On an early fall afternoon in 2023, midway through a shift in Pawtucket’s District Five, Rhode Island police officer Noel Pichardo noticed a strange camera perched on a utility pole over West Avenue.

Pichardo was 28, five years into the job, and alone in his cruiser during one of the brief lulls between responding to the typical churn of radio calls for domestic disputes, petty disturbances, and welfare checks. The camera was compact and solar-powered, angled down toward passing traffic. Pichardo made a U-turn and drove beneath it again, more slowly this time, to get a better look.

He then began searching for the cameras on roads near highway ramps, at major intersections, along the routes into and out of the city. He found them again and again. By the time Pichardo finished circling the district, he knew exactly where he had seen them before.

Two years earlier, officers had gathered on the second floor of a small police substation in Pawtucket for a presentation about a surveillance system made by Flock Safety. A high-ranking police official stood in front of a PowerPoint and explained that the company’s automatic license plate readers could identify passing vehicles not only by their license plates but by bumper stickers, roof racks, and other distinguishing features. Investigators could search for a particular car across jurisdictions and, camera by camera, reconstruct where it had been.

The system was presented as another tool of routine police work, a way to recover stolen cars, locate suspects, and find missing people. But as Pichardo listened, he found himself thinking less about the vehicles police wanted than about all the others. In a medium-size city like Pawtucket, where a handful of roads carried people nearly everywhere they needed to go, a record of a car’s movements amounted to a record of a person’s life—the places they visited, the people they saw, the routines they followed.

As Pichardo understood it, the Flock proposal had gone nowhere because the city could not afford a permanent installation. So he let it slip from his mind.

But now, on that afternoon on West Avenue, the cameras were all over his district.

Pawtucket’s cameras are one small piece of a sprawling vehicle-surveillance system that touches nearly every state in the country. Flock markets its platform as the nation’s largest fixed license-plate-reader network, processing billions of sightings each month. Because departments can open their records to agencies elsewhere, a camera installed by one municipality can become searchable by investigators hundreds or thousands of miles away.

In 2021, around the time of Pichardo’s training, Flock offered Pawtucket police a free 60-day pilot. Seventeen cameras went up around the city as part of a regional test that also included Cranston and Woonsocket, according to records reviewed by WIRED. The rollout quickly drew criticism. The ACLU of Rhode Island accused the department of installing the cameras surreptitiously, after the pilot began without prior public input or notice to the city council. Pawtucket chief of police Tina Goncalves later apologized, saying that the department would “work better in the future” to communicate with the city council.

The pilot ended later that year, and in May 2023 the local TV news reported that Pawtucket was not moving forward with the installation. Pichardo believed the idea was a dead letter.

It was not. In September 2023, records show, Pawtucket moved forward with a two-year deployment worth $128,000. Records show that the city planned to install 20 cameras along many of its busiest roads, including Newport Avenue, Main Street, Broadway, Smithfield Avenue, and West Avenue—where Pichardo first noticed one hanging over the road.

“Wait a minute,” Pichardo recalled thinking. “When did we make this decision to put these up?”

Within months, Pichardo’s questions would set off a chain of events that, he says, ended his career in law enforcement. They would also eventually place him, somewhat improbably, at the center of a backlash against Flock that unites large factions of the American left and right.

For a policeman, Pichardo contains more than his share of contradictions. He speaks with a thick Rhode Island accent that sounds like something lifted from a cop movie, but he peppers his conversation with occasional references to Nietzsche or obscure films. He describes himself as private by temperament but seems driven to stand out.

Having spent some of his childhood in a poor neighborhood where drugs and gangs were part of the landscape, Pichardo says he learned that it was safest to keep his opinions to himself and stay out of other people’s business. When he was 12 or 13, he learned that his father, who had returned to the Dominican Republic several years earlier, had done so because he had a criminal record and was told it would be best if he left the country. Becoming a police officer offered a way of drawing a line between his father’s path and his own. After studying in the criminal justice program at Salve Regina University in Newport, Pichardo entered the police academy and joined the Pawtucket department in 2018. To hear him describe it, he’s always been something of an outlier on the force. “I’m possibly the only cop who would voluntarily go to musicals,” he once told me.

In the weeks following that fall shift when he first noticed Flock cameras all over town, Pichardo kept picking at the question of how the cameras had returned. Detectives, he says he learned after asking around the department, were already using the system, though many patrol officers like himself appeared to know little about it.

Pichardo contacted his work district’s local city council rep and asked how the cameras had been approved—his first time speaking to a politician, he says—but didn’t emerge with a clear answer. (Records show that the department had notified the purchasing board that it planned to move forward, but there was no public vote before the cameras were installed. The question of approval surfaced only afterward, when a council member asked whether the deployment should have come before the council. Officials said no. Installing the cameras was, they explained, an “administrative prerogative.”)

Police officers swear oaths to uphold the law and report wrongdoing. Inside the department, Pichardo said, the unwritten rule was simpler: Don’t rat. He understood that speaking publicly could end his career. But he says he was inspired by whistleblowers like Frank Serpico and Edward Snowden, men of conviction who broke with powerful institutions and spent years living with the consequences. Pichardo has a pronounced sense of right and wrong and a tendency to treat compromise as betrayal. “You should never sell your integrity,” he says.

License plate readers are a routine investigative tool, useful for locating stolen cars or identifying suspect vehicles without stopping large numbers of motorists. Experts broadly agree that reducing unnecessary police encounters and high-speed pursuits is a good thing. But to Pichardo, that usefulness was beside the larger point. Pawtucket had created a new form of surveillance over public movement with no debate, helping to build a world in which the government could quietly record where ordinary people went. It was not a world he found acceptable. If the officers who understood the system would not raise that question, he wondered, who would?

Pichardo was still wrestling with whether to speak out about Flock when he brought it up with his wife, Emily. “Do what you believe is right,” she said; they would deal with whatever followed. After that, without notifying anyone in the department, Pichardo called a reporter at Pawtucket’s local newspaper.

The article in the Valley Breeze was published on October 11, 2023. Its headline was blunt: “Pawtucket Officer Has a Big Problem With New Cameras.”

In the article, Pichardo called Flock a “grave threat” to privacy and warned that the system was ripe for abuse. He said he had learned of the full deployment from the newspaper itself, not from his own department. If a patrol officer knew so little about the cameras going up around the city, he asked, how much could the public possibly know? The whole thing gave him, he said, “1984 vibes.”

This was not whistleblowing in the conventional sense. Pichardo did not reveal a secret program, leak internal documents, or expose a specific abuse. In some respects, the newspaper knew more about the deployment than he did. What he offered instead was the rare perspective of an active-duty police officer breaking ranks to publicly argue that his own department had adopted a powerful surveillance system without enough scrutiny.

When the article appeared, the first text Pichardo received came from another officer.

“I want to congratulate you on your testicular fortitude,” it read. The officer added that he was proud of Pichardo for doing what he believed was right. Then he warned him: The brass was furious.

Pichardo says many officers supported what he had said to the Valley Breeze. Others, mostly older officers, viewed him as a traitor. One officer asked how he still had a job. Around the station, he was told that officers were calling him “Valley Breeze” behind his back. One sergeant, he says, told him he should quit.

Within weeks, the warnings began to look prescient.

Police internal investigations are not criminal cases. Their purpose is generally narrower—to determine whether an officer has violated a policy, code of conduct, or general order. Investigators interview witnesses, review body-camera or surveillance footage, collect reports and emails, and question the officer at the center of the complaint. The interview is typically recorded, and the officer is often accompanied by a union representative.

The process generates paper. A complaint. A notice of investigation. Lists of possible policy violations. Interview recordings and investigators’ notes. Findings, disciplinary recommendations, and notices of punishment.

Before the Valley Breeze article appeared, Pichardo’s disciplinary record appears to have consisted of a single incident: In 2021, while working a police detail at a production of the musical Annie, he refused a vendor’s request that he wear a face mask, and he received a written reprimand and a two-week suspension. After Pichardo spoke out against Flock, he received notice of an internal investigation into his conduct on October 25, 2023. It would be the first of many.

The department’s complaint, which originated from Chief Tina Goncalves, stated flatly that Pichardo had spoken to a newspaper without prior authorization, had undermined the authority of the police department and its chief, and had suggested that information collected by Flock cameras could be used improperly. His comments, the notice said, were “liable to cause harm to the reputation of the department and affect the impact on the community.”

The potential violations included the department’s mission statement, code of ethics, media-relations policy, and a rule labeled “Criticism & Malicious Gossip.”

Pichardo was ordered to appear at the Office of Professional Standards, a basement-level room in the Pawtucket police headquarters. Across from him, he says, were a lieutenant and a sergeant. A union representative sat beside him but said little.

The interview lasted somewhere between 30 and 45 minutes, Pichardo recalls. The questions were straightforward at first. Had he spoken to the reporter? He had. Had he done so without authorization from the department? He had. Why?

Pichardo gave much the same answer he had given the newspaper: The cameras were tracking people across the city, and the public had a right to know how they were being used. Pichardo says the lieutenant disagreed. Not every police tactic, he told Pichardo, was the public’s business. Departments did not disclose every method they used or every form of surveillance available to them.

The investigators accused Pichardo of violating the public’s trust by speaking to the press.

“I think this department violated the public trust,” he says he retorted. Then they asked who, in his view, should be held responsible. “The chief,” Pichardo said.

WIRED could not review the underlying investigative file, including the recording that might confirm or contradict Pichardo’s account. The city declined to provide the file even when Pichardo requested records concerning his own case. Pawtucket officials did not respond to WIRED’s questions about the denial.

A disciplinary agreement signed in early 2024 does, however, state that Pichardo made “critical statements to the media” about Flock and the department’s leadership. Pichardo maintained that his comments were constitutionally protected speech. The department expressly denied that position in the agreement.

After consulting an attorney, the Pawtucket police union came to the conclusion that Pichardo’s comments were constitutionally protected and sent the city a letter warning that if it disciplined him, it would likely violate his rights. According to union lodge president Michael Cioe, the department initially sought a six-month suspension but reduced the proposed punishment after the union threatened litigation.

Rather than fight the case through disciplinary hearings and possible state or federal litigation, the two sides reached an agreement. Pichardo would serve a 30-day unpaid suspension for speaking to the paper.

Pichardo said he accepted the deal because he didn’t want his coworkers to see him as their enemy. “I wanted the war to end,” he says.

By then, the department had already opened another investigation into his conduct.

A month after investigators questioned Pichardo about speaking to the Valley Breeze, another internal investigation notice arrived. In December, the department opened an inquiry over Pichardo’s failure to appear for a municipal court hearing about a traffic citation, which resulted in an additional two-day suspension. Chief Goncalves was again listed as the complainant.

Then, in March, about a week after he returned to work from the suspension, yet another notice landed—this one concerning an encounter that had allegedly taken place nearly 15 months earlier.

The incident involved a man who was being taken to a hospital for a mental health evaluation. The complaint alleged that Pichardo grabbed the man’s arm, refused to let him retrieve a jacket, and would not allow him to feed his cat. When the man pointed out that the cat could not open a can of food on its own, Pichardo allegedly replied that “cats can take care of themselves” and laughed.

During his interview, Pichardo says he told investigators that the cat already had food and that other officers and mental health clinicians present could confirm that he had handled the encounter appropriately. Pichardo says the inquiry didn’t sustain the allegations, and he received no discipline.

By the spring, Pichardo felt sure that the department was trying to send a message with these three investigations. Inside the department, Pichardo says, there was an unspoken expectation that his disciplinary agreement with his superiors would end his public criticism. Nevertheless, in April he accepted an invitation to testify at a public hearing before the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee, where lawmakers were considering legislation regulating automated license plate readers.

The hearing was carried live on the legislature’s Capitol Television network. Pichardo spoke off the cuff. He told lawmakers that the proposed legislation did not go far enough. Flock, he argued, was tracking people’s movements, and although he was “not a lawyer,” he believed the system raised serious Fourth Amendment concerns. He said the cameras had captured his own plate five times in a single day, cited an out-of-state officer who used Flock to track his ex-wife, and questioned whether police should possess technology with that kind of cross-jurisdictional reach.

At times, Pichardo’s confidence outran his precision. He asserted that officers’ use of Flock could not be monitored, although the system does in fact maintain user logs and performs regular audits. In interviews with WIRED, he acknowledged the distinction but argued that logs were only as meaningful as the people responsible for reviewing them. He pointed to cases in other jurisdictions where officers had used Flock to track romantic partners or conduct improper searches, sometimes without the misuse being caught until much later. His broader point, he said, was that “anybody’s capable of anything” when given a powerful tool without sufficient guardrails.

About a week later, in response to his testimony, the Rhode Island Police Chiefs’ Association sent a letter to the committee singling Pichardo out by name. It called his testimony “inaccurate at best” and, at worst, “inflammatory and patently false.” The association accused him of misunderstanding Flock’s capabilities, disputed his description of the system’s auditing, and suggested that he either lacked familiarity with the technology or had “an agenda where, in his mind, the truth is irrelevant.”

Back at work, Pichardo says, his union representatives were annoyed that he’d spoken up again. (The union disputes this characterization.) Other officers, even those who largely agreed with him about Flock, or at least respected what he was doing, started to express concerns. One sat Pichardo down and said that if he wasn’t careful, he might lose his job and never work as a police officer in Rhode Island again. “You’ve got to think about your family, dude,” Pichardo recalls him saying.

On May 10, 2024, a new incident set yet another internal investigation of Pichardo in motion: A delivery driver came to Pawtucket police headquarters to report that someone had thrown a bottle of soda at her vehicle during what she described as a road-rage encounter. Pichardo spoke with her, concluded that no crime had occurred, and declined to prepare a report.

The woman later spoke with a sergeant, asking for the incident to be documented, and Pichardo was directed to write a report. According to the department's records, the delivery driver was not initially asking to file a formal complaint against Pichardo, but she did return to the station later that day, recording portions of her exchanges with Pichardo on her cell phone.

Pichardo told her that Pawtucket is an urban environment where people argue and throw things, accused her of acting like a child and having a tantrum, and complained that she had “won” by persuading a supervisor to overrule him.

Several days later, the woman filed a formal complaint with the Office of Professional Standards.

Investigators reviewed the recordings and interviewed another officer on duty. The videos, investigators later wrote, showed the woman remaining largely calm as Pichardo became increasingly dismissive. They sustained more than a dozen allegations, including neglect of duty, insubordination, incivility, and conduct unbecoming.

Pichardo acknowledged to WIRED that his conduct was indefensible. “I should still be the bigger person,” he said.

What he disputed was the punishment: a 40-day unpaid suspension and removal from the detective eligibility list. He also says the union told him he was barred from taking the sergeant’s exam for two years. He was notified of the suspension on the day his second son was born, just as he was about to start paternity leave, meaning that his first 40 days at home with his baby were unpaid—a coincidence he alleges was deliberate.

By early 2025, Pichardo had come to believe the department was finished with him. He no longer trusted that, if a traffic stop, arrest, or routine encounter generated another complaint, anyone in command would give him the benefit of the doubt. He more or less began to avoid active patrolling, he says. Between calls, he often waited at the Fraternal Order of Police building, which he helped maintain, or remained inside his patrol car rather than looking for the next stop. “I was trying to stay off the radar,” he later recalled telling investigators.

Then two more investigations arrived.

The first grew out of a dispute over a snowbound Volkswagen. On February 10, Pichardo responded to what appeared to be an unregistered vehicle stranded in the snow, concluded it was already disabled and had been ticketed, and gave the owner until the following day to move it. A supervisor ordered him to return and have the car towed instead. Pichardo questioned the instruction over the radio before complying. The department concluded that he had essentially been insubordinate.

The second began less than two weeks later. Pichardo responded to a mother who wanted police to document her 13-year-old son as a wayward child after she suspected he had been burning paper inside their home. Pichardo declined to take a report, concluding that she lacked evidence and appeared more interested in having the state remove the boy than documenting a crime. Before leaving, he told her to go inside and “be a mother.”

The department combined the investigations. Rather than focus only on the underlying incidents, investigators reconstructed nearly an entire workday of Pichardo’s life in excruciating detail. Using dispatch records, time sheets, cruiser GPS, and location data transmitted by Pichardo's body camera, they mapped his movements throughout the day of the family call. (They didn’t use Flock data; they didn’t need to.) Their reconstruction concluded that he had spent approximately four hours and 57 minutes at police facilities or the Fraternal Order of Police building rather than on patrol.

Pichardo did not dispute where he had been. He explained that he helped maintain the union office and that officers routinely waited there between calls. From the department's perspective, the location data showed an officer spending much of his shift inside police or union buildings instead of policing the city. The department was recommending termination. The resulting complaint explaining the decision ran 25 pages. It contained 32 administrative charges—10 stemming from the tow dispute and 22 from the family call—and assembled nearly every disciplinary matter from Pichardo's career.

On the morning of July 16, 2025, after roll call, a major asked Pichardo to stay behind.

He knew what was coming.

Chief Goncalves had signed a complaint the day before recommending his termination. The major handed it to him and explained that he was being suspended with pay while he decided whether to request a hearing in accordance with Rhode Island's Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights. He had five days.

Pichardo took the complaint home. But the more he thought about it, the less sense it made to fight. Even if he won, he believed, he would return to a department whose leadership had already decided it no longer wanted him.

Two days later, after seven years as a Pawtucket police officer, Pichardo resigned.

His letter was brief. Policing, he wrote, had meant a great deal to him and his family, but over the previous three years the department had made clear that he was no longer welcome because of his “philosophical convictions.” Remaining, he wrote, would only bring more grief to him and his family.

He did not apologize for speaking out.

"My only regret," he wrote, "is that I was not articulate and/or diplomatic enough in my attempts to explain my position." On the 18th, he walked the letter to the Office of Professional Standards, shook hands with his coworkers, turned in his badge, firearm, radio, and keys, and left police headquarters for the last time.

Pichardo alleges that the investigations and escalating discipline he was faced with were retaliation for speaking out about Flock. The reality may be more complicated. His union, which had backed him when the department sought to punish him for his comments to the Valley Breeze, says it saw no evidence that the later investigations were retaliatory. They believed another Pawtucket officer who engaged in comparable conduct would have faced similar discipline.

Whether that is true is difficult to establish. Pichardo does not deny that he broke department rules in several of the incidents. His argument is that the rules were enforced differently against him—that conduct that might have earned another officer a warning became an internal inquiry, and misconduct that might otherwise have brought lesser discipline resulted in lengthy unpaid suspensions. He claims he had seen other officers do worse and face less. There is no way to know what would have happened to the version of Pichardo who never called the Valley Breeze.

After resigning, Pichardo spent months trying to remain in law enforcement. He applied to other police departments, private-security jobs, and campus police positions, including one at his alma mater, Salve Regina University. Some never responded. Others interviewed him before deciding not to move forward. An acquaintance who works in campus security at a local college eventually asked around and offered an explanation: "You're blackballed."

He found work instead as a caregiver for a person with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Pichardo tried to tell himself that he had done enough. But he couldn’t shake the feeling that he had left something unfinished. “My conscience was still haunting me,” he told me. “I just wanted to be able to say I tried.”

So he sat down with a friend who started a YouTube account for Pichardo, and they recorded a video.

Since I started speaking with Pichardo in April, the debate over Flock has spread far beyond Pawtucket. Across the country, cities have fought over whether to keep the cameras, some jurisdictions have canceled contracts or imposed new restrictions, and lawmakers in both Republican- and Democratic-led states have pushed for new limits on how the systems can be used. For Pichardo, there is something distinctly American about the backlash. The country has long attached dreams of freedom and self-determination to the car, a mythology reflected in advertising and even in the names of the vehicles themselves: Explorer, Expedition, Escape, Maverick, Liberty. Americans who agreed on little else could still recognize the promise of the open road—that, for a little while, a person might simply leave and be left alone. To Pichardo, Flock threatened that promise.

“That’s freedom,” Pichardo told me. “The ability to drive somewhere and no one knows where you’re going.”

The video opens with Pichardo sitting alone in a plain room, dressed in a crisp cream-colored shirt, daylight spilling through a nearby window. Looking directly into the camera, he tells viewers that speaking publicly is "one of the strangest things" he has ever done. But, he says, he feels obligated to warn them about a technology that has quietly spread into communities across the country.

"To put it bluntly," he says, "if you own a car, you are now being tracked."

He expected a few hundred people to watch. Hundreds of thousands did.

Within weeks, an email arrived from one of Tucker Carlson's bookers. Pichardo assumed it was a prank; he had never really sought a political audience. He had deleted his social media accounts years ago and had little interest in becoming a pundit. But in mid-July, there he was, spending nearly 20 minutes discussing license plate readers, surveillance, and the meaning of privacy with the former Fox News host. He was explaining Flock to one of the largest audiences in American media, in a video bombastically titled “Whistleblower Reveals the Largest Mass Surveillance Operation in History and the Coming Slave State.”

Podcasters started reaching out, followed by local reporters and The Washington Post. Strangers urged him to run for office. Others told him to build up his YouTube channel, lean into the moment, and turn the audience into a career.

The prospect was not without appeal. Pichardo was still rebuilding his life after losing his job; a large audience might offer money, security, even a new profession. But something about it felt dishonest. “The only reason people know who I am,” he told me, “is because I criticized something.”

He had watched enough people online to recognize what he thought of as a trap. You begin with sincere convictions about serving the public, then you begin tracking an audience, and in time, he says, “you become a parody of what you were before.”

His mind returned, he says, to a passage from the Gospel of Matthew. “What profit is it to a man,” the verse goes, “if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul?”

Let us know what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor at [email protected].