The Infamous Ex-Chief

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode of Flocked, host Scott Gardner reviews public records produced by the City of Brunswick, Ohio concerning audit and review practices for the city’s Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras. The episode compares statements made to the Safety and Environmental Committee of city council on May 18, 2026 with the city’s own emails, policy drafts, dispatch entries, and staff reports.

What the records show

• Committee minutes from May 18, 2026 record the police chief stating that a supervising sergeant regularly reviews user activity, and that audit logs are retained indefinitely.
• City emails dated July 1, 2026 include a question from a city manager’s office employee asking whether the police division already conducts or has started this type of review, and a separate email from a law department administrative assistant stating that the city does not currently audit its Flock usage. That email asks whether an audit performed for a requester would create a record the city does not otherwise create. It is a question about records, not an official finding.
• The city gave one requester three differently worded responses about the existence of audit records: that the division had no responsive documents, that the records do not exist and there is no legal obligation to create them, and that the department is not required to run new database queries. The episode notes that each of these addresses whether a record exists, and none addresses whether searches were reviewed.
• Seven dispatch (CAD) entries titled “Flock Audit,” covering January through July 2026, were entered on the morning of August 19, 2026 between 10:44 and 11:14 a.m. The “Reviewed By” field is blank on all seven printouts produced.
• A revised Policy 425 was approved August 18, 2026 and provides for monthly internal audits. The city produced no earlier version of the audit section.
• The city posted a page of monthly exports on October 6, 2026.

Search log review

The organization audit exports for January through July 2026 contain 2,164 logged searches and lookups. The episode identifies four open questions about the data: the absence of columns for search reason and investigation classification, which the chief described to council; blank case number fields on 1,202 entries; a code entered in the case number field on 89 lookups; and a “total network searched” field that shows more than one network on 1,353 entries. These are presented as questions about what the fields mean. The episode does not assert that any search was improper.

Limits of the reporting

This episode does not assert that no review occurred before August 19, 2026, and it does not assert any intent on the part of any city official. The records produced do not describe the nature of the chief’s described review, and some communications may have occurred in person. The episode states that no audit documents dated before August 19, 2026 appear in the city’s production, and invites the city to provide any earlier record of review. Nothing in the episode is offered as a legal conclusion. Statements of opinion are identified as such.

Records law and litigation context

The records were requested and produced under Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. On October 13, 2026, the host filed a public records complaint against the City of Brunswick in the Ohio Court of Claims under R.C. 2743.75. On October 26, 2026, the court referred the matter to mediation. The host’s reporting is separate from his case, and nothing said in mediation is part of this episode. In keeping with the pending matter, city officials are identified by role.

Response from the city

Written questions were sent to the city’s law director on October 27, 2026 with a response deadline of the end of business on October 28, 2026. At the time of recording, no response had been received. If the city responds, this episode will be updated and the response archived in full.

Chapters
00:00 What the chief told council
01:00 Flocked, and two corrections
02:03 The case the chief made for Flock
03:09 The June 29 request
04:13 “We do not currently audit our Flock usage”
05:22 Three answers, none about checking
07:26 The policy and audit timeline
10:13 The event log entries
11:00 Policy 425 approved August 18
14:03 Seven entries, one morning
15:08 Reviewed By is blank
18:27 What the sign offs covered
19:08 Four questions about the search log
21:00 The records request timeline
23:04 Questions sent to the city
24:28 The accountability questions
26:09 Closing

Links
Video version on YouTube (add link once live)
Website: www.theinfamousexchief.com
Discord: https://liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief

Pro Cop Not Pro Corruption.

Support the show

Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, host Scott Gardner reviews public records obtained from multiple Medina County, Ohio agencies concerning outside agency access to Flock Safety automated license plate reader systems. The central question posed to each agency was who approves an outside agency’s access, whether that approval is documented in writing, and whether the approval is ever reviewed.

Records discussed include agency license plate reader policies, Flock sharing lists, event logs, network audit reports, a user search log, a vendor contract, and written correspondence from agency personnel and counsel. The episode also opens with corrections to statements made in episodes one and two.

Summary of records discussed:

Montville Township. The department’s policy provides that, as a general rule, camera access will be granted to any requesting agency. In response to a request made under R.C. 149.43 for records of any outside agency request for access and any review, approval, or denial of such a request, township counsel stated in writing on October 21, 2026 that no such record exists. The host has asked whether the search included records kept within the department’s own Flock account. That question remained unanswered at the time of recording.

Medina Township. The department’s event log for June 1 through July 31 shows 141 new shares with outside agencies, 30 of which included video download. The department’s Flock administrator stated in writing that one person approves sharing and that approvals are not documented separately.

Cloverleaf Local Schools. The district produced a 2023 contract, an invoice, and search logs. The district stated that no records exist of sharing settings or a network audit. The contract language regarding vendor use of anonymized data is discussed in the episode.

Brunswick Hills Township. The department has no cameras and holds an agreement directly with Flock Group for dashboard access. A user log covering 2022 through 2026 was produced. The chief stated in writing that no prior audits were conducted by Flock or the department.

Hinckley Township, Wadsworth, Lodi, and Brunswick. Sharing lists, event logs, and network audits are discussed, along with the following responses. The City of Brunswick, through its law director, declined to comment and stated that the Ohio Public Records Act does not require a narrative response. Hinckley had not answered the host’s verification question at the time of recording.

Important disclaimers:

The records discussed are logs of searches and sharing settings. They do not show search results, and they do not show video downloads unless stated. Nothing in this episode asserts that any agency or individual acted unlawfully, improperly, or with any particular intent. Each agency has stated that sharing is for legitimate law enforcement purposes. Network audit entries showing searches by outside agencies, including federal agencies and a United States territory, reflect nationwide or multi network searches and are not presented as targeting any Medina County community. Where records conflict with earlier statements, the host has issued corrections. Opinions expressed are the host’s own, and agency responses are reported as received. The host has a pending matter before the Ohio Court of Claims involving one agency discussed, brought under R.C. 2743.75, and refers to individuals in that matter by role only.

Statutory reference: Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.

Listeners may request their own department’s Flock sharing list and event log by submitting a public records request under R.C. 149.43.

Website: www.theinfamousexchief.com
Discord: https://liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief

Be loud. Be heard. Shake the system until the truth falls out.

Support the show

Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief

Send us Fan Mail

Support the show

Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief

Send us Fan Mail

In this first episode of the series on Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras, the host explains that he asked the East Cleveland city council to fund the technology while serving in law enforcement, and then reviews public records from Ohio law enforcement agencies concerning how officers' searches of the system are documented and audited.

The host notes that, in the contracts he has reviewed, data from the cameras is retained for thirty days, and states his opinion that this level of retention is overreach. He also references a reported ruling by a federal judge in Oklahoma concerning a warrantless search of a month of one person's movements in a comparable system. Flock Safety has stated it expects to appeal. The host does not offer a legal conclusion on that ruling and says a later episode will examine it.

The episode is based on records requested under Ohio's Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. The host's position is that Flock search records and audit logs are records of the subscribing public office, not of the vendor. Records discussed include:

• A one month audit log from the Medina County Sheriff's Office containing 1,045 rows, and the agency's written responses to six questions. The host reports that most rows lacked a case number, and that the agency stated in writing that the quarterly compliance review had not been conducted and that the issue had been addressed and corrected.
• Reporting on an internal audit by the Reynoldsburg Division of Police. According to that reporting, two former officers left the department after being notified of internal investigations concerning possible misuse of the system. The host's requests to the chief for comment had not been answered as of recording.
• Written responses from Wadsworth, Medina Police, Seville, Montville, Lodi, Medina Township and Brunswick Hills Township, including confirmed camera counts totaling 80 across eight agencies, which the host describes as a minimum.
• A records request to the City of Brunswick dated July 7, an acknowledgment dated July 15, and the host's service of a Court of Claims complaint form on the city under R.C. 2743.75. The host states that nothing has been filed with the court and that the city's response period remained open at recording.

The host also presents instances in which the technology was used in locating two missing older adults with dementia, and describes agencies that responded promptly and candidly.

Important notes

The host does not allege criminal conduct or improper intent by any named or unnamed person or agency. A missing case number on a log entry is not, by itself, evidence of improper purpose, and several agencies explained that their policies allowed a stated reason in place of a case number during part of the period reviewed. No criminal charges were reported in the Reynoldsburg matter. Characterizations of official practices in this episode are the host's opinion based on the records shown. Agency statements are quoted from their written responses, and listeners are encouraged to review the full documents. The Oklahoma ruling is reported as stated in news coverage and is subject to appeal.

Support the show

Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, Gregg Owen, a former Cook County homicide prosecutor and author of Convergence, discusses a 1976 double murder prosecution and the events surrounding it, as he recounts them. Owen describes an initial courtroom assignment he characterizes as irregular, a period during which physical evidence went missing from a Cook County Sheriff's Office inventory space, and an incident in which he says he was offered cash to alter the substance of his closing argument. These accounts reflect Owen's personal recollection of events from the late 1970s and early 1980s and have not been independently verified by The Infamous Ex-Chief; listeners should understand this episode as Owen's own retelling, not as new investigative reporting by this platform. No claim is made here that any named individual committed a crime beyond what is reflected in the public record of the underlying case, which concluded with a guilty plea following an appellate reversal on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.

Owen also discusses Operation Greylord, the federal investigation into judicial corruption in Cook County that became public in the 1980s, and his earlier career as a touring musician.

Host Scott Gardner is a former Ohio police chief and homicide detective who operates The Infamous Ex-Chief, an independent accountability and public records journalism platform.

Convergence is available through major booksellers and audiobook platforms. Gregg Owen can be found on Instagram at greggowen26 and at greggowen26.com.

Support the show

Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief

Send us Fan Mail

On September 3, 2026, Scott Gardner extended a settlement offer to the Village of Mantua in his pending mandamus action, which raises a question of first impression under Ohio law: whether an independent, multi-platform investigative journalist qualifies for the public records requester exception set out in Revised Code 149.43(B)(9)(c). The offer proposed to waive statutory damages, stipulate to undisputed facts, and allow the Eleventh District Court of Appeals to rule directly on the underlying legal question, without discovery or extended motion practice.

According to Gardner, counsel for the Village, Matt Markling, did not accept or reject the offer. Gardner states that Markling instead indicated the applicable local appellate rules already placed the matter on an expedited schedule. Gardner followed up in writing two days later requesting clarification of whether this reflected the Village's position. Five days after that, according to Gardner, Markling filed a motion for definite statement under Ohio Civil Rule 12(E).

Civil Rule 12(E) permits a motion for definite statement when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably prepare a response. This episode reviews the three grounds Gardner reports the motion raised: (1) that Gardner's petition listed a business address rather than a residential address, (2) that Gardner did not submit documentation establishing journalist status, including a federal tax identification number, and (3) that the petition did not identify where a required pre-filing complaint was served.

On the first point, Civil Rule 11 requires a pro se party to state an address for service, without specifying that the address be residential. Gardner states his business address is registered with the Ohio Secretary of State and has been used by Markling's office for service throughout the litigation without prior objection.

On the second point, Revised Code 149.43(B)(9)(c) requires that a written request state the requester's name and title, the name and address of the requester's employer, and a statement explaining how disclosure would serve the public interest. This episode does not assert that the statute requires additional documentation such as a federal tax identification number; that characterization is presented as Gardner's own reading of the statutory text, which listeners and legal readers may wish to verify independently.

On the third point, Gardner states that the Village's own motion cites the exhibit identifying where the pre-filing complaint was served, which Gardner contends is inconsistent with the claim that this information was omitted.

This episode also discusses a comparable, ongoing matter involving the Village of Garrettsville, where Gardner reports extending a similarly structured offer to attorney William Mason on September 4, 2026, addressing the calculation methodology for body camera record fees under Revised Code 149.43. As of this recording, Gardner states no response of any kind, including a motion for definite statement, has been filed by Garrettsville's counsel. This episode expressly does not characterize that silence as improper, obstructive, or equivalent to Mantua's response, and draws no inference about the Village of Garrettsville's position or intentions.

No court has ruled on the merits of the underlying journalist-exception question addressed in this episode, and no finding has been made regarding the propriety of any party's litigation conduct. Statements characterizing the motives, strategy, or billing practices of counsel for the Village of Mantua reflect Gardner's personal opinion and are clearly identified as such; this episode does not represent that Gardner has direct knowledge of any attorney's engagement terms, billing arrangements, or internal communications with a client.

Relevant statutory and procedural citations:

• Ohio Revised Code 149.43(B)(9)(c) (public records journalist exception)
• Ohio Revised Code 149.43(B)(1) (public records fee provisions)
• Ohio Civil Rule 11 (signing of pleadings; address requirement)
• Ohio Civil Rule 12(E) (motion for definite statement)

Underlying filings referenced in this episode are publicly available and are linked for independent review.

Be loud. Be heard. Shake the system until the truth falls out.

Support the show

Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief

Send us Fan Mail

Five episodes into the Rocky River investigation, this installment examines the special prosecutor's own investigative memoranda, obtained directly and reviewed in full for the first time on this platform.

The memoranda, addressed to Rocky River Law Director Michael O'Shea and dated August 17 and September 22, 2023, contain a legal analysis under six Ohio statutes: sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03), unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, gross sexual imposition, sexual imposition, importuning, and dereliction of duty. This episode focuses on the sexual battery analysis under R.C. 2907.03(A)(7), which addresses conduct by a person in a position of authority at a school where the victim is a student, and examines the evidentiary basis for the prosecutor's charging determination, including the exclusion of a walk-in witness statement and its intersection with Ohio's mandatory reporting statute, R.C. 2151.421.

The episode also reviews a signed personnel action by Rocky River Police Chief George Lichtman documenting a standards-of-conduct violation, and the personnel record following that finding through the officer's retirement roughly eight months later.

Statutory references: R.C. 149.43 (public records), R.C. 2907.03 (sexual battery), R.C. 2151.421 (mandatory reporting).

Support the show

Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief

Send us Fan Mail

One hundred twenty-seven days after a shooting at Valley Forge High School, Parma City School District still has not produced basic records about what happened before, during, and after that day. That case is now in mediation in the Ohio Court of Claims, four months after the original public records request was filed.

This episode is a comprehensive status update on every active public records fight currently underway, and a pattern emerges across all of them. Not one agency is contesting the substance of the request. Every one is arguing procedure instead.

Covered in this episode:

• Parma City School District: the timeline from the April records request through a rejected Court of Claims filing, a 41-page refiling, and ongoing mediation
• Village of Creston: a missing meeting recording and three contradictory explanations from the village solicitor
• Hiram Village: a mandamus action, a reversed position on record availability, an alternative writ from the court, and a disputed service-of-process argument built while the village was corresponding by email about the same case
• Village of Garrettsville: an alternative writ issued August 10, a September 4 response deadline, and the statutory question at the center of it, how Ohio law calculates the per-hour fee cap on body camera footage
• Austintown Police Department: a newly discovered billing error that mirrors the Garrettsville dispute almost exactly, three weeks later and in a different county
• A direct response to viewers who've suggested this litigation is being pursued for financial gain, including a breakdown of what pro se filing actually costs in time and money
• A preview of a new investigation building in Lake County following prior reporting on the Kirtland PD rooster arrest

This is public records law in practice: Ohio Revised Code 149.43, mandamus actions, and what it actually takes to hold a government agency to its statutory obligations without a lawyer.

Full case documentation, filings, and updates available at theinfamousexchief.com.

Support the show

Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief

Send us Fan Mail

A listener asked the question I get more than any other: does any of this reporting actually lead anywhere, or is it just content? So I answered it directly, using the Creston, Ohio fiscal officer case as the example.

Here's what's confirmed on the record. The Village of Creston has never given a public explanation for why their fiscal officer was disciplined or why she ultimately left. What exists is a written warning, a hearing process that raised real statutory questions, and a personnel file with a documented chain of custody problem. What's missing is the internal communication that would explain the rest, because the village hasn't produced it.

I don't fill that gap with rumor. I file public records requests under Ohio Revised Code 149.43, which come with statutory deadlines attached. When a village misses that deadline, or hands back records that don't add up, that's not speculation, that's the village's own conduct becoming the story.

This matter is now in mediation in the Ohio Court of Claims between me and the Village of Creston over records production. That means I have to be careful what I say publicly while mediation is active, not because there's nothing to say, but because the wrong words in the wrong venue can undercut a legal process built to get real answers. I also address where things stand with the Valley Forge school shooting records fight, another case people assume went quiet. It didn't.

This is what public records accountability journalism actually looks like in Ohio: slow, methodical, and built on a paper trail instead of a news cycle.

More investigations, document drops, and case updates: www.theinfamousexchief.com

Be loud. Be heard. Shake the system until the truth falls out.

Support the show

Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief

Send us Fan Mail

A whistleblower complaint to the FAA. A membership revoked over a phone call. Five years of self-represented litigation, a $45,000 sanctions order, and now a petition to the United States Supreme Court built partly on an allegation that a court transcript was altered. Scott Gardner sits down with the man known online as "Chardon Pro Se" to walk through the entire paper trail, the USPA governance manual, the board meeting minutes, and the moment a magistrate allegedly said on the record that the court believed there was fraud in his case, right before ruling against him. Every Ohio court that has ruled on this case has ruled against him. This episode lays out the record so you can decide where that leaves things. 

Full documents at theinfamousexchief.com.

Support the show

Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief