# Rogers Private Camera Disclosure Correspondence The production records Rogers asking peer agencies how they respond to requests for the identities and locations of people who registered cameras or supplied live feeds. It captures proposed rationales and uncertainty, not an adjudicated legal result or a Rogers denial. ## Rogers seeks a rejection basis On July 1, 2026, Rogers asked whether peer agencies had received requests concerning people who “registered their cameras in connect and or provided live feed access,” whether they had “successfully reject[ed] these requests,” and “what basis did you use?” (`extracted/rogers-pd/2026-08-12-second-communications-production/Alan FOI Dunlap.pst/BMA Export/Unfiled/836.eml`, body). An internal forwarding message records the chief's objection that a request item “would give information on citizen's participation and locations” (`extracted/rogers-pd/2026-08-12-second-communications-production/Alan FOI Dunlap.pst/BMA Export/Unfiled/824.eml`, body). The statement identifies the perceived disclosure consequence; it does not cite an exemption or decide the request. ## Peer response and uncertainty The Little Rock response says its City Attorney's Office had previously used a confidential-informant theory, immediately adding, “I don't personally feel that was the best approach” (`extracted/rogers-pd/2026-08-12-second-communications-production/Alan FOI Dunlap.pst/BMA Export/Unfiled/843.eml` and duplicate `extracted/rogers-pd/2026-08-12-second-communications-production/Alan FOI Dunlap.pst/BMA Export/Unfiled/846.eml`, bodies). The message further says the agency kept no spreadsheet or report and that “the only information is housed inside of Fusus itself,” framing retrieval as creation of a document (same messages, bodies). That is a peer agency's account of its own prior approach. It is not a Rogers decision, an Attorney General opinion, or a judicial holding. The attached Axon Fusus Community Connect handbook describes registry data as non-public, but vendor language does not establish an Arkansas FOIA exemption (`extracted/rogers-pd/2026-08-12-second-communications-production/Alan FOI Dunlap 2.pst/BMA Export/Unfiled/12908.eml`, attachment `Axon Fusus V1 Community Connect Handbook.pdf`). ## Relation to adopted Rogers policy Policy 406.4 already declares that private donor video is owned by the donor and “is not subject to public records requests” (`raw/rogers-pd/2026-07-24-first-production/406.4 Public Safety Camera Network System.pdf`, PDF p. 3, § 4.4.4). The correspondence shows Rogers exploring additional theories after Community Connect deployment, while the production supplies no denial applying § 4.4.4, no participant roster, and no legal ruling on platform-held registry data. > [!contradiction] > Rogers's adopted policy states a categorical private-donor-video exclusion, while the July correspondence seeks a workable basis from peer agencies and records doubt about one proposed rationale. The records document an unresolved disclosure posture, not a settled application. See [[T028 - Rogers Private Donor Camera Records Exclusion]]. ## Open questions / follow-ups - Whether Rogers issued a final response to the underlying request and, if so, the record-specific statutory basis. - What Community Connect registration, access, onboarding, audit, and participant records Rogers or its vendor retain. - Whether records exist in an exportable or inspectable form without creating a new compilation.