# Rogers RTIC, AI, and Camera Policies Seven governance documents, the most complete policy set any Arkansas agency has produced to this investigation. | Document | Number | Effective | Approval | |---|---|---|---| | Public Safety Camera Network System | 406.4 | 2026-04-14 | 2026-04-14 | | Automatic License Plate Readers | 406.5 | 2025-04-09 | 2026-04-14 | | **Artificial Intelligence** | 406.6 | 2025-11-06 | revised 2026-04-14 | | **Real Time Information Center** | 406.7 | 2026-04-14 | 2026-04-14 | | Audio Video Recorded Evidence | 413.2 | 2009-07-01 | | | Mobile Video Recorder | 413.4 | 2009-05-01 | | | Special Order, Automatic License Plate Readers | SO 2025-1 | 2025-04-09 | Chief Jonathan Best | ## 406.6: the corpus's first AI policy Policy 406.6 governs "the responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)" and is the first such policy in the corpus. It defines AI, generative AI, "human-in-the-loop," and "Automated Decision Tool," and it names a specific product: > "Draft One- Narrative generation tool powered by camera and audio, developed by Axon. Draft One transcribes audio from body worn cameras and uses AI to produce police report narratives." An Arkansas police department is therefore documented as governing machine generation of police report narratives from body-camera audio. The policy states an intent to "ensure the ethical use of AI through transparency, fairness, accountability, security of sensitive information, and the protection of individual rights." The policy alone does not establish procurement, deployment, report volume, or review outcomes. The signed Axon packet elsewhere in the first production does carry 150 AI software licenses, and the later communications document administrator-controlled access, training, a permission activation, and 95 distinct Draft One certificates. They still do not establish how many narratives were generated or used in cases. See [[Rogers Draft One Rollout and Training]]. *Erratum, 2026-08-17: an earlier version said the production included no Draft One procurement record. The signed quote carries the AI-license layer; the August communications production supplies the product-specific rollout and access layer.* ## 406.7: the RTIC and a Drone First Responder program Policy 406.7 establishes the Real Time Information Center, whose purpose is "to provide timely and relevant information to support patrol and investigative units." It authorises the RTIC to "access, view, and store video evidence from public facing cameras owned, operate[d]" by the City, and directs RTIC personnel to "Access available PSCN Cameras, DFR Systems," and ALPR. It also establishes a **Drone First Responder program**: - A "**DFR Chief Pilot** is a sworn (or civilian) RTIC Member," responsible for "Overall upkeep of the DFR program and equipment," training of "RTIC/DFR personnel," ensuring "DFR operations comply with federal and state" requirements, and "effective and efficient day to day DFR operations." - Detection sources are described together: information "initially detected through RTIC unique sources (PSCN/ DFR/ALPR)." - The policy repeatedly defers to "**SOG 417.2 Drone First Responder Program**" for operational guidelines. That text was not in the July 24 package. This is the corpus's first documented DFR program. Benton County SO expressly stated its drones are *not* part of a DFR auto-launch system, and the vendor DFR marketing reaching LRPD had no Arkansas deployment behind it. Rogers supplies the first. See [[Law-Enforcement Drone and UAS Programs]]. The later communications production contains multiple `SOG 417.2` working drafts, unnumbered DFR drafts, a `401.11 ...-Draft.docx`, and a non-draft `401.11 Drone First Responder Program.docx`. The last file is approved October 28, 2025 but has a blank effective-date field. It fills the missing-text gap without identifying the operative version or supersession chain ([[Rogers DFR and Dedrone Deployment]]; [[T057 - Rogers DFR Policy Version and Effective Date]]). *Erratum, 2026-08-17: SOG 417.2 text was absent from the July package, not from the corpus after the mailed communications production.* ## 406.4: private donor cameras and a records-avoidance clause Policy 406.4 defines the Public Safety Camera Network as "any camera providing access to either live or recorded" video, and establishes two private-camera pathways: - **Private Donor Cameras** — "Any camera feed owned and maintained by a private entity and the private entity voluntarily elects to participate in the Public Safety Camera System by providing access to the public area facing camera feeds." - **Volunteer Registry** — "Instead of providing access, private citizens and business owners with" cameras supply registry information so the Department knows where private surveillance exists. The private-donor conditions include a clause with direct public-records consequences: > "The private donor is responsible to respond to any request from the media or public regarding their cameras. **All private donor video is owned by the private donor and is not subject to public records requests.**" (406.4 § 4.4.4) This is the [[T022 - Bentonville Click-to-Allow Sharing Statement vs Produced Sharing Records]] theory in adopted written policy: a structure under which video a police real-time center can view is declared outside the reach of the Arkansas FOIA because a private party holds title. Bentonville's version was internal reasoning about a third party's request; Rogers's is a signed departmental policy. See [[T028 - Rogers Private Donor Camera Records Exclusion]]. The policy does provide countervailing limits: private donor feeds "will not be recorded by the RPD," and RTIC access requires that the agency "only have access to areas where the public has no reasonable expectation of privacy." Traffic cameras are handled separately, with settings "assigned by the Rogers Street Department," another instance of camera control sitting outside the police department ([[Non-Police Municipal Custody of Surveillance Cameras]]). ## 406.5 and SO 2025-1: ALPR Both carry the same policy language; SO 2025-1 (approved by **Chief Jonathan Best**, 2025-04-09) appears to be the special order that 406.5 later formalised. The hot-list definition reaches beyond NCIC to "data held by the Office of Motor Vehicles, the Arkansas Crime Information Center including without limitation the Arkansas Crime Information Center's Missing Persons database, the National Crime Information Center, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Kidnapping and Missing Persons database." LPR Data is defined to include "information regarding the location of the police vehicle in which the LPR is installed," which contemplates mobile as well as fixed readers. Neither document addresses **network sharing**, which is the notable gap given that [[Rogers SharedNetworks 2026-07-10 Export]] documents 2,408 organizations. ## 413.2 and 413.4: the legacy layer The two 2009 policies govern audio/video recorded evidence and mobile video recorders. They predate the Department's ALPR, RTIC, AI, and camera-network policies by fifteen to seventeen years and were produced alongside them without a statement of whether they remain in force. ## Cross-references - [[rogers-pd/2026-07-24-first-production/_overview|Rogers First Production Overview]] - [[Rogers Meraki Camera Inventory]] — the 263 cameras the PSCN reaches. - [[Rogers SharedNetworks 2026-07-10 Export]] — the sharing topology no policy governs. - [[Law-Enforcement AI-Assisted Analytics]]; [[Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC)]]; [[Private-Business Camera Sharing into LE Networks]]; [[Law-Enforcement Drone and UAS Programs]] - [[Axon Enterprise, Inc.]]; [[Jonathan Best]] - [[Rogers Draft One Rollout and Training]]; [[Rogers DFR and Dedrone Deployment]]; [[Rogers Private Camera Disclosure Correspondence]] ## Open questions / follow-ups - The operative DFR policy number/version and effective date; see [[T057 - Rogers DFR Policy Version and Effective Date]]. - Draft One report-generation, human-edit, review, rejection, and case-use records. - The private donor camera roster and the Volunteer Registry contents. - Any policy governing Flock network sharing approval, which none of the seven documents addresses. - Whether the 2009 video policies remain in force.