Written by: Dan Shibilia
In a public statement posted on Facebook early evening on September 22nd, Valley writes that she voted good faith when she put her yes vote to work. Valley wrote that she once believed FLOCK cameras would be “a useful tool” deployed with “proper safeguards” and “transparency.” Her words. Her vote. Her statement is copied below word for word.
Statement from Methuen City Councilor Patricia Valley
When I voted to approve Flock cameras in Methuen, I did so in good faith. I believed they could be a useful tool for our police officers, and I trusted that a technology this powerful would be used responsibly, transparently, and with the proper safeguards.
A personal experience involving the Lawrence Police Department has caused me to look at this technology very differently. Through the public-records transparency website Have I Been Flocked, I discovered records indicating that my license plate had been searched through the Flock system 359 times over a two-year period.
When I reached out to the Lawrence Police Department for more information, I was told that my vehicle was connected to an investigation involving an accident in May 2025. I was never contacted about this investigation and, to my knowledge, had absolutely nothing to do with the incident. It has been relayed to me that the records cannot be released because the investigation remains active. I respect that there are procedures that must be followed during an active investigation, but it is difficult for me to understand how an investigation involving my vehicle can remain active since May 2025 without anyone ever contacting me about it.
My trust has also been affected by a previous investigation involving me, which ultimately concluded that the investigation itself had been politically motivated. That experience, combined with what I am learning now, has raised serious concerns for me about the safeguards and accountability surrounding the use of this technology.
This is not about being against law enforcement. I have great respect for our officers and the difficult work they do. My concern is with the power of this technology and whether there are enough safeguards and transparency surrounding how it is used.
After what I have personally experienced, I cannot support expanding Flock cameras in Methuen. I believe it is time for the City to begin the process of removing them. I would rather put our trust and resources into the training, judgment, and investigative abilities of our police officers.
We can keep our community safe while also protecting the privacy and civil liberties of the people we serve.
— Patricia Valley
West District Councilor, City of Methuen
Lawrence Police wasted no time correcting the bold and imflammatory statements made by Valley. They issued their own press release, copied below, stating that her license plate was searched once, on May 14, 2025, in connection with a hit-and-run investigation which is lawful use of the tool she approved and she knew that because they told her… twice.
Suddenly, Valley discovers her plate was run using a Flock camera in Lawrence through a public website and becomes an activist calling for FLOCK removal overnight. The timing is not coincidental. Given the full story, the motivation is transparent.
This is what happens when elected officials vote on policy issues without doing basic homework.
**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**
Contact: Sergeant Maciel Sandoval
Public Relations
978-794-5900 Extension 404
msandoval@lawpd.com
September 23, 2026
Lawrence Police Department Clarifies FLOCK Search Inquiry
On September 17, 2026, the Department became aware of concerns raised by Methuen City Councilor Patricia Valley after she searched her personal license plate on haveibeenflocked.com. Based on the information displayed on the website, Councilor Valley believed her license plate had been searched 359 times by a Lawrence Police officer.
As part of its review, the Department examined the information displayed on the website and compared it with its own FLOCK records. The Department determined that the number “359 does not represent 359 searches of Councilor Valley’s license plate. Rather, the number appears to reflect the officer’s overall FLOCK search activity during a two-year period displayed on the website.
The Department’s records confirm that Councilor Valley’s license plate was searched through FLOCK during one search session on May 14, 2025. At the time, the officer was investigating a hit-and-run that occurred on May 12, 2025, involving a vehicle similar to Councilor Valley’s vehicle.
This information was provided to Councilor Valley by telephone and email at approximately 11:25 a.m. on September 22, 2026, prior to a public statement she issued on social media at approximately 2:00 p.m.
The Department is issuing this clarification because portions of the subsequent public statement do not accurately reflect the information provided by the Department or the findings of its review to Councilor Valley.
The Lawrence Police Department remains firmly committed to transparency, accountability, and the highest standards of service to our community. We recognize that, as a law enforcement agency, we are held to a higher standard, and we embrace that responsibility. We hold our officers and our organization to those same standards and welcome the accountability that comes with serving the public.
As part of that commitment to transparency, the Department has also been actively working with FLOCK to develop a transparency portal that will provide the public with greater access to information regarding the Department’s use of the technology. The portal is expected to be available to the public via our website in the near future.
At the same time, accountability must be grounded in fairness, accuracy, and a complete understanding of the facts. When the Department provides information regarding its policies, processes, reviews, or investigations, we expect that information to be considered and accurately represented.
The Department welcomes constructive scrutiny and recognizes the important role public oversight plays in maintaining trust. That scrutiny, however, should be based on complete and factual information rather than assumptions or incomplete accounts.
The Lawrence Police Department will continue to provide accurate information regarding its operations and remains committed to serving the community with professionalism, transparency, and integrity.
FLOCK Wasn’t a Secret
Let’s be clear: FLOCK’s surveillance implications weren’t breaking news when she voted to support their installation in Methuen. The system has faced scrutiny nationally for years. Civil liberties organizations have documented concerns about:
Lack of safeguards
Minimal oversight
Mission creep and expanded use
Privacy implications
This is a classic case of the leopard ate my face. A councilor approving surveillance technology should know this before voting. Valley either didn’t research the tool she was approving, or she didn’t care enough to until it affected her personally.
Both are damning.
The Self-Serving Narrative
What’s particularly galling is how Valley framed her reversal:
“A personal experience involving the Lawrence Police Department has caused me to look at this technology very differently.“
Translation: “This didn’t matter until it happened to me.”
She didn’t oppose FLOCK when it was surveilling other residents of Methuen. She didn’t raise concerns when the community could have benefited from her skepticism before the cameras were installed. She waited until her own vehicle appeared in the system.
That’s not civic leadership. That’s self-interest dressed up as principle.
The Hypocrisy Is Staggering
Valley now wants to remove FLOCK and invest instead in “training, judgment, and investigative abilities of our police officers.”
Those resources existed when she voted yes. The need for police training existed then too. Why didn’t she propose that alternative before approving the cameras? Because it wasn’t personal then.
This is the exact kind of leadership that erodes public trust: elected officials who don’t do their due diligence, vote for policies, and then grandstand when those policies affect them directly.
What This Says About Her Judgment
Councilor Valley is now touring radio stations and podcasts, positioning herself as a victim and privacy advocate. But the real story is worse: she approved something she apparently didn’t understand, investigate, or care enough about to scrutinize in advance.
When it came time to use her platform and research to protect Methuen residents, she didn’t. When it came time to oppose a questionable surveillance tool, she voted for it.
Only when her own license plate showed up did she suddenly become a voice for civil liberties.
The Standard We Should Hold
Elected officials should:
Research policy before voting
Acknowledge concerns raised by civil liberties groups before deployment, not after
Make decisions based on principle, not personal impact
Own their votes instead of reversing course when affected
Valley failed on all counts.
She approved FLOCK without adequate scrutiny. She ignored known concerns about the technology. She said nothing until her own vehicle appeared in the system. Then she launched a public campaign for removal, complete with radio interviews and media statements.
That’s not leadership. That’s opportunism wrapped in a victim narrative.
Methuen residents deserve elected officials who think before they vote, not ones who campaign against decisions they made when it becomes convenient.
The Real Scandal
Here’s what makes this worse than simple incompetence or negligence.
The Lawrence Police Department gave Councilor Valley accurate information, twice. Once by phone. Once in writing via email. They told her clearly that the “359” number represented one officer’s total FLOCK searches over two years, not 359 searches of her license plate. They explained that her vehicle was searched once, lawfully, in connection with a hit-and-run investigation.
She received this correction on September 22, 2026, at approximately 11:25 a.m.
Then, at approximately 2:00 p.m. that same day, she issued a public statement claiming she had been searched 359 times.
That’s not a misunderstanding. That’s a choice.
After being given the facts, twice, Valley decided the false narrative was more useful than the truth. A councilor who votes to approve surveillance technology, gets caught in that system, is corrected by law enforcement, and then still goes public with the wrong information… that’s not confusion. That’s strategy.
What’s the benefit of the false claim? Attention. Outrage. A compelling victim narrative for radio tours and podcasts. A news cycle that makes her a civil liberties crusader instead of a councilor who voted for something without understanding it that has been routinely used across the country to target minorities and assist in ICE raids.
The 359 claim is designed to go viral. The truth that she was lawfully searched once in a legitimate investigation doesn’t sell as well. So she used the false number anyway, knowing it was wrong.
And it worked. She got the attention she wanted.
The actual scandal isn’t that FLOCK exists or that Valley was searched. The scandal is that a sitting councilor was corrected on the facts, rejected those corrections, and deliberately spread misinformation to build her political brand. That’s not accountability. That’s calculated dishonesty.
This wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a strategic move to get something, anything, to put on next year’s campaign materials. “I fought FLOCK” plays better than “I voted for something I didn’t understand and later learned it could be used against me.”
If Valley had done her research before voting yes, she wouldn’t need to manufacture false narratives now. Instead, she’s building her next campaign on a lie.
If Valley had done her research before that vote, she might have asked the harder questions about safeguards, oversight, and transparency that actually matter.
Instead, she’s asking them now butonly for herself.
That’s not the kind of leadership Methuen needs.
It's either a case of wanting what you wished for or realizing the vote you cast because you were told to is not actually in your own best interest.