Advocates for surveillance technologies like license plate readers and facial recognition often point to audit logs as a key accountability mechanism, but this trust is misplaced. An analysis of police usage shows these logs are an ineffective safeguard against abuse. They primarily rely on officers to self-report the reasons for their searches, and the justifications provided are frequently vague, unverified, and meaningless, such as ‘investigation.’ While logs have occasionally exposed misconduct, this only incentivizes officers to be more deceptive. Features added by vendors like Flock, such as requiring a case number, are easily circumvented. Ultimately, audit logs create a false sense of security, functioning more as ‘accountability theater’ than a genuine check on the power of mass surveillance. They are a procedural minimum, not a solution.