Flock CEO lied to police about his surveillance tech's role in abortion case, recording reveals

Full text

In an August call with Ohio law enforcement and government officials, Flock’s CEO Garrett Langley repeatedly lied about his surveillance technology’s role in tracking a woman who had self-administered an abortion, the context around the tracking of the woman, and 404 Media’s coverage of that watershed incident. Langley claimed that the story is “entirely false,” despite court records, police reports, and 404 Media’s other reporting documenting the case in detail.

The candid comments were recorded by Signal Akron journalist Doug Brown , who sat in on the call with an Ohio lawmaker and then shared them with 404 Media. The recording shows how Langley speaks in private with government officials when the conversation is not intended to be broadcast, and comes amid a PR campaign to recast his embattled company. Recently Langley has gone on something of a media blitz, speaking to outlets like The New York Times and appearing on the tech-focused All-In Podcast . Those conversations were, obviously, meant to be consumed publicly. Behind the scenes, Langley speaks very differently.

In the call, Langley strategized with cops about how to deal with journalists, suggesting that they avoid talking to national outlets and that cops focus on telling “sob” stories.

“Let me handle The New York Times, you handle your local media. They want to hear from you, you know your reporters, they’ll pick up a sob story,” Langley said.

💡

Do you work at Flock? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at joseph.404 or send me an email at joseph@404media.co.

“There’s a story reported by 404 Media of a Texas officer using Flock to try to find a woman who had an abortion. And it’s entirely false. They knew it was false. Because there’s a few things, right, because one, it’s not illegal to have an abortion in Texas. It’s illegal to administer an abortion. So the woman could never have been under investigation for having an abortion. So that’s problem one,” Langley said in the meeting.

In fact, court records obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and shared with 404 Media show that Texas authorities did discuss whether they could charge the woman with a crime on the same day they performed the Flock search. An affidavit said, “it was discussed at the time with the District Attorney’s Office and learned the State could not statutorily charge [the woman] for taking the pill to cause the abortion or miscarriage of the non-viable fetus.” Police documents categorize their work on the case as a “death investigation.”

In that case 404 Media revealed in May 2025 which Langley called “entirely false,” authorities in Texas searched Flock cameras nationwide for a woman who self-administered an abortion. That search included cameras in states where abortion is legal. The incident showed in real terms what healthcare access and privacy advocates had warned about: that in the wake of Roe v. Wade, more law enforcement may use surveillance technology to track down people who are seeking reproductive healthcare. At the time, the Sheriff Adam King of the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office told 404 Media the woman’s “family was worried that she was going to bleed to death, and we were trying to find her to get her to a hospital.” (It later turned out the Flock search was performed more than two weeks after the abortion, making this explanation dubious).

The records were part of an arrest affidavit against the woman’s partner, who was arrested for allegedly threatening her at gunpoint on the day she took an abortion pill. Police investigative documents obtained by 404 Media further show that police were initially treating this as an investigation rather than a wellness check. A police incident report describes the police collecting evidence from the woman’s partner’s home, including the FedEx packaging and instructions for the abortion pill she took, photos her partner took, and other evidence.

In the meeting, Langley continued, “The second problem is if the 404 Media group would have taken the time to conduct an actual journalistic investigation, they would have found out that two weeks later, when all this came out, she was in an abusive relationship and the family was concerned that she was in danger. They were trying to find her because they were worried her life was at risk.”

Langley’s version of events here is misleading, too. 404 Media has repeatedly reported that the police documents do not mention the woman’s family having any concern about her. The entire investigation that led to the Flock searches was performed at the behest of her abusive partner, and the police documents show that the man had seen her a day after the abortion but did not call the police until weeks later. The man’s trial, related to charges around his alleged abuse, is scheduled for later this year.

It is unclear what Langley means by “two weeks later, when all this came out.” He may be referring to the fact that the police investigation and the Flock searches only happened more than two weeks after the woman had the abortion, which is a fact that people only know because of 404 Media’s journalistic investigation and the EFF, which obtained the relevant court records that 404 Media reported on. It was only after our reporting was published that police created a new document retroactively providing the justification as being concerned for the woman’s safety.

When 404 Media asked for comment on Langley’s comments from the call, Flock public relations manager Paris Lewbel said the court documents showed that the woman could not be charged with a crime. This ignores the fact that they did discuss doing so.

Langley has a pattern of making contradictory statements or incendiary ones he later has to walk back. In an interview with Forbes in September , Langley described DeFlock, the open source map of Flock camera locations, as a “terroristic organization.” In July, he apologized for those comments. He mocked people who attended city council meetings to raise concerns about Flock cameras, while also acknowledging that his staff have lobbied at close to 10,000 city council meetings last year.

There have been multiple cases of deception or misleading statements from and inside Flock recently. Jonathan Paz, who used to be a government affairs manager at Flock, told 404 Media he repeatedly asked internally if Flock was working with ICE. He was told no. But, beyond local cops performing lookups for ICE in the Flock system, the company actually did have a pilot program giving a division of ICE direct access to Flock’s network. Paz said he was “lied to.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) documented a case in which Flock’s chief information security officer told a city council the tool did not make a heat map of an individual’s movements. The Oshkosh City Council approved its contract with Flock, but then immediately revoked it after learning a day later that Flock had lied.

Regarding that case, Lewbel told 404 Media, “The main assertion in the ACLU article is a misspoken statement by one employee in a contentious meeting in Oshkosh, WI, which we corrected the next day. The assertion that our intent to be anything less than transparent in providing education about our products is false.”