| # | Request | Sheriff response | Responsive records | What the records establish | Status | Missing | Issue and follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pre-Feb. 25, 2025 access, use, training, certification, subscriptions, participation, and related records. | See attached responsive records. | 2023 MOU-access email chain; Aug. 2023 account/setup and sharing emails; Audit 2023-Feb 2025.csv; Flock Access email; monthly search totals; training-related emails. | ACSO signed an MOU in July 2023, received a Flock organization and administrator accounts in August 2023, added many users, trained/certified personnel, and conducted searches beginning August 2023. | Partially answered | Signed MOU; complete account entitlement/history; training certificates; user-role history; terms applicable after April 1, 2024; complete search/audit records; any invoices or agreements for 2023-24 access. | Issue: The records establish substantial pre-approval activity, but the production does not explain its full legal/contractual basis or scope. Follow-up: Produce the signed MOU, account/role/export records, certifications, and the complete terms governing 2023-24 access. |
| 2 | Source of pre-Feb. 25, 2025 access, including agreements, sponsorships, pilots, partnerships, or another-agency access. | See attached responsive records. | July 2023 MOU chain; Aug. 2023 Galt access/setup email; camera-sharing invitations; Sept. 2023 free-plan email; Jan. 2024 Community Tier notice. | Initial access came through a Flock MOU/free-plan arrangement and requests/shares from other organizations; Galt granted access. | Partially answered | The actual MOU; exact free-plan or Community Tier terms; list of networks actually accepted and accessible; any sponsoring/partner agreement; basis for continued searches after April 1, 2024. | Issue: Invitations are not proof of accepted access, and the production does not reconcile continued search activity with the announced free-access change. Follow-up: Identify each access source, date, account tier, accepted network, and governing agreement. |
| 3 | Records explaining 2023-24 Flock use and how access existed before the March 2025 service agreement. | See previously supplied and attached records. | Same records as items 1-2; monthly searches; administrative audit. | The records show operational searches, user administration, training, and interagency network access before the County camera contract. | Partially answered | A coherent explanation of the free/MOU/Community Tier lifecycle; what data/cameras were searchable; Board/County Administration notice; all prior records specifically identified. | Issue: The response relies on “previously supplied” records without identifying them and does not explain the 2024 access model. Follow-up: Provide a written record index and all agreements/terms explaining the 2023-24 access. |
| 4 | All ACSO-Flock communications and attachments from Jan. 1, 2023 to present. | See attached responsive records. | 146 EMLs, extracted attachments, calendar records, marketing, deployment and training emails. | A large body of communications was produced, ranging from substantive sales/implementation threads to automated marketing and system notices. | Partially answered / completeness unclear | Referenced but absent attachments, including signed MOU, Board packet/resolution, deployment maps, some project/proposal and training materials; search methodology and custodians. | Issue: Several email bodies refer to attachments or links that were not included as files. Follow-up: Supplement missing attachments and identify custodians, search terms, date completed, and any excluded systems/accounts. |
| 5 | Every agency authorized to access ACSO ALPR data, date granted, and access type. | See attached records; report does not produce date; agencies may view captured still images. | Agencies Allowed Access to ACSO Data - June 2026.csv; pending-share email. | The report lists 224 organizations receiving ACSO network sharing. A separate pending-request email shows possible permission types such as Search, Hot List, VMS live/historical/download. | Partially answered | Grant dates; active vs pending/invited/revoked status; exact permission type; users/roles; alert access; audit of actual use. | Issue: The stated “view captured still images” description is not documented in the CSV and is less detailed than the permission types shown elsewhere. Follow-up: Export the full sharing configuration with dates, status, permissions, and revocations. |
| 6 | Every agency or organization whose ALPR data ACSO personnel may access. | See attached responsive records. | Networks Shared With ACSO.csv; sharing invitation emails. | The report lists 187 organizations sharing networks with ACSO, including at least 30 clearly out-of-state organizations and multiple network/product types. | Partially answered | Acceptance/activation date; active vs offered/pending status; role assignment; exact search/alert/video privileges; revocations; actual use. | Issue: A sharing invitation alone does not establish access, while network-list inclusion still does not prove a particular user had role access. Follow-up: Produce accepted/active share exports and role/network assignment history. |
| 7 | Installation date, activation date, and operational status of each current camera location. | See attached responsive records. | Camera Install Sheet.csv; deployment digest emails; Caltrans/permitting records. | Eight dated install entries are listed; deployment digests show gradual activation from 0 live in May 2025 to 8 installed/live by late 2025, with two still pending at points. | Partially answered | Two of ten contracted cameras/locations; distinct activation dates; serial/device IDs; current live/offline status; relocation history. | Issue: The install sheet has only eight rows for a ten-camera contract and conflates repeated locations without device IDs. Follow-up: Provide a ten-device inventory with location, install, activation, current status, and relocation history. |
| 8 | All grant/funding applications, awards, agreements, reimbursements, reports, correspondence, and related ALPR funding records. | See attached responsive records. | BYRNE SCIP worksheet; OES HSGP docs; PG&E record; Flock claim; EBMUD records; July 2026 funding email. | The production identifies Homeland Security, Byrne SCIP, PG&E/minor-equipment, and possible EBMUD funding/payment context. | Partially answered | Complete applications, award letters, grant agreements, approvals, reimbursement requests, accounting ledgers, partner agreements, and correspondence tying each dollar to cameras/services. | Issue: The records provide amounts and fragments but not a complete funding chain. Follow-up: Produce the complete grant and accounting files by funding source and fiscal year. |
| 9 | Specific grant sources referenced in the Feb. 25, 2025 Board item. | See attached responsive records. | Same funding records as item 8. | Funding sources and approximate allocations can be inferred, including FY21 Homeland Security, Byrne SCIP, PG&E, and tax/minor-equipment entries. | Partially answered | The complete Board-referenced grant source documentation and reconciliation to the $45,500 first-year invoice. | Issue: The produced fragments do not clearly reconcile all sources to the Board agenda amount and invoice. Follow-up: Provide a source-by-source funding reconciliation and the underlying award/approval records. |
| 10 | Monthly total number of ALPR searches from inception to present. | See attached responsive record. | Searches by month 2023 to June 2026.csv. | Monthly totals begin in August 2023 and total 4,080 through June 2026. | Fully answered as to monthly totals | User-level/detail logs were not requested in this item, but monthly totals do not explain the pre-contract access basis. | Issue: The first searches predate County-camera approval and installation. Follow-up: No supplementation needed for the monthly-count component; cross-reference the pre-contract access follow-up. |
| 11 | Whether any federal agency, task force, contractor, employee account, or indirect federal access existed. | No such records exist; ACSO only shares with California law-enforcement agencies. | Outgoing and incoming sharing reports; NCRIC references. | No federal account is expressly identified in the produced reports. The records do show NCRIC/fusion-center and broad sharing relationships requiring closer classification. | No responsive records claimed / unresolved | Search description; indirect access through fusion centers, joint task forces, shared state/local accounts, contractors, or downstream sharing; account-domain review. | Issue: The statement about outgoing California sharing does not answer whether federal or task-force personnel had indirect access. Follow-up: Describe the search and produce or confirm records for direct and indirect federal/task-force/contractor access, including NCRIC. |
| 12 | All agencies/entities/users that accessed, queried, received alerts, or otherwise used ACSO data. | Non-investigatory audit logs and agency search-privilege list supplied; other details withheld as investigatory. | Outgoing agency list; administrative audit; monthly searches. | The production identifies configured organizations and administrative activity, but not actual outside access, queries, alerts, or users. | Partially answered / material withholding | Non-investigatory fields from access/search logs; dates, agency/user identity, action type, result count, role, alert delivery; withholding log and segregability explanation. | Issue: The administrative audit is not an access/search audit, and an agency privilege list is not evidence of actual use. Follow-up: Produce segregated non-investigatory metadata and identify withheld record categories and fields. |
| 13 | Policies, audits, compliance reviews, or reports about outside sharing and Civil Code compliance. | Policies previously supplied and online; see attached responsive record. | General County IT Use and Security Policy; sharing reports; previously supplied ALPR policy (not duplicated in ZIP). | The production contains configuration reports and a generic IT policy, but no ALPR-sharing compliance review or audit report. | Partially answered / mostly unanswered | ALPR-specific sharing procedures, periodic reviews, Civil Code compliance assessments, approvals, misuse checks, and audit findings. | Issue: The attached generic IT policy is not an ALPR data-sharing compliance record. Follow-up: Identify and produce ALPR-specific compliance/audit records or confirm none exist after a documented search. |
| 14 | The policy referenced in the Sept. 13, 2023 email, including drafts, prior versions, approvals, and memoranda. | Policy manual previously supplied and online. | Previously supplied final policy only; no draft/approval file in current ZIP. | A final/current policy exists, but the record referenced as being prepared in September 2023 is not traced through drafting or approval. | Unanswered | Sept. 2023 draft; revision history; Lexipol workflow/metadata; approval/adoption record; implementation memo; prior versions. | Issue: Providing the current manual does not answer the request for drafts and approval history. Follow-up: Produce drafts, version history, approvals, or confirm none were retained and describe the search. |
| 15 | Audits, compliance/policy reviews, misuse/discipline/administrative reviews, or corrective actions since Jan. 2023. | Refer to audit log; no other records. Misuse/discipline/corrective-action records, if they existed, would be personnel records. | Administrative audit CSV. | The CSV shows system-administration events, not compliance findings or search-use review. | Partially answered / mostly unanswered | Confirmation whether misuse or corrective-action records exist; segregated non-identifying/aggregate portions; audit-review reports; policy review records. | Issue: The response is hypothetical (“if they existed”) and does not clearly state whether a search found such records. Follow-up: State whether each category exists and produce segregable non-personnel portions or a category-specific withholding description. |
| 16 | All categories of data captured, processed, stored, retained, or available through Flock. | See attached responsive records. | Contract/draft agreement; training and product materials; search/product emails. | Records describe still images, plate and vehicle attributes, Vehicle Fingerprint/search features, timestamps/location/direction, hotlists/alerts, exports, and potentially shared video/audio products from other agencies. | Partially answered | A system-specific data dictionary; enabled/licensed fields; storage locations; retention by category; distinction between ACSO cameras and shared networks. | Issue: Generic marketing describes capabilities that may not be enabled for ACSO. Follow-up: Produce enabled-feature configuration, data dictionary, and contract/order-form mapping. |
| 17 | Whether Vehicle Fingerprint is used and what characteristics are captured/searchable. | See attached responsive records. | Contract/product materials; search/training emails. | Vehicle characteristics such as make, color, body type and other visual attributes are described as searchable; the contract references Enhanced LPR/Vehicle Fingerprint capabilities. | Partially answered | Feature-enabled status for ACSO; exact characteristics; retention; audit of use; distinction between marketing claims and active configuration. | Issue: Marketing and contract language do not conclusively prove which feature fields ACSO actually enabled or used. Follow-up: Provide configuration screenshots/export and current feature list. |
| 18 | Image resolution, dimensions, format, and quality. | No responsive record exists. | None. | The production does not answer the technical image-specification request. | No responsive records claimed | Search details; any vendor spec, sample export metadata, procurement specification, or camera configuration. | Issue: Other produced marketing/spec materials do not supply precise dimensions or format. Follow-up: Confirm custodians/systems searched and request the technical specification from Flock if held by ACSO. |
| 19 | Screenshots, manuals, training, or records showing the user view of reads, alerts, searches, or history. | See attached records; requested screenshot records do not exist. | Training emails/links, product materials, Nova one-sheet, system notices. | The production provides descriptions and external training links, but few preserved user-interface records and no ACSO screenshots. | Partially answered | Locally retained manuals, webinar decks/recordings, help-center exports, user training attachments, sample reports, and any screenshots embedded in Board/training materials. | Issue: External links are not preserved records and may change or become inaccessible. Follow-up: Produce archived copies of materials relied upon or identify why they were not retained. |
| 20 | Whether system captures cropped plates, full vehicles, multiple/front/rear/side images, or combinations. | See attached responsive records. | Contract/product materials and training communications. | Records support still-image capture and vehicle imagery/attributes, but do not provide a definitive ACSO camera-by-camera imaging specification. | Partially answered | Camera orientation, number of images per detection, plate crop versus context image, front/rear capability, and sample metadata. | Issue: Generic vendor materials may describe products not deployed in Amador County. Follow-up: Produce deployed-camera specifications and configuration records. |
| 21 | Whether any available device can capture/process audio, detections, video, clips, continuous video, still images, or other media. | See attached records; Amador cameras capture only still images. | Contract/order materials; product marketing; incoming shared-network report. | The County-purchased Falcon devices appear contracted as LPR still-image cameras. Other jurisdictions share networks labeled Condor, Raven, PTZ, VMS and related products with ACSO. | Partially answered | Enabled access to shared video/audio networks; whether users had roles for VMS/live/historical/download; device-level capability/configuration. | Issue: The answer about Amador-owned cameras does not fully address devices or functionality “available to” ACSO through sharing. Follow-up: Produce role/network configuration for non-LPR shared products and clarify whether ACSO users can access them. |
| 22 | Whether audio/video/non-ALPR functions are enabled, licensed, subscribed to, or available under ACSO agreement. | ACSO could access these from other jurisdictions if shared. | Contract; incoming sharing report; pending-share permission email. | The contract is for Falcon LPR/FlockOS-related services; incoming network names indicate possible shared VMS, Condor, Raven and PTZ availability. | Partially answered / unclear | Exact enabled permissions and accepted networks; whether any ACSO user can access live/historical video, downloads, audio detections, or alerts. | Issue: The response concedes possible access but does not identify what is actually shared or enabled. Follow-up: Provide an export of roles, networks, and product permissions for all ACSO users. |
| 23 | How images are generated: stills, video extraction, buffered video, or another method. | See records; contact Flock for technical details. | Contract/product materials. | The Sheriff states deployed cameras capture still images, but the production lacks an authoritative technical record explaining the imaging pipeline. | Partially answered | Technical specifications or vendor correspondence held by ACSO; camera configuration and firmware documentation. | Issue: A factual answer is not a substitute for responsive records if ACSO relied on vendor materials. Follow-up: Produce any held technical materials or identify the search and confirm none are retained. |
| 24 | Materials requested/reviewed/relied upon about image capture, Vehicle Fingerprint, video, audio, and collected data. | See attached responsive records. | Flock sales emails, draft agreement, sole-source letter, product/marketing emails, training links, Nova materials. | ACSO received substantial Flock-authored marketing and technical explanations. | Partially answered | Missing attachments/linked resources; preserved demos/recordings; Board packet FAQ/privacy materials; evidence of what ACSO actually relied on. | Issue: Many records are generic marketing, and some referenced resources were not produced. Follow-up: Produce archived copies of referenced materials and identify which were used for policy/procurement decisions. |
| 25 | Copies of records responsive to the immediately preceding technical-materials item. | Request unclear; see above. | Same materials as item 24. | The intended cross-reference is reasonably apparent from context, but no separate clarification was sought. | Unanswered / treated as unclear | Clarification communication and complete copies of all item-24 records. | Issue: The response labels the item unclear rather than seeking clarification before closing it. Follow-up: Confirm item 25 was intended to request copies of item-24 records and supplement any omitted materials. |
| 26 | Category-by-category retention periods, storage locations, and whether retained by Flock, ACSO, or both. | See attached records; Flock stores captured images 30 days; investigating agencies may keep flagged/downloaded images longer. | Contract; Feb. 2025 retention email chain; policy previously supplied; audit/search reports. | Flock default image retention is 30 days and one-year cloud retention was offered for extra cost. Administrative/search-related records persist longer than 30 days. | Partially answered | Retention for searches, alerts, hotlists, audit logs, metadata, exports, flags, downloaded images, evidence, shared video/audio; storage locations and deletion rules. | Issue: The broad request is answered primarily with one sentence about captured images. Follow-up: Provide a retention schedule/data map for every requested category. |
| 27 | Explain conflict between 30-day Flock retention and Policy 473.5 minimum one-year server storage, including downloads/exports/local storage. | Same 30-day/flagged/downloaded statement. | Feb. 19-25, 2025 email chain; contract; final policy previously supplied. | ACSO identified the conflict before Board approval; Flock said one-year retention costs extra and default data deletes after 30 days. No produced record shows the “necessary changes” were made. | Unanswered / major unresolved conflict | Meaning of “the server”; policy revision or implementation decision; download/export/flag procedures; local storage; category-specific retention; evidence/case file rules. | Issue: The response repeats 30 days but does not reconcile or implement the one-year policy provision. Follow-up: Produce all policy drafts/revisions and a written, record-supported reconciliation of the two retention rules. |
| 28 | All ALPR vendors/products researched, considered, compared, demonstrated, or discussed before choosing Flock. | See attached responsive records. | Flock communications/proposals; historical Vigilant purchase orders, claim and 2023 renewal quote. | The records show extensive engagement with Flock and an existing Vigilant investigative-data subscription. They do not show a documented competitive vendor review. | Partially answered / claimed research not substantiated | Identity of the claimed second company; communications, demos, quotes, notes, product comparisons, and search methodology for other vendors. | Issue: Historical Vigilant purchasing is not the same as a contemporaneous comparison of Flock with competing ALPR camera vendors. Follow-up: Identify every vendor considered and produce all related records, or state that no comparative research records exist. |
| 29 | Criteria, factors, requirements, or standards used to compare ALPR vendors/products. | See attached responsive records. | Flock sales materials and vendor-authored sole-source letter. | Flock promoted its network, product suite, pricing and deployment approach. No ACSO-authored evaluation criteria were produced. | Unanswered | Requirements list, scoring, procurement criteria, privacy/data-sharing/retention standards, technical requirements, cost comparison. | Issue: A vendor-authored sole-source letter is not an agency evaluation framework. Follow-up: Produce evaluation criteria or confirm none were documented. |
| 30 | Reports, studies, analyses, notes, charts, scoring, recommendations, or records about vendor evaluation/selection. | See attached responsive records. | Flock proposal/quote, draft agreement, sole-source letter; Vigilant purchasing records. | No comparison report, scoring sheet, recommendation memo, or independent analysis was produced. | Unanswered | All evaluation/selection work product and internal notes; records held by Sheriff, GSA, County Administration, County Counsel, IT, purchasing. | Issue: The response points to records that do not perform the requested evaluation. Follow-up: Search all relevant custodians and produce the evaluation records or state none exist. |
| 31 | All ACSO-Flock communications and attachments Jan. 2023-Mar. 31, 2025. | See attached responsive records. | EMLs through March 2025 and attachments. | Substantive sales, MOU, mapping, quote, policy/retention, Board and kickoff communications were produced. | Partially answered / completeness unclear | Missing signed MOU, maps, Board packet/resolution, project attachment, recordings, and other referenced attachments; custodian/search detail. | Issue: Several chains refer to absent attachments or external-only resources. Follow-up: Supplement missing attachments and provide a production index tied to custodians and date range. |
| 32 | All ACSO communications with any other ALPR vendor/provider/reseller/consultant from Jan. 2023-Mar. 31, 2025. | See attached responsive records. | Historical Vigilant quote/purchase records; July 2026 fiscal email; no contemporaneous non-Flock communication EMLs. | A Vigilant renewal quote dated October 2023 exists, but no communications with a competing vendor were produced. | Unanswered / materially incomplete | Emails and attachments with Vigilant/Motorola or any other vendor; procurement/reseller correspondence; records explaining the quote and renewal decision. | Issue: The stated response implies responsive communications were attached, but the production contains no actual non-Flock vendor communication thread in the requested period. Follow-up: Produce the communications or confirm after a documented search that none exist. |
| 33 | RFIs/RFPs/RFQs, vendor responses, proposals, quotes, demos, literature, pricing, or marketing from ALPR vendors. | See attached responsive records. | Flock quote/proposal/draft contract/marketing; Vigilant renewal quote; historical POs. | Flock pricing and marketing and one Vigilant subscription quote were produced. No RFI/RFP/RFQ or broader competing proposals were found. | Partially answered | Any formal solicitation, competing quote/proposal, demo material, reseller response, and procurement file. | Issue: The record set is overwhelmingly Flock-authored and does not demonstrate market-wide solicitation. Follow-up: Confirm whether a solicitation occurred and produce all vendor responses. |
| 34 | Meetings, demos, presentations, webinars, trainings, or discussions with ALPR vendors, including date, attendees, vendor, subject. | See attached responsive records. | Calendar invitations; email chains; training and meeting notices. | Numerous Flock meetings, mapping calls, budget meetings, demos, kickoff and trainings are documented. | Partially answered | Attendance records, meeting notes, recordings, agendas, and any non-Flock vendor meetings. | Issue: Calendar invitations show scheduled events but not attendance or substance. Follow-up: Produce attendance/notes/recordings and identify canceled versus held events. |
| 35 | Why Flock was selected over competitors, including recommendations, approvals, comparisons, or justification. | See attached responsive records. | Flock-authored sole-source letter; Flock sales emails; Board/procurement communications; Vigilant historical records. | The production shows Flock advocating for its product and assisting with procurement, but no ACSO-authored comparison or documented reasoned choice over a competitor. | Unanswered | Decision memo; recommendation; comparative price/features; procurement justification; final decision-maker and approval chain. | Issue: A vendor-authored sole-source letter does not independently establish why ACSO selected Flock over alternatives. Follow-up: Produce the agency’s selection rationale and decision records, or confirm the choice was not documented. |
| 36 | Privacy, civil-liberties, constitutional, surveillance, retention, sharing, accuracy, reliability, or misuse concerns considered during selection. | See attached responsive records. | Retention email chain; Flock FAQ/privacy/marketing references; final policy previously supplied. | The production documents one concrete retention concern and vendor-provided privacy messaging. It does not show a broad, independent civil-liberties or reliability analysis. | Partially answered / mostly unanswered | County Counsel/IT/privacy review; accuracy/error analysis; data-sharing risk assessment; misuse controls; constitutional analysis; public-impact assessment. | Issue: The retention conflict was recognized, yet no produced record shows its resolution before or after approval. Follow-up: Produce all issue analyses and identify whether County Counsel or Administration reviewed them. |
| 37 | Communications/reports/recommendations to Sheriff, Undersheriff, command staff, County Administration, County Counsel, or Board about selecting Flock. | See attached responsive records. | Internal forwards, Flock sales/Board preparation threads, quote/contract/deployment records. | Some command-staff communications and Board-preparation activity are documented. | Partially answered | Complete internal decision chain; County Administration, GSA/purchasing, County Counsel and Board communications/attachments; recommendation and approval record. | Issue: The production is vendor-email heavy and thin on internal County decision records. Follow-up: Search all named custodians and produce the internal recommendation/approval file and missing Board attachments. |