A police department tool built to find vehicles became the center of an internal investigation in Alpharetta, Georgia, after a patrolman allegedly used it to follow the movements of people he knew personally.
According to documents described by WIRED, Dustin Bozzo, who until this month worked as a patrolman in the Atlanta-area suburb, used Flock searches repeatedly between March and May to look up license plates connected to a former romantic partner and another police officer.
The Alleged Searches
Flock Safety sells automatic license plate readers, often called ALPRs, to police agencies. These systems can make vehicle location data searchable for officers with access. In the Alpharetta case, that access allegedly moved far outside its authorized purpose.
Bozzo allegedly searched for the license plate of a former romantic partner 56 times between March and May. She was a fellow member of the Alpharetta Police Department, and documents show that the relationship itself violated the city’s ban on workplace dating.
The searches did not stop with her vehicle. When Bozzo noticed that her car was often near another police officer’s vehicle, he began searching that officer’s car as well. According to the documents, he did so 29 times between March and May.
The internal record also says Bozzo searched the license plate of the woman’s uncle after learning she had been in a car accident and was borrowing his car. Between April 5 and April 14, he searched for the uncle’s vehicle 18 times.
What The Internal Report Says
The documents include a full internal report written by Alpharetta police Sergeant Jabbar Braithwaite. Per that report, Bozzo admitted that he had a fling with a then-fellow officer that started in late 2025. That officer is now a civilian employee of the department.
The former officer said most, if not all, of their romantic communications happened on Snapchat. Both she and Bozzo acknowledged that they had been sexually intimate, while maintaining that it never happened while they were on duty.
Even so, their behavior drew attention inside the department. Multiple people reported that Bozzo and the other officer “frequently spent personal time together while on duty” and were “not engaged in their assigned responsibilities.”
Those reports led the department to separate the officers, who had been assigned to the same squad and patrol beat, and to issue them a “written directive” about “acceptable workplace interactions.”
According to Braithwaite’s summary, one sergeant later reported seeing the pair meeting in a “dark, secluded park” at about 2:30 am while Officer Bozzo was on duty and the other officer was not.
How A Personal Concern Became Surveillance
Bozzo claimed the relationship lasted approximately one month and said the breakup was mutual. The other officer said the relationship lasted several months and that she initiated the breakup. Both said it ended on good terms.
It is unclear exactly when the relationship ended, but Bozzo’s Flock searches for her vehicle began in early March. According to Flock audit logs cited by Braithwaite, the system prompted Bozzo to give a reason for each query. He almost always selected either “Wanted Person” or “Traffic Infraction.”
When asked why he used those categories, Bozzo said doing so was “just a quick keystroke.” He told investigators that he was trying to make sure the former officer had arrived home safely because she often drove around late at night.
Bozzo also said that while reviewing the results, he began noticing a particular vehicle often near hers. That vehicle belonged to an Alpharetta Police Department officer who had recently transferred from a nearby police department.
Bozzo said he found the pattern “weird,” which prompted him to start searching that officer’s vehicle too. He denied being motivated by jealousy. The other officer and Bozzo knew each other personally, and both had helped the woman move.
The former romantic partner told Braithwaite she did not know what motivated Bozzo’s searches. She and the other officer both said they had always been platonic friends. The other officer told investigators that his interactions with Bozzo had been friendly and respectful.
The Fallout In Alpharetta
Lieutenant Jason Hiott of the Alpharetta Police Department told WIRED that Bozzo was placed on paid leave on July 20 and resigned on August 5 following an internal investigation. Hiott also said an “ongoing criminal investigation” is underway in the department's Criminal Investigations Division.
Alpharetta police chief Trent Lindgren told WIRED that the investigation will likely be finished soon. He said the department holds itself to a “high standard” and took “immediate action” when the misuse was identified.
Flock did not respond to a request for comment. Bozzo also did not respond to multiple requests for comment. After WIRED messaged him on Facebook, he changed his Facebook profile picture and name.
Braithwaite did not find evidence undermining Bozzo’s claim that he had not acted with “malice or an intent to harm.” But the internal report still treated the conduct as a serious policy issue. Braithwaite told Bozzo that “regardless of his stated motivation,” his use of Flock was “inconsistent with Department policy and the authorized use of the system.”
Why This Case Matters
The Alpharetta case adds detail to a broader pattern described by WIRED. Across the country, there have been at least 45 documented incidents of police officers misusing Flock to look up or track current or former romantic partners.
The documents show why ALPR misuse can escalate quickly. A search that begins with a claimed personal concern can expand to another person’s vehicle, then to a relative’s borrowed car, and then to repeated checks across weeks.
That makes audit logs and internal review central to accountability. In this case, the records show the searches, the categories selected, the explanations given, and the department’s response after misuse was identified.
The core issue is not only whether the officer intended harm. It is whether a powerful police database was used for a legitimate law enforcement purpose. According to the internal report, the answer in this case was no.