First case: Travis Stanton and a 17-year-old girl

The first case involves former Deputy Travis Stanton. Investigators allege he used police databases to look up information about a 17-year-old girl and her family. The sheriff’s office says he visited her workplace at least nine times between July 28 and September 17. An online complaint from the teenager led to the investigation.

Stanton resigned while under investigation. He was arrested on one count of unauthorized computer access and one count of official misconduct.

A teenager should be able to go to work without worrying that someone with a badge is using police databases to learn about her and her family.

The public and lawmakers also need accurate information about the technology involved. The reporting describes Stanton’s use of police databases, including the Florida Crime Information Center. The sources reviewed do not clearly establish that he used Flock cameras to track the teenager’s movements. That part should be clarified before it is repeated as fact.

Second case: Karl Gwynne and a different woman

In a second, separate and unrelated case, former Deputy Karl Gwynne allegedly searched for information about an adult woman who had rejected his romantic advances. Authorities say he conducted 381 searches across five law-enforcement databases between January 2025 and July 2026. He resigned and faces four unauthorized-access counts and one official-misconduct count.

TCPalm’s reporting, republished by AOL,
identifies 300 license-plate-reader searches, including Flock searches, with 207 conducted while he was off duty. Those numbers belong to Gwynne’s case. The 381 figure covers searches across all five databases.

This investigation followed a media inquiry about unusual searches. TCPalm reports that the agency initially defended the searches as valid before further investigation identified misuse. That deserves attention. Reporters asking questions helped bring the problem to light.

The risk to people on the registry

The public and lawmakers need to consider whether the same access could be misused to intimidate or retaliate against someone on the registry.
FDLE says its public registry includes photographs, current addresses and vehicle information.
Flock describes records containing license plates, camera locations and timestamps.
That combination raises a reasonable concern that someone with access could misuse the information to monitor a person’s routines or apply pressure for personal reasons.

This is a potential risk, not a finding that retaliation against a registrant occurred in either of these two cases.
Whether a particular search was legitimate or retaliatory would require evidence about its purpose and the surrounding conduct.

A person’s registry status should never be treated as permission for harassment or personal retaliation. Someone who files a complaint, speaks to the media or advocates for reform should be able to do so without being intimidated through misuse of police access.

Flock says searches must have an investigative purpose and are logged for review.
The public and lawmakers need to know whether those records are actually being checked, how improper searches are investigated, and how people can report suspected misuse safely.