From the article, it seems like the woman had in fact driven her car to the town where the theft happened at roughly the same time for unrelated reasons, which

From the article, it seems like the woman had in fact driven her car to the town where the theft happened at roughly the same time for unrelated reasons, which isn't surprising because it's a neighboring town, and there was additional non-Flock camera footage of what she was doing there. It doesn't seem like any camera system mentioned here was actually recording anything inaccurate - the cops just claimed that the (non-Flock) camera footage from the package theft victim was evidence that the woman stole the package, and that's the camera footage the cop refused to show her at the time of delivering the summons. It also seems like this is exactly the footage that the woman later found online and used to exonerate herself, although that's not 100% clear from the article. It really doesn't seem like any surveillance camera system, Flock or otherwise, did anything wrong here. Flock (accurately) suggested her car was in the general area when the theft happened, a non-flock camera did record a person stealing the package who was apparently not her, and have no idea how reasonable it was for the cops to think that footage justified charging her (although the fact that they would not show her the footage is very suspicious). It doesn't seem like there's any particular policy on use of surveillance cameras that would've prevented this false accusation, and this is purely about the cops (or maybe just this one cop) charging someone based on bad evidence; which is problem in and of itself and isn't directly related to Flock or any other brand of surveillance cameras in particular.