# Federal Public Defender FOIA and the "No-LPR-System" Position In April 2025 the **Federal Public Defender** for Arkansas filed an Arkansas FOIA about ASP's ALPR use. ASP's stated position was that it *"does not 'have' a license plate reader system."* The Federal Public Defender contested that position on the text of the [[Arkansas Automatic License Plate Reader System Act]] and — pointedly — on an Arkansas State Trooper's own report admitting ELSAG use. This exchange is the anchor for [[T007 - ASP No-LPR-System Position vs Documented ELSAG Operation|T007]]. ## What's inside ### `RE_ Freedom Of Information Request from Arkansas Federal Public Defender.msg` (2025-04-15 → 04-16) **Internal ASP routing.** [[Ryan Roach]] (DPS Attorney) forwards the request to [[Mike Patterson]] (ASP): *"We received a request below about ASP's use of license plate readers and LtC. Aaron mentioned that you may have some helpful insight/information into this. Would you be free to meet with Jesi and me about this?"* (Tier-1 corpus, `RE_ Freedom Of Information Request from Arkansas Federal Public Defender.msg`). Patterson loops in [[Dennis Overton|Lt. Overton]]: *"I have copied Lt. Overton on this as he probably has more insight. He will contact you shortly."* **The Federal Public Defender's challenge.** Attorney [[Mike Schriver]] (`[email protected]`), cc James Pierce and Rose Riggs (fd.org), responds to ASP's position: > *"Regarding your response that ASP does not 'have' a license plate reader system, our reading of statute A.C.A. 12-12-1805 refers to state entities that 'use' a license plate reader system. Clearly, the ASP is a state 'entity' as envisioned by the A.C.A. 12-12-1801 et seq (Automatic License Plate Reader System Act or ALPRSA)… The ASP is such a governmental entity that uses the ALPR."* (Tier-1 corpus, `RE_ Freedom Of Information Request from Arkansas Federal Public Defender.msg`). > *"We are aware that such license plate reader systems are in fact employed, relied upon and used by the ASP to conduct investigations, which subjects it to all the requirements A.C.A. 12-12-1801, et seq… 'use' is the threshold requirement, and ASP does use such technology."* (Tier-1 corpus, same file). The Federal Public Defender cites a trooper's report as proof of use: > *"while reviewing Arkansas State Trooper Tanner Hess' report he admits to using the ELSAG License plate reader system. His report states in part…'Entries on the ELSAG license plate reader system showed that a white Sprinter van…'"* (Tier-1 corpus, same file; the report excerpt continues with a vehicle registration, withheld here per surveillance-PII handling). ## Key takeaways - **ASP's FOIA-facing position was that it does not "have" an LPR system.** The Federal Public Defender quotes that response back verbatim in order to contest it (Tier-1 corpus, `RE_ Freedom Of Information Request from Arkansas Federal Public Defender.msg`). ASP's own position is thus documented through the requester's rebuttal. - **The contradiction is on the record within this production.** The same corpus that documents ASP's ELSAG procurement, deployment, training, and hot-list operation also documents ASP telling a requester it does not "have" an LPR system. The Federal Public Defender's statutory point is that the Act turns on **"use," not ownership** (A.C.A. § 12-12-1805) — and a trooper's report admits ELSAG use. This is the substance of [[T007 - ASP No-LPR-System Position vs Documented ELSAG Operation|T007]]. - **Defense-side discovery interest in ASP ALPR is now documented.** The requester is the [[Federal Public Defender (Districts of Arkansas)|Federal Public Defender]] — criminal-defense counsel probing ASP's ALPR use in the context of trooper reports. This is a distinct accountability vector from journalistic or citizen FOIAs. - **Overton is ASP's substantive ALPR knowledge-holder even for legal/FOIA questions.** Both [[Ryan Roach|Roach]] and [[Mike Patterson|Patterson]] route the request to Overton for "insight" (Tier-1 corpus, same file), consistent with his operational-owner role across this production. ## Cross-references - [[Citizen Flock FOIA and ASP Withholding Strategy]] — a parallel Nov–Dec 2025 ALPR FOIA where Overton coaches counsel on withholding. - [[Act 668 of 2025 — Internal ALPR-Law Summary]] — the § 12-12-1805 reporting/use framework the Federal Public Defender invokes. - [[2026-06-05 Roach Route Map and Item-4 Disclaimer]] — ASP counsel's separate no-records disposition on the CJIS-oversight question. ## Open questions / follow-ups 1. **What records, if any, did ASP ultimately produce to the Federal Public Defender?** This is ASP's *sent* mail; the disposition is not in the extracted set. 2. **How did ASP reconcile "does not have" with its documented ELSAG operation?** Whether the phrasing was a term-of-art distinction (e.g., HIDTA-hosted vs. ASP-owned servers) or a contested characterization is not resolved in the record — see [[T007 - ASP No-LPR-System Position vs Documented ELSAG Operation|T007]]. 3. **Trooper Tanner Hess's underlying report** is quoted by the requester but not itself in this production.