# LRPD FOIA Handling and Disclosure Posture This page collects the records in production PDFOI-2026-1874 that show how the Little Rock Police Department (LRPD) handles requests for Flock automatic-license-plate-reader (ALPR) records. The production documents an explicit decision to withhold partner-site identities from a press request, a categorical statutory denial of Flock camera footage sought in a death investigation, and Flock's own distribution to customer agencies of case law and messaging designed to keep ALPR data out of public-records disclosure. Because one of these records is an internal note describing what was deliberately excluded from a prior production, it bears directly on the completeness of this very production. ## What's inside The relevant materials are all within the first source PDF of this production ("Emails 1-24.pdf"). They include: an internal LRPD email transmitting records to a FOIA processor with a stated exclusion of "safety/security information" and "partner sites" (p. 251); the processing thread for that request, FOI #0481, filed by a journalist at The Markup (p. 237); a JustFOIA completion notice denying request PDFOI-2026-1668 under Ark. Code Ann. 12-12-211 (pp. 980-981); Flock newsletter content citing Rodriguez v. City of Lakewood (p. 566) and US v. Porter (p. 1331); and a Flock webinar invitation titled "How to Speak to City Councils" (pp. 16, 888). ## Key takeaways **LRPD explicitly withheld partner-site identities from a press FOIA.** Producing records for FOI #0481, Lt. [[Courtney Bewley]] wrote to the FOIA processor: "Attached are the emails I could locate that fit within the request that did not contain safety/security information or identify partner sites as we discussed." (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 251, "Attached are the emails I could locate that fit within the request that did not contain safety/security information or identify partner sites as we discussed.") The phrase "as we discussed" indicates the partner-site exclusion was a pre-agreed editorial decision rather than a line-by-line statutory redaction. This is significant for assessing the completeness of the present production as well, which is itself a Flock-keyword document set. **The withholding email was tied to a request from a journalist.** FOI #0481 was filed by Anne Li of The Markup, who corresponded with LRPD Sgt. [[Domikia Davis]] (the processor) as records were sent in installments. (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 237, "From: Anne Li <[email protected]>" / "Subject: Re: FOI #0481"). Sgt. Davis told the requester, "It will take several emails with attachments to get you the requested information." (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 237, "It will take several emails with attachments to get you the requested information.") **LRPD denied a Flock-footage FOIA in a death investigation, citing the ALPR statute.** Request PDFOI-2026-1668 sought all data, video, still images, and alerts from a specific Flock camera, plus vehicle "fingerprint" data, for a two-hour window. LRPD denied both portions identically: "Unfortunately, this portion of the request can not be fulfilled per Statute ACA 12-12-211. The information can not be disseminated to anyone other than the vehicle owners." (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 980, "Unfortunately, this portion of the request can not be fulfilled per Statute ACA 12-12-211. The information can not be disseminated to anyone other than the vehicle owners."). The request stated it "relates to LRPD Case #2026-024926 involving the death of [a private individual, name not reproduced here]." (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 981, "This request relates to LRPD Case #2026-024926 involving the death of [name omitted]."). The requester is a private citizen and is not named here. **The denial relied on the Arkansas ALPR statute rather than a general FOIA exemption.** LRPD's stated basis, Ark. Code Ann. 12-12-211, is the dissemination-control provision associated with the [[Arkansas Automatic License Plate Reader System Act]]. The agency treated that statute as barring release to anyone other than vehicle owners, applying it even to a requester seeking records tied to a death investigation. The record does not show any segregability analysis or partial release. **Flock pushed customer agencies disclosure-defeating case law.** A Flock newsletter in this production told agencies that a Washington state court ruling shields cloud-stored ALPR data from public-records disclosure: "In its ruling, the court found that LPR data stored in the cloud is not subject to disclosure under Washington's Public Records Act (PRA)." (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 566, "In its ruling, the court found that LPR data stored in the cloud is not subject to disclosure under Washington's Public Records Act (PRA)."), framing Rodriguez v. City of Lakewood as "A win for agencies using Flock everywhere." (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 566, "A win for agencies using Flock everywhere."). **Flock also pushed Fourth-Amendment case law on warrantless ALPR use.** A separate newsletter section, "More Court Cases in Favor of LPR," told agencies: "last week the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their vehicle's location on public streets, and that use of ALPR does not violate any citizen's privacy ( US v. Porter, No 25-60163)." (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 1331, "last week the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their vehicle's location on public streets, and that use of ALPR does not violate any citizen's privacy ( US v. Porter, No 25-60163)."). **Flock coached agencies on how to manage public bodies.** A Flock webinar reminder distributed to LRPD was titled "How to Speak to City Councils: Meeting the Moment with Confidence." (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 16, "Subject: Reminder - How to Speak to City Councils: Meeting the Moment with Confidence"). A companion newsletter invited agencies to "join me for an upcoming webinar on how to effectively speak with city councils about transparency, policy, and the role of technology in your community." (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 888, "join me for an upcoming webinar on how to effectively speak with city councils about transparency, policy, and the role of technology in your community"). Read together with the case-law messaging, the record shows a vendor supplying both legal arguments and communications coaching to its law-enforcement customers around disclosure and procurement. ## People and orgs mentioned - [[Courtney Bewley]] — LRPD lieutenant (Technology & Equipment Unit; formerly RTCC sergeant) who transmitted the FOI #0481 records and stated the partner-site exclusion (p. 251). - [[Domikia Davis]] — LRPD police sergeant who processed FOI #0481 and corresponded with the requester (pp. 237, 251). - [[Jonathan Prater]] — copied on the internal FOI #0481 transmittal (p. 251). - Anne Li — journalist, The Markup; requester of FOI #0481 (p. 237). Named as a working journalist acting in a professional capacity. - [[Little Rock Police Department]] — responding agency for FOI #0481 and PDFOI-2026-1668; cited Ark. Code Ann. 12-12-211 in the denial (pp. 980-981). - [[Flock Safety, Inc.]] — vendor whose newsletters supplied the case-law and city-council messaging (pp. 16, 566, 888, 1331). - The death-investigation FOIA requester (PDFOI-2026-1668) is a private individual and is not named here per PII rules; the request itself contains the requester's home address, phone, and email (present in the record, not reproduced here). ## Concepts invoked - [[ALPR-Favorable Case Law as Vendor Messaging]] — Flock's distribution of Rodriguez v. City of Lakewood and US v. Porter to customer agencies (pp. 566, 1331). - [[Arkansas Automatic License Plate Reader System Act]] — the statutory family LRPD invoked (Ark. Code Ann. 12-12-211) to deny PDFOI-2026-1668 (pp. 980-981). - [[Surveillance Data Sharing — Default-On Posture]] — partner-site identities were treated as withholdable from a press request (p. 251). ## Events documented - 2025-02-14 — Lt. Bewley transmits FOI #0481 records to the processor with the partner-site exclusion (p. 251). - 2025-02-19 to 2025-02-21 — Sgt. Davis sends installments to The Markup; requester acknowledges receipt (p. 237). - 2026-05-06 — LRPD denies PDFOI-2026-1668 under Ark. Code Ann. 12-12-211 (pp. 980-981). - 2026-05-20 — Flock "How to Speak to City Councils" webinar reminder sent to LRPD (p. 16). ## Cross-references - [[LRPD FOIA Handling and Disclosure Posture]] is the disclosure-posture companion to [[Flock Deconfliction Advisories and the LRPD Sharing Network]] and [[Home Depot Camera Sharing into LRPD]], both of which concern the partner sites whose identities were withheld at p. 251. - The case-law messaging here overlaps with [[Vendor Marketing Saturation and Competitor ALPR Pitches]] and informs the [[ALPR-Favorable Case Law as Vendor Messaging]] concept page. - The partner-site withholding feeds [[T004 - Item-3 No-Records vs Deconfliction Audit Trail]], which tests this production's completeness against its own deconfliction audit trail. - See [[_overview]] for the full production context. ## Open questions / follow-ups - What records, if any, were excluded from the present production under the same "partner sites" rationale stated at p. 251? The note describes a prior exclusion practice but does not enumerate what was withheld. - Did LRPD perform any segregability analysis before denying PDFOI-2026-1668, or apply Ark. Code Ann. 12-12-211 categorically? The completion notice shows no partial release (pp. 980-981). - Does LRPD's reading of Ark. Code Ann. 12-12-211 ("can not be disseminated to anyone other than the vehicle owners") square with the Arkansas FOIA's general presumption of disclosure? Not resolved in this production. - The task brief referenced additional requesters (an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reporter and a "Charles Wilson"); those identities could NOT be verified in the chunks reviewed (chunk_01, chunk_04). Only The Markup / Anne Li appears as a press requester, and the PDFOI-2026-1668 requester is a private individual. Treat the additional requesters as unverified in this production.