A Columbus police officer used his access to the Flock camera system to investigate a personal vehicle crash in which he was involved, public records show.
The crash happened Nov. 24, 2025, in Gahanna, as Officer Joseph Houseberg was on his way to police headquarters. After the other driver – who was found to be at fault for the crash – claimed a scuff on his rear bumper happened during the crash and made contradicting statements, Houseberg searched for photos retained by Flock cameras at his cubicle during an overtime shift on Thanksgiving, according to records the Columbus Department of the Inspector General provided The Columbus Dispatch in response to a public records request.
Houseberg found a photo of the scuff on the other driver’s car
over a week before the crash. He told the Gahanna officer investigating the crash, and Gahanna police reported the situation to the Columbus police Internal Affairs Bureau, the records show.
Columbus and other police departments have come under increased scrutiny over their use of Flock cameras, which record passing vehicles and automatically capture license plates and other information.
After a Columbus police audit found over 15,000 searches of city Flock cameras potentially related to immigration enforcement, Columbus City Councilmember Emmanuel Remy announced an Aug. 10 hearing to discuss the cameras. And the city has pared down sharing its data with other law enforcement agencies.
The Washington Post reported that at least 50 law-enforcement officers have used Flock for "unauthorized purposes," including stalking women.
The complaint against Houseberg initially was marked "unfounded," but the city Department of the Inspector General overturned that finding following a Columbus Police Civilian Review Board meeting and consultation with the Columbus City Attorney's Office. The inspector general said in a revised April 9 report that the search violated division policy, and Columbus police are reviewing the inspector general's findings.
The Dispatch tried to reach Houseberg by leaving a voicemail on a cell phone number listed in a records search as possibly belonging to Houseberg but did not receive a reply before press time. Officers are generally not allowed to speak to media without authorization from Columbus police.
Columbus police reviewing officer's Flock use
An attorney with the Columbus City Attorney’s Office told the Columbus Civilian Police Review Board Houseberg's Flock search was a personal use of the camera systems because he was not assigned to investigate the crash, and it happened in Gahanna, according to the inspector general's investigative report.
The Dispatch received recordings of inspector general interviews with both officers in response to a public records request, as well as copies of emails, internal memos and the investigative report.
Houseberg, who joined the division in 2008, said he searched the Flock systems because the Gahanna officer was out of the office and he did not know when he would return, the records show.
He told an inspector general investigator that Flock photos are only retained for 30 days, and he feared crucial evidence would be lost before the Gahanna officer returned. He said this was not a personal use of the Flock camera systems because he was investigating allegations of false statements made to an insurance company, a felony.
The Columbus Division of Police said its chain of command is reviewing the inspector general's findings.
“If any of the allegations are sustained, appropriate corrective action will be taken,” Columbus police spokesperson Nicole Jaros said. “This is the standard process for all completed DIG investigations.”
Officer searched Flock data during overtime shift
The crash happened as Houseberg was driving his personal vehicle to police headquarters for work. About 1:40 p.m. on Interstate 270 South in Gahanna, a 31-year-old Blacklick man changed lanes behind him, hitting the back Houseberg’s vehicle with the front driver’s side of his vehicle, according to a Gahanna police crash report.
The man told a Gahanna police officer multiple times that a scuff at the rear of his car happened during the crash, leading that officer to believe a third vehicle that drove away may have been involved, the Gahanna officer said in an interview with a DIG investigator.
On Nov. 26, two days after the crash, Houseberg said he got a call from State Farm. The insurance company said the other driver claimed to have passed out or suffered a medical emergency and wanted State Farm to pay for the damage, a new version of events regarding the crash, Houseberg said in his interview.
When Houseberg called Gahanna police, a dispatcher told him the Gahanna officer was out of the office and could not provide a return date, he said in the interview. Houseberg used Flock to search the other driver's vehicle the next day during a Thanksgiving overtime shift, he said.
Houseberg said he ran the search because Flock deletes images after 30 days, and he wanted to preserve any images of the vehicle's preexisting damage. He said he believed the damage did not happen during the crash because he examined it at the scene and was able to wipe dirt from it, indicating the scuff was not fresh.
"Basically as every minute goes by, the likelihood of losing that evidence is there," Houseberg said in the DIG interview. "It was purely to save that evidence just for giving it to Gahanna to let them make their own determination out of that."
When the Gahanna officer returned to the office, he called Houseberg back, and Houseberg told him about the image he found with the Flock search, the records show.
The Gahanna officer reported the search to his supervisor. He said in the inspector general interview that the search would have violated Gahanna police policy.
"Just based on what's been drilled into us for training, I was like, 'I don't know what to do with this information,'" the Gahanna officer said in the DIG interview.
Gahanna officer reported camera usage
The Gahanna officer looked up the Flock image on his own and added a supplement to the crash report marking the Blacklick man at fault for the crash "based on the evidence and the inconsistency of [his] story." The sergeant he consulted emailed a lieutenant to inform him about the situation, according to a copy of the email provided to The Dispatch in response to its public records request.
“My bigger concern is the FLOCK search for personal business,” the Gahanna sergeant wrote in a Nov. 29 email to a Gahanna lieutenant. “I’m sure we would frown upon this action, but I don’t know it this is any type of violation outside of possibly a CPD policy issue.”
The lieutenant emailed the Columbus police Internal Affairs Bureau Dec. 3. The subject line of the email was “Minor concern,” and he attached the email chain among himself, the lieutenant and the officer.
“I had a minor concern involving one of your officers reported to me,” the lieutenant said. “One of your officers was involved in ... [an] accident off duty and told our reporting officer he utilized your Flock camera system to run the suspect vehicle. I was told this is a violation of your Flock usage policy.”
Complaint initially 'unfounded,' but now under review
The inspector general initiated an investigation into the officer's Flock use. Initially, on Feb. 27, the DIG informed the Columbus police officer the investigation was closed, and the complaint was marked "unfounded," meaning no wrongdoing had occurred, according to a copy of the email notification.
The Columbus Police Civilian Review Board discussed the case at an April 7 meeting. Board member Anthony Caldwell said the inspector general marked the complaint as “unfounded” because the officer did not share what he found in the Flock search with unauthorized personnel, according to video of the meeting.
The Columbus police computer systems and mobile device policy states officers may only use Flock data for law enforcement purposes and cannot share it with “any non-law enforcement agency or unauthorized persons.”
Multiple members of the board disagreed with the inspector general's findings. They said even if Houseberg did not violate the letter of the policy by sharing what he found in the Flock search to unauthorized people, the search violated the policy’s intent.
“I don’t think the intent of the policy is to allow off-duty or on-duty CPD officers to go in and pull any data that they want, right?” Caldwell said. “It has to be an ongoing investigation or something that involves their duties.”
Members of the board also noted that Houseberg would never be assigned to investigate his own crash and stood to benefit from the other driver being found at fault.
The board discussed overruling the inspector general's findings. Instead, it returned the case to the inspector general for review. The inspector general consulted an attorney with the Columbus City Attorney's Office, who said Houseberg was acting as a private citizen when he searched the Flock database because he was not assigned to investigate the crash and it happened outside Columbus police jurisdiction.
The DIG investigates complaints against officers, and the Columbus Police Civilian Review Board reviews DIG investigations. The Columbus Division of Police then reviews each case itself and decides whether and how to discipline officers.
Public safety and breaking news reporter Bailey Gallion can be reached at bagallion@dispatch.com.
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Columbus officer used Flock to investigate personal vehicle crash, records show
