The Infamous Ex-Chief cover image

The Infamous Ex-Chief

The Infamous Ex-Chief

By: The Infamous Ex-Chief
Listen for free

Season's Savings | 0.99 €/mo for 3 months

6.99 €/month thereafter - terms apply. Cancel monthly.

The Infamous Ex-Chief is a hard-hitting podcast that exposes corruption, misconduct, and failures within the justice system without pulling punches. Hosted by a former police chief who believes in real accountability, this show dives deep into wrongful convictions, prosecutorial overreach, and law enforcement leadership gone wrong.


Each episode dissects cases that don’t add up, challenges flawed investigations, and brings hidden truths to light. We are pro-police, not pro-corruption, because justice should be about facts, not politics.


Join Tentacle Nation as we uncover the stories they don’t want you to hear. Available on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, and Rumble.


© 2026 The Infamous Ex-Chief Politics & Government True Crime
Episodes
  • Flocked Episode 4 Reviewed By____

    Flocked Episode 4 Reviewed By____
    30 Oct 2026
    Send us Fan MailIn 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 showCommittee 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 reviewThe 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 reportingThis 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 contextThe 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 cityWritten 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 ClosingLinks Video version on YouTube (add link once live) Website: www.theinfamousexchief.com Discord: https://liinks.co/the.infamous.exchiefPro Cop Not Pro Corruption.Support the showVisit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief
    Show more Show less
    26 mins
  • Whose Cameras Are These? Outside Agency Access to Flock License Plate Cameras in Medina County, Ohio

    Whose Cameras Are These? Outside Agency Access to Flock License Plate Cameras in Medina County, Ohio
    23 Oct 2026

    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
    Show more Show less
    29 mins
  • Flock Series, Episode 2: Reading the Audit Logs and the Agencies' Written Responses

    Flock Series, Episode 2: Reading the Audit Logs and the Agencies' Written Responses
    16 Oct 2026

    Send us Fan Mail

    pisode 2 of The Infamous Ex-Chief's series on Flock Safety license plate readers examines how to interpret organization audit logs obtained under the Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, and the written responses several agencies provided when asked to explain searches that carry no case number. What this episode covers 1. How an audit row is generated. According to the Wadsworth chief, each refinement of a search registers as a new search, so row counts reflect entries in the log and not the number of distinct investigations. 2. The distinction between a public records request, which seeks an existing record under R.C. 149.43, and a request for comment, which an agency may decline. 3. Four categories of explanation offered for blank case number fields: no requirement in effect, an active matter without a case number yet assigned, a case number that was available and not entered, and differing practices among users within one department. 4. The agencies that responded in writing: the Medina County Sheriff's Office, Medina PD, Wadsworth, Lodi and Medina Township. The agencies that did not respond to the request for comment: Montville Township and the City of Brunswick. Seville and Hinckley Township received records requests only and are not counted in either group. 5. Oversight of the audit process, including who conducts audits and who reviews the reviewer. Timing disclosure Medina PD reports that its requirement to enter a case number was activated on August 28, 2026, which was two days after the host's public records request. The Medina PD chief states that the changes were not made in response to that request. The host presents the dates and the chief's statement without drawing a conclusion. Montville Township Montville's counsel responded to the host's pre publication questions as though they were a public records request and denied them on the ground that they did not seek existing records. The host acknowledges the questions were not labeled as a request for comment. The host submitted a separate public records request for specific records on the same day, which is pending at the time of recording. Important limitations This episode does not assert that any individual acted with improper intent or violated any law, policy or rule. Statements attributed to agencies are quoted from their written responses and have not been independently verified against underlying case records. Characterizations of agency practices are the host's opinion based on the records reviewed. Row counts are drawn from the host's review of the audit logs and do not represent a count of separate investigations. No officer names are used in this series. Individuals are referred to by role. Audit logs and unredacted records will be made available on the series Discord at the conclusion of the series: https://liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief www.theinfamousexchief.com


    Support the show

    Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief
    Show more Show less
    31 mins
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet