Why this record matters
The Sheriff produced this email chain with the August 10 focused response. It supplies outgoing ACSO messages that were not in the July production and also documents a separate camera-installation issue.
Board-presentation preparation
July 22: The Undersheriff told Flock that the Sheriff had been asked to speak to the Board about the County’s use of Flock cameras after a Board member received questions and concerns. ACSO asked the vendor for materials, success stories, talking points, and other material that could be used for the discussion or agenda materials.
Flock response: The vendor supplied links to its own “Myths vs Facts,” compliance, data-security, law-enforcement-access, rights-and-safeguards, cybersecurity, ICE-sharing, and hacking materials, recommended them as a baseline packet, and offered to tailor follow-up materials to anticipated questions.
These are vendor-provided advocacy/marketing or trust materials. Their presence in an ACSO email chain does not independently verify the vendor’s claims.
Two locations left to install
July 27: Flock relayed a project-manager message stating that there were “two locations left to install” and that neither the County nor Caltrans was then claiming the right-of-way, so no permit was being issued. The message listed possible options: private-property placement, moving the locations completely, or proceeding without a permit if ACSO was comfortable doing so because no entity was claiming the right-of-way.
July 29: ACSO replied that Public Works now believed the County owned the property and therefore should approve a permit. The message also requested a phone call with the Flock representative.
The chain does not identify the two locations. The archive therefore does not assign the two sites to any road, intersection, or map point. A new August 10 request seeks those locations directly.
Open the pending location request →