Louisville Officer Charged with Misconduct for Allegedly Using Flock System to Track Woman
Asad Zahir faces five counts of official misconduct and five counts of unlawful computer access after allegedly conducting over 2,000 searches on vehicles belonging to the mother of his child.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 26, 2026, 11:19 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 26, 2026, 11:19 p.m. ETFirst report
Louisville Officer Charged with Misconduct for Allegedly Using Flock System to Track Woman
A Louisville police officer has been charged in connection with the alleged misuse of a license plate reader system. Asad Zahir, 40, faces five counts of first-degree official misconduct and five counts of fourth-degree unlawful access to a computer, according to a report by WAFB. The charges were filed in Jefferson District Court.
The government alleges that Zahir abused his access to the Flock safety system to conduct more than 2,048 searches targeting two Kentucky vehicle registrations belonging to the mother of his child, monitoring her movements across Kentucky and Indiana. He also allegedly harassed her and made threatening comments, WAFB reported.
The Shively Police Department is investigating the case. These charges are only allegations at this stage, and the case has not been decided by a court. Zahir is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 03:22current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 03:19current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.