS agreement provides a three-year minimum retention period for information maintained in the statewide LPR database unless a contributing agency requires a shorter period.

Together, the records show how Wharton’s cameras have been used in actual police work, examples of both successful alerts and misreads, who can access and search the system, what oversight applies to those searches and how the local and statewide data systems operate under different rules.

Read the Records

Wharton Post obtained and reviewed multiple public records for this report. Rather than attaching every police activity and audit record to a single article, the principal agreements and policy governing the system can be made available for readers to review.

City of Wharton Resolution No. 2023-28 and Flock Safety Agreement
Includes the original nine-camera authorization, $56,750 cost, Operation Lone Star funding, Advanced Search, data ownership and retention provisions.

Wharton Police Department ALPR Policy
Includes rules governing alerts, verification, investigative searches, confidentiality and local data retention.

Wharton/TxDOT and Texas DPS License Plate Reader Agreements
Includes the agreement identifying WPD as a user agency of the DPS LPR system and provisions governing statewide database access, sharing and retention.

Wharton Post also reviewed police activity reports, authorized-user information, Flock search records and audit records in preparing this report.