# Policy 10.14 — Springdale License Plate Reader Systems Two governance documents were produced, both signed by **Chief [[Derek Wright (Springdale Police Chief)]]**: - **GO-1004**, "License Plate Reader Systems," approved **July 11, 2025** — two pages, largely a recitation of § 12-12-1805's reporting duties and a list of permissible hotlist categories. - **Policy 10.14**, "License Plate Reader Systems," **Effective Date April 9, 2026, Version 1** — four pages, materially fuller. ## The RTIC runs the ALPR program Policy 10.14 § IV.B.1 places "LPR systems, associated equipment, databases, and data … under the supervision and management of the **Real-Time Intelligence Center (RTIC)**." § IV.C.4 makes the **RTIC Commander the SPD LPR Administrator**, responsible for protocols documenting "LPR usage and results, including appropriate documentation of all incidents, arrests, and property recoveries." This is the corpus's clearest statement that a real-time crime centre owns an ALPR program outright, and it corroborates the "RTCC Activity" and "RTIC Activity" hotlists appearing in [[Springdale Semiannual LPR Reports 2025-2026]]. No RTIC record, roster, platform description, or output was produced. ## Alert verification is required and explicitly caveated The definition of "Hit" carries its own emphasis in the original: "***A hit does not mean Probable Cause for detention or further law enforcement action exists***." Before a stop based on an LPR alert, § IV.D.1 requires the officer to visually verify both the alphanumeric plate and the **state of issuance**, verify status through the communications centre or an ACIC/NCIC query, and make reasonable efforts to confirm occupants match any wanted person's description. § IV.D.2 requires the officer to document the outcome afterward, including expressly the case where the "LPR Alert/Hits was not accurate." This is a stronger written verification rule than most in the corpus, and it is the direct counterpart to [[ALPR Alert Verification]]. ## The finding: member-created hotlists, self-policed Policy 10.14 § IV.D.3-4 governs custom hotlists in two sentences: > "3. Members who create their own custom hotlist, may share with other authorized members. > 4. The Member who created a hotlist data entry is responsible for manually removing the data from the hotlist when the data is no longer a legitimate law enforcement interest in maintaining the information is the system." [sic] The definition of "Hot List" in § III.A likewise provides that "users may enter license plate numbers into hot lists be alerted if and when a vehicle license plate of interest is read by the LPR system" [sic]. **No supervisory approval, no expiration interval, no audit, and no review step attaches to creating a hotlist, adding a plate to one, or sharing it.** Removal depends entirely on the creating member's own judgment about continuing law-enforcement interest, exercised manually. This is the policy that produces the observed list. The Department's own § 12-12-1805 report for January–June 2026 names roughly thirty-two Flock custom hotlists including bare numbers, three capitalizations of one shift name, an entry called **"My hot list,"** and an entry called **"church/sys."** Policy and practice are consistent; the governance gap is in the policy itself, not in a departure from it. ## Sharing runs through a logged request § IV.C.7.a requires that when another agency requests SPD LPR data, "the requesting law enforcement agency will submit a request for LPR data to the RTIC using a **Request for Information Form** so the request and dissemination of LPR data can be tracked and logged by RTIC." This is a documented, form-based, logged sharing control, and it stands in contrast to the click-through configuration model documented elsewhere ([[T022 - Bentonville Click-to-Allow Sharing Statement vs Produced Sharing Records]], [[Surveillance Data Sharing — Default-On Posture]]). It also establishes that **RTIC holds a log of inter-agency LPR requests** — a records category no production has reached. ## Retention § IV.C.6 sets storage on the designated LPR server at "a period not to exceed **150 days**," citing § 12-12-1805. GO-1004 § 3.d anticipates rules "concerning retention of materials in excess of one hundred fifty days." The [[Springdale Flock Safety Agreement]] separately carries a contractual **30-day** retention period. The contracted figure sits inside the policy ceiling, so these are not in conflict, but the operative retention for Flock-collected data is the shorter vendor term rather than the policy maximum. ## Misuse penalties § IV.C.2-3 cite Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-212 (Class A misdemeanor or Class D felony for unauthorized ACIC data release) and § 12-12-1807 for misuse as defined in § 12-12-1803. The policy also excludes from "Legitimate Law Enforcement Purpose" any use to advantage a member in a legal proceeding, for pecuniary or professional gain, or "any political purpose." ## GO-1004's hotlist categories The July 2025 order lists permissible hotlist bases as stolen vehicle, stolen license plate, outstanding warrant, missing person, protection order, sex offender, supervised or protected release, violent person, and **"Gang or Suspected Terrorist."** Policy 10.14 does not repeat this enumeration, and the produced custom-hotlist names cannot be mapped to these categories. ## Cross-references - [[springdale-pd/2026-07-24-26-1034-production/_overview|Springdale 26-1034 Production Overview]] - [[Springdale Semiannual LPR Reports 2025-2026]] — the hotlists this policy authorizes. - [[Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC)]]; [[ALPR Alert Verification]]; [[Hot List]]; [[Silent List (ALPR Hot List Domain)]] - [[CPD Policy 800-32 — License Plate Reader Vehicle Operations]] — the corpus's other agency LPR policy, for comparison. - [[Springdale Police Department]]; [[Derek Wright (Springdale Police Chief)]] ## Open questions / follow-ups - The RTIC itself: platform, staffing, participating agencies, and records. - The RTIC Request-for-Information log of inter-agency LPR data requests, which the policy says is maintained. - Whether GO-1004 remains in force alongside Policy 10.14 or was superseded; neither document says. - The § IV.C.4 protocols documenting "all incidents, arrests, and property recoveries related to LPR usage," which the LPR Administrator is required to maintain. - Any audit or review of custom hotlist creation and removal; the policy provides for none.