Hayden Green Charged in Flock Camera Vandalism Case
Hayden Green faces theft and criminal damage charges over damaged Flock cameras and a radar unit.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 22, 2026, 11:14 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 22, 2026, 11:14 p.m. ETFirst report
West Suburban Man Charged With Theft, Criminal Damage to Government Property in Flock Camera Vandalism
Hayden Green has been charged with theft and criminal damage to government property, according to the DuPage County State's Attorney's Office. The charges stem from allegations that Green spraypainted, cut wires, and stole multiple Flock cameras in Glendale Heights, unincorporated DuPage County, and Bloomingdale, and damaged a pole-mounted radar unit near Reskin Elementary School.
The case is at the charging stage, and the allegations have not been proven in court. The DuPage County State's Attorney's Office announced the charges in a litigation release. Further details, including the date of the alleged incidents, have not been established.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 123 Aug 2026, 03:23current
First published.
- Version 123 Aug 2026, 03:14current
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.