Entry details
What the agency stated
Network Audit
- Request involved
- ALPR Program Records Request, item 10
- Agency
- Amador County Sheriff’s Office
- Response date
- June 18, 2026
- Location
- Written response, request item 10, pages 1–2
- Type
- Full withholding · Investigatory-record withholding
Agency-cited justification
The agency stated that the Network Audit was considered an investigatory record and therefore exempt under Government Code § 7923.600(a). It cited Civil Code § 1798.90.55(b) and Government Code § 7927.705 in the same response paragraph.
Plain-language summary
The agency did not produce the Network Audit because it classified the record as investigatory.
Open question
The response does not describe the audit’s fields, date range, segregable portions, or which specific information would disclose ALPR information.
Organizational Audit
- Request involved
- ALPR Program Records Request, item 10
- Agency
- Amador County Sheriff’s Office
- Response date
- June 18, 2026
- Location
- Written response, request item 10, pages 1–2
- Type
- Full withholding · Investigatory-record withholding
Agency-cited justification
The agency stated that the Organizational Audit was considered an investigatory record and therefore exempt under Government Code § 7923.600(a). It cited Civil Code § 1798.90.55(b) and Government Code § 7927.705 in the same response paragraph.
Plain-language summary
The agency did not produce the Organizational Audit because it classified the record as investigatory.
Open question
The response does not describe the audit’s fields, date range, segregable portions, or which specific information would disclose ALPR information.
Administrative Audit Log
- Request involved
- ALPR Program Records Request, item 10
- Affected document
- Produced administrative audit-log CSV
- Agency
- Amador County Sheriff’s Office
- Response date
- June 18, 2026
- Type
- Partial redaction · Investigatory-record withholding
Agency-cited justification
The agency stated that the raw Event Log contained investigatory-record information and that it redacted information it considered not subject to disclosure before producing the remaining spreadsheet. The response cited Government Code § 7923.600(a), Civil Code § 1798.90.55(b), and Government Code § 7927.705 in the same paragraph.
Plain-language summary
The agency produced the Event Log after removing information it considered exempt.
Open question
The response does not identify the specific columns, values, rows, identities, or event details removed, and it does not match each redaction to a particular cited authority.
Flock audit log — June to August 2026
- Request involved
- Updated Flock Safety Event Log Request
- Affected document
- Produced XLSX
- Agency
- Amador County Counsel / Amador County Sheriff’s Office
- Response date
- August 24, 2026
- Type
- Partial production · Multiple cited exemptions and privacy grounds
Agency-cited justification
County Counsel stated that certain responsive records, or portions thereof, were deemed exempt and would not be provided. The response cited Government Code §§ 7923.600, 7922.000, and 7927.705; Evidence Code § 1040; Civil Code § 1798.90.55(b); and California Constitution, article I, § 1.
Plain-language summary
The agency produced a 27-row spreadsheet while stating that some responsive material was withheld.
Open question
The response does not identify which responsive records, rows, fields, or values were withheld, does not match particular omissions to particular authorities, and does not describe the segregability review.
Legal / privacy review records
- Request involved
- Focused request, item 5
- Agency
- Amador County Counsel / Amador County Sheriff’s Office
- Response date
- August 10, 2026
- Location
- County Counsel response, pages 4–5
- Type
- Privilege objection · Attorney-client / attorney work-product
Agency-cited justification
County Counsel objected to the request to the extent it seeks records protected by the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges, citing Government Code § 7927.705 and Evidence Code §§ 952 and 954.
Plain-language summary
The letter invokes legal privilege but does not identify a specific withheld record. It also says a follow-up search found no additional responsive records beyond earlier production.
Open question
The response does not clearly distinguish between two possibilities: responsive privileged records existed and were withheld, or no responsive legal/privacy review records were located. The archive therefore does not present the response as proof that no legal or privacy review occurred.