Production completeness
Closed by agency
Two audit records were fully withheld, the administrative Event Log was partially redacted, and some requested access-list information remains unverified or unresolved.
Request summary
The requester asked the Amador County Sheriff’s Office for 15 categories of records covering January 1, 2024 to the present. The agency’s response said the Flock service agreement was entered in March 2025 after Board approval on February 25, 2025, and that the first camera was installed several months later.
Agency’s closure position
The final paragraph says the supplied information fulfilled the request and that the request was closed. It also states that the decision to withhold certain elements was made by the undersigned.
Public record Sheriff’s Office response, pages 1–2
Written response addressing request items 1–10. Page 2 continues items 9–15 and contains the closure language.
Open source recordResponse-by-response index
| # | Requested | Agency response | Result | Record status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contracts and vendor records | The agency directed the requester to the Master Services Agreement and Board approval packet. | Produced | 2025-flock-contract.pdf, 2025-02-25-board-approval.pdf |
| 2 | Current ALPR usage and privacy policy | The agency identified the full Sheriff’s Office policy manual; Policy 473 is separately archived here. | Produced | policy-473-alpr.pdf |
| 3 | Prior ALPR policies | The agency stated that no such records were available. | No records stated | — |
| 4 | Approval or implementation date | The agency referred to the contract and Board approval records. | Produced by reference | Board approval and contract |
| 5 | Public-meeting records | The agency identified the February 25, 2025 Board meeting and stated the Sheriff’s Office does not hold Board audio or video. | Partial / referred | Board approval packet |
| 6 | Camera locations | The response listed eight cameras at five general location groups. | Official statement | General locations listed |
| 7 | Retention period | The response stated a 30-day default, with longer retention when a user flags a record. | Official statement | Conflicts with Policy 473 language |
| 8 | Entities with access | The response said no out-of-state or federal law-enforcement access and referenced records identifying permitted California agencies. The archive does not yet publish a verified agency-by-agency list. | Partial | Agency list not yet verified |
| 9 | Data-sharing agreements and settings | The agency supplied two agreements and said California Flock agencies can use Amador data for “Search” and “Alert” functions. | Produced | Sacramento and San Rafael records |
| 10 | Audit and access logs | The agency withheld Network and Organizational Audit records as investigatory and supplied a redacted Event Log. | Partial / withheld | Redacted Event Log and withholding details |
| 11 | Search policies and training | The agency referred to the policy manual and attached records. | Produced | Policy and training emails |
| 12 | Thresholds for historical searches | The agency referred to the policy manual and attached records. | Produced by reference | Policy 473 |
| 13 | Hotlist policies and false positives | The response described user-created hotlists, confirmation before action, and 30-day purging of false-positive hits unless retained for investigation. | Official statement | Written response |
| 14 | Federal, immigration, out-of-state, or private sharing | The agency stated it does not share ALPR data with those categories. | Official statement | Written response |
| 15 | Counts of reads, hits, alerts, and searches | The agency reported 3,993,466 year-to-date reads and 2,119 searches since go-live, and supplied CSV exports for reads and alerts. | Produced / official statement | Three aggregate CSV exports |
Redactions and withholdings
The agency cited legal grounds in its response to request item 10. These are recorded as agency-cited justifications; the archive is not stating that the agency’s interpretation has been independently validated.
Network Audit and Organizational Audit
The agency stated that both audits were investigatory records and cited Government Code § 7923.600(a). In the same paragraph, it also cited Civil Code § 1798.90.55(b) and Government Code § 7927.705.
Open question: The response does not describe the fields, date range, or segregable portions of either audit.
See full withholding entries →Administrative Event Log
The agency stated that the raw Event Log contained investigatory-record information and that it removed information it considered not subject to disclosure before producing the spreadsheet.
Open question: The response does not identify which rows, fields, values, or identities were removed or match each redaction to a specific authority.
See partial-redaction entry →Agency response Request item 10 and closure language
The legal citations and withholding explanation continue from the bottom of response page 1 onto page 2.
Open page 1 · Open page 2Important questions remaining
What access existed before the 2025 contract?
Training and patrol-access emails date to 2023, while the supplied county contract was approved and executed in 2025. The current bundle does not contain the agreement or arrangement supporting the 2023 access.
Which retention rule controls?
The written response and Flock contract describe a 30-day default. Policy 473 says data downloaded to the server should be stored for a minimum of one year. The records do not reconcile those statements.
Where is the permitted-agency list?
The response refers to records listing California agencies permitted to access Amador data, but the archive does not yet publish a verified agency-by-agency list.
Revision history
- Added standardized evidence labels, a completeness assessment, citation tools, and permanent response-item anchors.
- Added redaction and withholding explanations with agency-cited legal grounds.
- Corrected the fulfillment date to June 18, 2026 and removed an unsupported July closure entry.