SHIELDS OF SHAME | GEORGIA FLOCK ABUSE DATABASE | CASE 021 | PRIORITY INVESTIGATION
Francis Michael Esposito Jr.: Georgia POST Revoked His Police Certifications After a Flock Surveillance Misuse Investigation
A police surveillance login. A private technology company. An internal investigation. And a reported state certification revocation dated April 3, 2026. The case of former Sandy Springs reserve sergeant Francis Michael Esposito Jr. stands apart from the dozens of Georgia Flock Safety investigations that became public in summer 2026. While many officers were arrested, fired or investigated, Esposito’s supplied Georgia POST record identifies a final action revoking his Basic Law Enforcement, Field Training Officer and Supervisory certifications.
Watch the Full Investigation: Esposito, Flock Misuse and Georgia POST Revocation
Watch the complete Shields of Shame investigation and interviews. Watch on YouTube ↗ · Subscribe to Shields of Shame ↗
Was Esposito the first Georgia officer revoked over Flock misuse?
Possibly — but not yet verified as a statewide first. The supplied POST report dates his final action to April 3, 2026, before many high-profile Georgia Flock arrests. A review of publicly reported Georgia cases did not identify an earlier confirmed Flock-specific POST revocation. However, there is no publicly verified complete chronological index of every POST revocation and its underlying facts in the sources reviewed. Older or less-publicized cases may exist.
The responsible conclusion is that Esposito is one of the earliest documented Georgia Flock-related POST revocations identified in this investigation, not definitively the first. A statewide records request for all ALPR/Flock-related POST cases and final orders is needed to establish priority.
The essential facts
Name: Francis Michael Esposito Jr.
Agency: Sandy Springs Police Department, Georgia
Position: Reserve sergeant; approximately 13 years’ law-enforcement experience reported
Previous agency: DeKalb County Police Department
Outside business: Signal 8, where he was described as Director of Customer Service
Internal affairs interview: August 20, 2025
Agency outcome: Sandy Springs publicly characterized the separation as termination; POST reportedly lists resigned while under investigation
Policy findings: Abuse of position or authority; common sense and judgment; conduct unbecoming
POST final action: April 3, 2026, according to supplied certification report
POST certifications: Basic Law Enforcement, Field Training Officer and Supervisory — listed as revoked in supplied record
Criminal conviction: None independently verified
Photo Exhibits: Esposito Taking the Oath and Signal 8
What Is Signal 8 Systems?
Signal 8 Systems describes itself as a Canton, Georgia public safety technology company founded in 2025. Its Smart Squad platform is marketed to law enforcement as a mobile tool for police reports, dispatch and records integrations, e-citations, interviews and intelligence sharing. Signal 8 says the platform can integrate with existing license plate reader systems through agency-configured connections. These are the company’s product claims, not independent verification of deployment or security.
Signal 8 announced a U.S. distribution partnership with ProLogic ITS, identifying Brandon Puhlman as its CEO. The company also describes itself as veteran-founded and focused on public safety technology.
The disputed connection to Esposito
According to WSB-TV’s reporting on the Sandy Springs investigation, a former Signal 8 employee alleged Flock camera data had been used for beta testing or validation. Signal 8 disputed receiving the information, stating that it had not instructed Esposito to run license plates and that he did not share, transmit or transfer Flock or Sandy Springs data to the company. The allegations and denial should not be conflated with a proven data transfer.
Signal 8 official website ↗ | Company profile ↗ | ProLogic partnership announcement ↗ | WSB-TV investigation and Signal 8 response ↗
Deep Dive: Signal 8 Systems, Smart Squad and Esposito’s Flock Access
Research update, October 22, 2026. This section distinguishes documented statements, corporate marketing, reporting and unresolved allegations. It does not accuse Signal 8 or its personnel of a crime.
What Esposito told Georgia POST
According to the POST case summary supplied to Shields of Shame, Esposito said he and a friend started Signal 8 to develop software similar to Flock, with different tools and potentially easier workflows for street officers. He acknowledged that his Flock access came from his reserve position at Sandy Springs Police Department and said he used that access to examine how Flock’s processes worked while comparing the systems. He likened the comparison to Android and iPhone manufacturers studying competing phones. He said he conducted the comparisons from home while off duty and did not recall making them while on duty. These are Esposito’s reported statements, not findings that his access was authorized or that data was shared.
What Signal 8 actually sells today
Signal 8 Systems describes itself as a Canton, Georgia public safety technology company founded in 2025. Its website markets Smart Squad, a mobile platform for report writing, citations, dispatch and records integration, digital evidence workflows, virtual interviews, officer communications and integrations with existing license plate readers. Its website says the product supports more than 6,000 officers, works offline and is designed to align with CJIS requirements. These are company claims; this investigation has not independently verified the deployment figure, security controls, or specific customer contracts.
Important distinction: Smart Squad has its own website, which describes Signal 8 as a U.S. reseller, integrator and hosting partner. A July 16, 2025 ProLogic ITS announcement likewise identifies a distribution partnership for Smart Squad’s U.S. expansion and describes prior use with Canadian law enforcement. Therefore it would be misleading to assume that Signal 8 originally developed every feature of Smart Squad or that the product shown today is the same application Esposito described to POST. The precise identity, development timeline and ownership of the software he compared remain unverified.
Who is behind Signal 8?
Brandon Puhlman is identified as Signal 8’s CEO in the July 2025 ProLogic ITS partnership announcement and in public company profiles. Third-party business directories list Frank Esposito as Director of Customer Success and Murang Pak as a board member; these directory entries are not independently verified current corporate filings, and a listing does not establish ownership. Esposito’s POST statement that he co-founded a business with a friend warrants comparison with Georgia Secretary of State filings, ownership documents and outside-employment disclosures. The exact ownership structure and whether Esposito retains an interest have not been established.
What the Sandy Springs investigation alleged, and what Signal 8 denied
WSB-TV reported that investigators examined Esposito’s use of city-issued Flock credentials to run multiple license plates and allegations that information was used for product testing or validation. The reporting attributes the testing allegation to a former Signal 8 employee. Signal 8 denied directing Esposito to run plates and denied receiving any Flock Safety or Sandy Springs data from him. The reported allegations should not be presented as proven transfers or as findings of corporate wrongdoing. Sandy Springs characterized his separation as termination; the POST summary records his account and later certification action.
Trade secrets and conflicts of interest: questions, not verdicts
Esposito’s reported comparison of police-access software with a private commercial product raises questions about whether the activity complied with department rules and any applicable Flock access agreement. Trade secret misappropriation would require evidence involving qualifying protected information and improper acquisition, disclosure or use; merely comparing publicly visible features or working on competing software does not prove a trade secret violation. Accessing plate data for an unauthorized purpose is a separate issue from obtaining Flock’s proprietary technical information. No trade secret judgment, criminal conviction, or established transfer of protected information to Signal 8 has been verified in the sources reviewed.
Marketing and transparency questions
Signal 8 markets its leadership’s policing experience and says its tools are built by people who have worn the badge. Its website provides a demo/contact form and business information, but a phone number was not apparent on the contact page reviewed. Third-party directories list a telephone number, whose current operation has not been verified. The site’s visual style or promotional videos cannot reliably establish whether AI-generated imagery was used. Neither design choices nor a missing visible phone number establish misconduct.
Records needed to resolve the story
The most useful evidence would be the original Flock audit trail and reason codes for Esposito’s searches; Sandy Springs’ Flock contract and acceptable-use rules; outside-employment and conflict disclosures; the whistleblower’s original statement and exhibits; correspondence between the department and Signal 8; Georgia corporate filings and ownership records; and contemporaneous product specifications establishing which software was under development. Those documents could clarify authorization, chronology and whether any protected information was used or transferred.
Sources and responses
Signal 8 official website | Smart Squad official website and partnership description | ProLogic ITS announcement, July 16, 2025 | WSB-TV reporting including Signal 8 denial | Carahsoft Signal 8 product listing | Georgia corporate records search
What investigators said he did with his Flock credentials
According to the internal investigation described by WSB-TV and the Shields of Shame POST case summary, Esposito accessed Sandy Springs’ Flock Safety license plate reader system using credentials issued for law-enforcement purposes while also working for a private company, Signal 8. The company was reportedly developing software with functionality comparable to Flock’s platform. Investigators examined whether he used government-system access to compare or validate technology for a commercial purpose.
Esposito reportedly told POST he was comparing the systems to understand how Flock operated and said he did so off duty, from home. The location or time of a search does not by itself authorize use of a police database. The central question is whether the query served an approved law-enforcement function under agency policy and applicable law.
News reporting also described an allegation that Flock-derived data had been transferred to Signal 8. Signal 8 expressly disputed that allegation. In a statement reported by WSB-TV, the company said it never instructed Esposito to run plates and that he had not shared or transferred Flock or City of Sandy Springs data to the business. The company’s denial must be distinguished from investigators’ suspicions and from the agency’s substantiated policy findings. No independent forensic proof of a transfer is established in the records reviewed here.
The whistleblower and the internal investigation
WSB-TV reported that a former Signal 8 employee provided information that helped trigger the investigation and alleged the Flock information was used for beta testing and product validation. The Sandy Springs inquiry then examined Esposito’s system access, outside employment and responses to investigators. Public reporting said the conduct raised questions under Georgia law, including potential corporate espionage. Potential legal violations discussed in an investigation are not criminal convictions or proof that charges were filed.
The supplied case-summary image is a critical primary-record exhibit. It should be read alongside the original interview, audit trail, any outside-business disclosure forms and the agency’s findings to determine exactly what conduct was established and what remained an allegation.
Watch the Internal Affairs Interview: Esposito Says “No Comment” and Resigns
Watch the Shields of Shame video of Francis Michael Esposito Jr.’s August 20, 2025 internal affairs interview. He repeatedly answers “no comment” and resigns near the end of the interview.
August 20, 2025: Garrity warning, repeated “no comment” answers and departure
According to the supplied case account, Esposito signed a Garrity warning during his August 20, 2025 internal-affairs interview and answered approximately nine questions with “no comment.” He reportedly resigned toward the end of the interview. A Garrity warning addresses protections against the use of compelled statements in criminal proceedings; it does not mean the officer was convicted, and declining to answer should not itself be treated as proof of every allegation.
Sandy Springs later publicly described Esposito as terminated after the investigation. His historical POST employment record reportedly uses the classification Resigned while under Investigation. Those two records may reflect different administrative perspectives or timing, and both should be preserved until the resignation letter, termination notice and separation form are examined together. WSB-TV reported that the department’s findings involved abuse of position and authority, common sense and judgment, and conduct unbecoming.
April 3, 2026: Georgia POST revocation
The supplied certification PDF and image show what makes this case especially significant. Unlike a mere suspension, pending investigation or separation from employment, the record reportedly identifies REVOKED as the status of Esposito’s Basic Law Enforcement, Field Training Officer and Supervisory certifications, with a final action dated April 3, 2026. These are distinct credentials; their simultaneous revocation is an important state-level outcome.
To make the claim airtight, the next primary record needed is the actual POST final order, consent order or council action stating the factual grounds, procedural history and effective date. The supplied certification report is powerful evidence of recorded status, but it is not a substitute for the full signed disciplinary order. The PDF and screenshot are linked below for readers to compare.
Why the chronology matters
Many Georgia Flock investigations became public in June through September 2026 as departments expanded audits and referred suspected unauthorized searches to the GBI. Esposito’s reported April 3, 2026 POST revocation predates those announcements. That makes the case an unusually early example of state certification discipline connected to alleged misuse of a commercial license plate surveillance network.
However, case summary issued quickly and first officer revoked are separate questions. The August 2025 internal investigation and April 2026 final action span roughly seven and a half months. The exact date the case reached POST, the date the state opened its investigation, the date the summary was drafted and the date the council voted must be established from the case docket. Without those dates, it would be premature to describe this as the fastest POST Flock proceeding.
What about other Georgia Flock cases?
Other cases have produced criminal charges, firings, resignations and pending POST investigations, but those outcomes are not equivalent to revoked certification. For example, the GBI announced Albany Police arrests July 6, 2026; Savannah Police announced six terminations August 7; and the GBI announced a Clayton County deputy’s arrest September 2. None of those announcements independently establishes an earlier POST revocation for Flock misuse. Individual officers’ current POST files may contain later sanctions not reflected in public news reporting.
To test a first-in-Georgia claim, the investigation must examine POST final actions statewide, including cases labeled computer misuse, unauthorized database access, abuse of position, ALPR misuse, license plate reader misuse or conduct unbecoming, rather than searching only for the brand name Flock.
Investigation timeline
- Before 2025: Esposito serves in law enforcement, including DeKalb County Police and Sandy Springs, ultimately as reserve sergeant.
- 2025: Allegations arise about use of Sandy Springs Flock credentials in connection with Signal 8’s commercial software work.
- August 20, 2025: Internal-affairs interview under Garrity warning; Esposito reportedly declines to answer several questions and resigns.
- October 30, 2025: WSB-TV reports the termination, alleged business-related Flock access and Signal 8’s denial of receiving data.
- April 3, 2026: Supplied Georgia POST record lists final action revoking three certifications.
- Summer 2026: Numerous additional Georgia Flock cases become public following agency audits.
- October 12, 2026: Shields of Shame highlights Esposito as an early documented Flock-related revocation; statewide-first status remains unconfirmed.
Five original case exhibits
Georgia POST certification PDF — reported revocation ↗
Certification status screenshot ↗
Sources and related investigations
WSB-TV — Sandy Springs investigation and Signal 8’s response, October 30, 2025 ↗
Original Shields of Shame Esposito case report ↗
Standing Record — case chronology and company denial ↗
GBI — Albany Police Flock arrests, July 6, 2026 ↗
Savannah Police — August 7 Flock terminations ↗
Institute for Justice — license plate reader abuse database ↗
Records requests that could establish a Georgia first
- Georgia POST: Every final revocation, probation, suspension, consent order and case summary since 2018 involving Flock, ALPR, license plate readers, police databases, unauthorized vehicle queries, commercial data use or surveillance access
- Georgia POST: Esposito’s signed April 3, 2026 final order, complete investigative file, referral date, case opening date, interview transcript and case-summary creation date
- Sandy Springs Police: Internal Affairs file, Garrity warning, August 20 interview recording, resignation letter, termination notice and final findings
- Sandy Springs Police: Complete Flock account audit trail, query justifications, search results, exports, outside-device access, sharing logs and login history
- City of Sandy Springs: Outside-employment disclosures, conflict-of-interest policies, Flock access agreements, contractor/vendor restrictions and any notices to Signal 8
- Prosecutors and GBI: Any criminal referral, investigative outcome, charging decision or declination involving the same events
Frequently asked questions
Was Francis Esposito’s Georgia police certification revoked?
According to the supplied POST certification record, yes: Basic Law Enforcement, Field Training Officer and Supervisory certifications were marked revoked, with final action April 3, 2026. The signed final order is still needed to document the exact grounds and effective date.
Was he the first Georgia officer revoked over Flock misuse?
Possibly, but a complete statewide comparison has not yet been verified. The defensible claim is that his is among the earliest documented cases identified here.
Did Signal 8 receive Flock data?
Investigators examined allegations of commercial use or sharing; Signal 8 denied receiving any Flock or Sandy Springs data from Esposito. A completed forensic finding establishing transfer was not independently verified.
Was Esposito fired or did he resign?
Sandy Springs publicly described him as terminated, while his historical POST employment entry reportedly states resigned while under investigation. Both should be reconciled using the underlying personnel documents.
Was Esposito criminally convicted?
No criminal conviction connected to these allegations was independently verified in the reporting reviewed.
Updated October 12, 2026. The original POST PDF and images are linked for independent examination. Claims about statewide firsts, criminal liability and transfer of data are carefully qualified where evidence is incomplete.