Why these emails are here
The requester sent follow-up messages to Board members after the August 11 Flock discussion. This page archives the three supplied threads in which a supervisor replied. They are preserved in the Flock Surveillance Collection because the correspondence concerns the Flock program, the Board’s future review, public input, privacy, and public-safety arguments.
Publication treatment
The readable PDFs and public EML derivatives omit the requester’s email address and mail-system transport/authentication headers. Jeff Brown’s received EML included two Megan’s Law map screenshots centered around private residences; those two maps are omitted from the public derivatives. A separate Amador County Sheriff’s Office monthly-review graphic attached to Brown’s email is preserved.
Jeff Brown · August 12, 2026
Brown said he would keep an open mind and continue asking questions as the Board moved toward a January discussion, and said he took the prior day’s public comments seriously. He also described his understanding of how the Sheriff’s Office uses Flock, repeated the position that no real-time notifications are sent to department computers, referenced SB 1013, and stated that Amador County already met the bill’s requirements.
As part of his public-safety argument, Brown cited Megan’s Law counts within five miles of the requester’s address and his own, Sheriff’s Office monthly crime statistics, and staffing east of Highway 49. Those statements are preserved as Brown’s official correspondence; this record page does not independently validate each factual assertion.
Pat Crew · August 12, 2026
Crew wrote that by contract renewal he intended to have fully vetted both sides as thoroughly as he could. He framed the issue as a question of public safety versus privacy and wrote that “No big brother watching in Amador County” had been conveyed at the meeting.
Dan Epperson · August 13, 2026
Epperson thanked the requester for the input, wrote that the vocal public was mostly against the ideas behind the Flock cameras, and said he was diligently looking into claims from both sides. He closed with, “Keep up the good fight.”
How to read this correspondence
The replies document what individual supervisors wrote after the meeting. They are not Board actions and do not change the August 11 votes. Claims about Flock capabilities, statutory compliance, crime statistics, or other factual matters should be read alongside the source-linked Board meeting review and released records.