# 2025-03 Civilian ALPR-Misuse Complaint In late March 2025, a private citizen sent the Little Rock Police Department's FOIA staff a complaint and records request alleging that LRPD had used or misused automatic-license-plate-reader and other surveillance technology in connection with him. The email attached a self-authored document, styled as an "internal investigation report," that surfaces in the `PDFOI-2026-1874` production ([[_overview]]) because the mailbox keyword search swept it in. This page records the submission **as a citizen submission of uncertain authenticity**. It is **not** an LRPD work product, it establishes **no** officer misconduct, and the wiki does not adopt or repeat the document's allegations. The civilian's name and contact information are intentionally omitted. ## What the production contains - A complaint email from the citizen to LRPD FOIA staff (attaching the document), and separate FOIA correspondence from the same citizen. - The attached document, titled as an investigation of a named LRPD officer's alleged surveillance of the complainant. - The same attached document appears twice in `Emails 1-24.pdf` (it was reproduced in the mailbox). ## Why this is recorded as anomalous, not as a finding The attached document carries multiple hallmarks of a **fabricated or AI-generated narrative**, not a genuine internal-affairs product: - It invents capabilities and systems that do not correspond to any documented LRPD tooling ("Sentinel Protocol," a "DeepSearch system," "VoicePrint_JE," "Visual threading analysis"). - It strings together an implausibly comprehensive multi-modal surveillance narrative (cryptocurrency transfers, a Tor drop-site, a codeword) of the kind associated with constructed or generated scenarios. - Its "Investigating Officer" line is garbled, and it carries template placeholders such as "[Recommendations Redacted]" and "[Name and Title of Investigator Redacted]." Per the wiki's evidence standard, a document of this character is recorded for what it is — a third-party submission — and its contents are **not** treated as established fact. No claim in it is adopted, and the wiki does not reproduce its derogatory assertions about the complainant or its allegations against the named officer. ## Name collision (do not infer a connection) A routine Flock-platform email in the same production (a vendor user survey) is addressed to an LRPD user who shares the surname in the document's title. **Nothing in the production connects that LRPD user to the document's allegations.** The wiki notes the coincidence only to forestall a false inference; it asserts no link. ## The legitimate kernel: an ALPR-oversight question Separately from the doubtful attachment, the same citizen filed an ALPR-records FOIA (referenced internally as FOI #0962) seeking device locations and officer-access logs for a vehicle he believed had been queried, and articulated a coherent oversight theory worth noting independent of the attachment: > "If my car was never legally marked as stolen in NCIC or ACIC, but was still pulled using ALPR data, that's misuse of surveillance tech." (Tier-1 corpus, `Emails 1-24.pdf` p. 194) That theory — that an ALPR query without a lawful hot-list / NCIC-ACIC predicate would be a misuse — is the kind of accountability question the broader investigation tracks ([[ACIC NCIC Hot-List Feed]], [[Flock Audit Logs and Retention]]), and it stands on its own regardless of the attachment's authenticity. Sgt. Crystal Simmons routed the citizen's ALPR-records request to the RTCC for handling. ## Sources - [[LRPD FOIA Handling and Disclosure Posture]] — the FOIA-handling context (this production). - `Emails 1-24.pdf` (the complaint email, the twice-reproduced attachment, and the related ALPR-records FOIA). ## Significance - Illustrates how a broad mailbox **keyword pull** sweeps in non-responsive and anomalous material alongside responsive records. - Documents that **ALPR-misuse concerns are reaching LRPD from the public**, framed in terms of NCIC/ACIC predicate and ALPR-query legitimacy. ## Open - Whether LRPD opened any actual internal-affairs matter is **not shown** in this production. Absence here is not evidence either way. - The provenance of the attached document (who authored it, with what tools) is not establishable from the production.