# Drake Vickers FOIA officer, [[Conway Police Department]] — per the F.O.I.A. unit on the CPD org chart (primary public record, [Conway PD org chart](../../web%20archive/2026-05-18/conwaypd.org/org-chart.md)). Sender domain `[email protected]`; the email signature on the 2026-05-28 appeal-transmittal message is "Drake O. Vickers / Conway Police Department FOIA." ## Role and affiliations - **FOIA Officer**, [[Conway Police Department]] (F.O.I.A. unit, Office of the Chief). ## Appearances in the corpus Vickers does not appear in `PD-2026-354` as a corpus actor — his role is as the FOIA officer who processed the requests. He appears in the FOIA-correspondence trace (Gmail, not `raw/`), and is the transmittal authority on the formal CPD Custodian-of-Records letters that close `PD-2026-477` and its appeal: - **2026-04-22 16:12** voluminous-records notice on `PD-2026-354` — Gmail thread `19db5f6e8bff4f15`. - **2026-04-22 21:00** recipient of Joshua's clarification reply (which bounced at 21:02 — `19db70005f95e137`). - **2026-04-23 13:18** completion notification on `PD-2026-354` — Gmail thread `19dba7dd24e3b9e1`. - **2026-05-22 13:36** the `PD-2026-477` completion / withholding notice arrives via the JustFOIA portal; the underlying [[Custodian Response Letter]] is signed in the institutional "Custodian of Records" title rather than by Vickers personally, but the FOIA-officer role makes him the transmittal authority. Gmail thread `19e4fe6bc7700b88`. - **2026-05-22 17:52** recipient of Joshua's FOIA appeal of the items-D/G/H/I withholdings (Gmail thread `19e50c97d4482910`); the email is addressed `[email protected]` with `[email protected]` and `[email protected]` cc'd. - **2026-05-28 09:01 CDT** transmits the Department's six-page response to the appeal as PDF attachment `Dunlap Response 5 27.pdf`; cover-note body reads in full: *"Provided is a response to the latest appeal request. Drake Vickers / Conway Police Department FOIA"*. The substantive content is the attached [[Custodian Response on Appeal]], signed in the institutional title. See [[2026-05-27 Conway PD Maintains Withholding on Appeal]]. - **2026-07-23 through 2026-07-25** — copied on [[Clayton Smith]]'s time-sensitive legal-review chain with City Attorney [[Charles Finkenbinder]], including Finkenbinder's July 24 analysis and Smith's July 25 response ([[City Attorney Review of ALPR Records Requests]], `doc16993720260803100106.pdf`, pp. 3-5). ## Notes - Vickers's 2026-04-22 16:12 voluminous-records notice estimated ~1,500 emails in scope and offered to narrow to ~430 emails described as `Mayor↔Flock↔admin` correspondence. The [[2026-05 Bounce-Scope Diagnostic]] established that the delivered production contains **zero** Mayor's Office addresses — making Vickers's framing inaccurate as a description of what was actually produced. The production is `CPD↔Flock↔Burningham` with substantial CPD-command/admin participation beyond Burningham. Whether Vickers' framing was a search-spec narrative that he then operationally widened, or a careless description of an already-CPD-only set, is undetermined; the later supplemental records request asks him directly. - Both the 2026-05-22 [[Custodian Response Letter]] and the 2026-05-27 [[Custodian Response on Appeal]] are signed in the institutional title "Custodian of Records, Conway Police Department" rather than by Vickers personally, though Vickers transmitted the appeal response. `FOIA-2026-230` shows Smith circulating later response chains for Finkenbinder's review and Vickers copied on the exchange; it does not establish that Vickers authored the earlier legal reasoning, which July versions were transmitted, or what decision followed the July 27 meeting request.