Automated license plate readers are powerful enough to create searchable records showing where vehicles have traveled. Police departments frequently promote them as tools for investigating serious crimes, from kidnappings and robberies to stolen vehicles.
Accessing that information is supposed to come with some accountability. Search logs can record why an officer queried the database, creating an audit trail that can later be reviewed.
Apparently, not everyone has taken that particular box very seriously. Some explanations entered by officers sound closer to something you’d send in a group chat with your friends than justification for accessing a massive surveillance network.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) says its analysis of public records uncovered search reasons, including “LOL,” “LMAO,” and “idk,” along with strings of keyboard gibberish. The digital civil liberties organization argues the findings expose serious shortcomings in oversight of automated license plate reader systems.
‘Idk’ Apparently Counts As A Reason
One particularly striking example involved the Goshen Police Department in Indiana. According to the EFF, an officer conducted a May 2025 search across 6,474 ALPR networks representing data from 82,413 cameras and entered “idk” as the reason.
Other examples came from departments across the country. EFF says Barberton Police Department employees in Ohio used “LOL” or “lol,” Lake County Sheriff’s Department employees in Indiana entered “LMAO,” and searches attributed to Richmond Police in California used “Hehe.”
Then there’s the apparent button mashing. Audit logs reviewed by EFF contained entries such as “asdfga,” “fghjkl,” and much longer strings of seemingly random characters from agencies in several states.
More than 30 agencies also reportedly conducted over 6,300 searches using “TBD,” or “To Be Determined,” as the justification. EFF says Alabama’s Priceville Police Department accounted for 1,954 of those searches.
Departments Say Searches Had Legitimate Purposes
Several agencies contacted by EFF offered explanations or said they were investigating the entries. Richmond Police said officers responsible for certain “Hehe” and “idk” searches were counseled, while Belton Police in Missouri promised an investigation into searches containing an insult.
The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department said it reviewed searches marked “idk” and found active investigations associated with them. Fishers Police in Indiana said a detective had used “blah” when experiencing problems with the technology during criminal investigations and has since been instructed to use “test.”
The entries therefore don’t necessarily prove the underlying searches were improper. They do, however, raise questions about how useful an audit trail can be when the documented justification says virtually nothing.
Flock Has Changed How Searches Are Logged
Flock Safety has since moved away from requiring users to type free-form search reasons. Its updated system instead provides predefined offense categories through a dropdown menu.
EFF argues that change could make questionable searches harder to identify because officers can select a generic category without explaining the specific purpose. The organization advocates stronger restrictions on ALPR databases, including warrant requirements and strict data-deletion deadlines.
Whatever the eventual regulatory answer, “LMAO” isn’t exactly reassuring documentation for access to a system capable of reconstructing where vehicles have been.