# The Disclosure-Posture Reversal at Conway PD In April 2026 the Conway Police Department produced, in response to an Arkansas Freedom of Information Act request, operational records of its automatic-license-plate-reader program: a relationship-topology snapshot, a 5,929-row federal-tagged search export that does not name searched networks or results, and thirteen months of officer audit logs. Five weeks later, asked in a supplemental request to extend and complete that record, the Department withheld the same categories of records in full. The two productions, set side by side, are the corpus's clearest instance of an agency disclosing surveillance-platform records once and then declining to disclose the equivalents — under statutes that were equally in force the first time. **The two productions.** `PD-2026-354`, completed 2026-04-23, was Conway PD's original Flock Safety production — 472 files, and the documentary basis for much of what this wiki records about the Conway deployment. `PD-2026-477`, completed 2026-05-22, is the supplemental: a twelve-item request (A–L) asking the Department to extend the time windows of the operational exports, produce the executed contract, and fill specific gaps. For the operational categories, the supplemental's answer is withholding. See [[Custodian Response Letter]] and the production overview for `PD-2026-477`. **What the Department produced, then withheld.** Three record categories moved from produced to withheld: - *Network sharing.* `PD-2026-354` produced `SharedNetworks_2025_December_17.csv`, a 1,384-row snapshot in which each organization has at least one incoming or outgoing direction involving a Conway network ([[SharedNetworks 2025-12-17 Snapshot]]). `PD-2026-477` item D withholds "additional SharedNetworks exports, current snapshots, or network-sharing snapshots." - *Federal search activity.* `PD-2026-354` produced `Federal Searches March 2026 to April 2026.csv`, a 5,929-row export of federal-tagged Flock lookups with officer-identifying fields redacted. The file does not name the networks searched or returned ([[Federal Searches CSV]]). `PD-2026-477` item G withholds "the requested Federal Searches CSV export and any equivalent full-life deployment export." - *Officer audit logs.* `PD-2026-354` produced thirteen monthly audit-log CSVs spanning April 2025 to April 2026 ([[Conway PD Audit Logs Series]]). `PD-2026-477` item I withholds any audit logs predating April 1, 2025; item K states that individual audit logs are withheld as a category. **The Department's stated rationale.** The response letter draws a line between two kinds of ALPR data. On one side, the "public compiled practice-and-usage data required by Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1805" — the semi-annual statistical report, which the Department produced under item F. On the other, "[i]ndividual Flock search logs, query records, audit logs, network-sharing exports, user-activity records, access logs, export/download/share logs, hot-list records," which the letter states "are not treated as public practice-and-usage data" ([[Custodian Response Letter]], pp. 1–2). The Department withholds the second category under the Arkansas Automatic License Plate Reader System Act (Ark. Code §§ 12-12-1802, 12-12-1808) and three Arkansas FOIA exemptions — § 25-19-105(b)(6), (b)(11), and (b)(13). See [[Arkansas Automatic License Plate Reader System Act]]. **The Department's "does not waive" position.** The response says prior production does not determine the current legal review or waive an applicable restriction ([[Custodian Response Letter]], p. 2). This is the Department's litigation position, not a holding this wiki adopts. Prior disclosure may be distinct from whether a restriction applies, but the legal consequences depend on the particular exemption, record, and relief sought. **What the letter does not say.** The response does not state why the Department's "current legal review" reached a different result than the review that produced the same record categories five weeks earlier. The letter records that the Department's position changed; it does not record a reason. The change is on the record; the reason is not. **The segregability question.** *The following is analysis.* Section 25-19-105(f) forbids denying a request merely because exempt and nonexempt information is commingled and requires reasonably segregable portions. The earlier redacted exports are evidence that some field-level redaction is technically feasible; they do not by themselves prove that every field in a later, broader export is legally nonexempt or that the later record is identical. A court would decide the legal and factual segregability questions on the requested records. (primary public record, [Ark. Code Ann. section 25-19-105](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/media.ark.org/ark-code-ann-25-19-105-2025-2026-annotated-laws.md)) **The burden and construction rules.** The public body asserting an exemption bears the burden of proving it, the court decides applicability, disclosure provisions are construed broadly, and exemptions narrowly. Those rules do not predetermine the outcome for these records. (web research 2026-08-10, [Gannett River States Publishing Co. v. Arkansas Industrial Development Commission](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/app.midpage.ai/gannett-river-states-publishing-co-v-arkansas-industrial-development-commission-799-s-w-2d-543-ark-1990.md)); (web research 2026-08-10, [Thomas v. Hall](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/app.midpage.ai/thomas-v-hall-399-s-w-3d-387-ark-2012.md)) **What this is, and is not.** This page documents a reversal of disclosure posture; it does not allege that either production was unlawful or impute motive. Whether the current withholdings are sustainable is a question for a section 25-19-107 circuit-court action, not an administrative appeal. See [[Arkansas FOIA Enforcement and Custodian Response Procedure]]. ## DPPA field-and-source boundary The Driver's Privacy Protection Act turns on whether information was obtained from a state motor-vehicle record, the permitted purpose for obtaining or using it, and any redisclosure. A public-road ALPR image is not automatically DMV-derived personal information merely because a plate number may later be used to query DMV data. The analysis must separate image and timestamp fields, DMV-returned personal information, audit metadata, and downstream redisclosure. The statute therefore is not a blanket answer for every field in an ALPR export. (primary public record, [18 U.S.C. sections 2721–2725](../../web%20archive/2026-05-22/govinfo.gov/usc-18-chap123-dppa.md)); see [[DPPA (Driver's Privacy Protection Act)]]. ## Status — no Attorney General submission; internal advice and final disposition diverge On 2026-05-22 Joshua Dunlap asked the Department to reconsider the items-D/G/H/I withholdings, relying on section 25-19-105(f) and the earlier production. Arkansas FOIA does not require exhaustion of an internal administrative appeal. On 2026-05-27 the Department issued a six-page reasoned response, transmitted the next day by [[Drake Vickers]], maintaining all four withholdings ([[Custodian Response on Appeal]]; [[2026-05-27 Conway PD Maintains Withholding on Appeal]]). The appeal response hardens the Department's legal theory in three ways: (1) it builds an affirmative case that the protected information is "the substance of the requested records," not "incidental information commingled with otherwise public information" ([[Custodian Response on Appeal]], p. 5) — a substance-versus-incidental segregability frame, not just a "not reasonably segregable" assertion; (2) it rebuts the prior-production-establishes-segregability argument directly: *"Prior production does not waive a statutory restriction or FOIA exemption, nor does it establish that all similar records or later-requested records are reasonably segregable for purposes of Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(f). Segregability must be evaluated based on the specific records requested, the content and function of those records, the statutory restrictions that apply, and whether any remaining information can be released without disclosing or permitting reconstruction of exempt information"* ([[Custodian Response on Appeal]], p. 1); (3) it rejects the § 12-12-1804 retention argument on its merits — the Department reads § 12-12-1804(a)'s 150-day retention provision as not creating a public right of access to audit logs and not overriding § 12-12-1808 disclosure restrictions ([[Custodian Response on Appeal]], p. 4). *Erratum, 2026-08-05:* the 2026-05-27 appeal response said the City was "also requesting guidance from the Arkansas Attorney General," but the later City Attorney production establishes an internal draft-and-review process, not an external request. City Attorney [[Charles Finkenbinder]] stated in Gmail message `19fc8defe5e39d18` that his office did not request an Attorney General opinion, and the seven produced files contain no transmittal, acknowledgment, opinion, or response. The internal process began May 26 when Major [[Clayton Smith]] sent Finkenbinder an email captioned "attached draft opinion request for your review" with a ten-question attachment ([[Draft Attorney General Opinion Request and Routing]], `doc16993620260803100035.pdf`, pp. 1-9). The draft said the City and CPD sought guidance "before this issue is litigated." On July 23, after Smith asked whether it had been submitted, revised, or routed, Finkenbinder replied that there had been a "miscommunication," that he saw no issue with the proposed request, and that it did not have to come from the City Attorney ([[City Attorney Review of ALPR Records Requests]], `doc16993720260803100106.pdf`, pp. 1-2). The same production supplies the legal analysis the draft was intended to obtain externally. On July 24 Finkenbinder wrote that §§ 12-12-1802 and 12-12-1808 protect the people whose information is recorded but do not appear to shield records showing the government's access, storage, sharing, or acquisition of that data. He said requests 760-763 did not appear to seek protected captured-plate data and that § 25-19-105(b)(11) did not appear to apply; he likewise did not initially view requests 733-734 as captured-plate-data requests, while reserving revision after a system demonstration and leaving other exemptions and record-creation issues open (p. 5). Smith's July 25 reply maintained CPD's broader reading. It said the Organization Audit, Network Audit, search, access, and related records fit the statute's "captured by or derived from" language and that CPD was withholding them "at this stage" to avoid irreversible disclosure. But Smith also wrote that CPD would comply if Finkenbinder concluded the records were subject to release and that the Department's decision would be based on City Attorney guidance (pp. 3-4). A July 27 text asks Finkenbinder to meet with Smith and Chief [[Chris Harris]] about the Flock FOIA ([[July 27 Flock FOIA Meeting Text]]). No record shows the meeting's substance, revised advice, final response, or ultimate disposition. This sequence deepens the disclosure-posture reversal. The record now supplies a documented internal reason for CPD's hesitation — fear that an Attorney General or court might later characterize the records as restricted — and a contrary City Attorney analysis. It still does not show the final municipal resolution. [[T046 - Conway City Attorney Disclosure Advice vs CPD Categorical ALPR Audit Withholding]] keeps that unresolved sequence explicit. The record no longer supports treating an Attorney General opinion as a parallel pending route. The requester's statutory court remedy remains a decision outside this wiki. *Analytical observation, distinct from the record:* the prior `PD-2026-354` production remains direct evidence that field-level redaction is technically feasible, while Finkenbinder's analysis challenges the premise that government-access fields are captured-plate data at all. Neither point is a court holding, and the missing post-meeting decision prevents attribution of a final City position. ## Evidence - *Network sharing.* Produced in `PD-2026-354` as `SharedNetworks_2025_December_17.csv` ([[SharedNetworks 2025-12-17 Snapshot]]); withheld in `PD-2026-477` item D ([[Custodian Response Letter]]). - *Federal searches.* Produced in `PD-2026-354` as the redacted `Federal Searches March 2026 to April 2026.csv` ([[Federal Searches CSV]]); withheld in `PD-2026-477` item G ([[Custodian Response Letter]]). - *Audit logs.* Produced in `PD-2026-354` as thirteen monthly CSVs ([[Conway PD Audit Logs Series]]); pre-April-2025 logs withheld in `PD-2026-477` item I, with item K withholding individual audit logs as a category ([[Custodian Response Letter]]). - *The "does not waive" principle.* [[Custodian Response Letter]], p. 2, restated in item K; affirmed and elaborated in [[Custodian Response on Appeal]], p. 1 and p. 3. - *The segregability rule.* Ark. Code Ann. section 25-19-105(f) (primary public record, [current section 25-19-105](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/media.ark.org/ark-code-ann-25-19-105-2025-2026-annotated-laws.md)). - *The reconsideration denial and substance-versus-incidental segregability frame.* [[Custodian Response on Appeal]], pp. 1–5; conclusion at p. 5. - *The internal draft and absence of a produced transmittal.* [[Draft Attorney General Opinion Request and Routing]], `doc16993620260803100035.pdf`, pp. 1-9, 37; [[City Attorney Review of ALPR Records Requests]], `doc16993720260803100106.pdf`, pp. 1-2. - *The City Attorney's July 24 analysis.* [[City Attorney Review of ALPR Records Requests]], p. 5. - *CPD's July 25 contrary reading and promise to follow City Attorney guidance.* [[City Attorney Review of ALPR Records Requests]], pp. 3-4. - *The prepared categorical response chains.* [[Organization Audit Request and Response Chains]], pp. 7-8; [[Network Audit Request and Response Chains]], pp. 7-9; [[Aggregate Usage Status and Policy Request Chain]], pp. 8-12. - *The unresolved July 27 meeting request.* [[July 27 Flock FOIA Meeting Text]]. - *The § 12-12-1804 retention argument and its rejection.* [[Custodian Response on Appeal]], p. 4. - *The enforcement route.* Ark. Code Ann. section 25-19-107 permits immediate circuit-court relief and a seven-day hearing. Current fee eligibility turns on obtaining a significant or material portion of the relief sought and the present statutory exceptions—not the superseded shorthand on this page. (primary public record, [Arkansas FOIA Handbook, 21st edition](../../web%20archive/2026-07-20/healthy.arkansas.gov/arkansas-foia-handbook-21st-edition-2025.md)); see [[Arkansas FOIA Enforcement and Custodian Response Procedure]]. - *Electronic-copy format and vendor custody.* The official handbook supports copies in readily available or readily convertible formats and continued public-entity custodianship of public records held by a private entity; it does not guarantee a requester's preferred native format or resolve a claimed exemption. See [[Arkansas FOIA Electronic Records and Vendor Custody]]. ## Caveats - The factual core of this page — what was produced, what was withheld, and what the response letter says — is documented and cited. The segregability discussion is the author's legal analysis, demarcated as such; it is not a judicial determination, and a court could weigh the "reasonably segregable" question differently on a fuller record. - The response letter is the OCR'd output of an image-only PDF; the load-bearing quotations were verified against the raw document ([[Custodian Response Letter]]). - This page does not address the items `PD-2026-477` referred to the City of Conway (A, B, C, J); those raise a custodial-jurisdiction question, not a reversal. - The July 22 dates on the prepared response chains precede Finkenbinder's July 24 analysis. The files do not independently establish whether those versions were transmitted unchanged. - Finkenbinder's and Smith's emails are competing municipal legal analyses, not an Attorney General opinion or court holding. The record does not establish the July 27 meeting's outcome. - `confidence: medium` — the reversal is firmly documented; the assessment of how it fares under the FOIA is analysis. ## Open questions - What was shown and decided at the proposed July 27 meeting, and did Finkenbinder revise his July 24 analysis after seeing the platform? - Which July response-chain versions were actually transmitted, and what records, if any, were produced after the City Attorney review? - Why did the Department's disclosure posture change between April and May? The later chain documents concern about irreversible disclosure and unresolved law, but it does not identify what triggered the original change. - Would a circuit court, in a section 25-19-107 action, accept "the substance of the records is exempt" for later record sets after weighing the prior redacted production, field differences, and each claimed exemption? - Does the reversal extend to the records already in hand — that is, does the Department now regard the `PD-2026-354` SharedNetworks, Federal Searches, and audit-log files as records it would no longer produce? Neither the 2026-05-22 letter nor the 2026-05-27 appeal response addresses this point directly. - If pre-April-2025 audit logs contain "captured plate data" as the Department asserts, is the Department in compliance with Ark. Code § 12-12-1804(a)'s 150-day retention cap? The 2026-05-27 letter reads § 12-12-1804 as creating no public right of access — but does not address whether logs that fall under § 12-12-1808 *because they contain captured plate data* are also subject to § 12-12-1804's retention cap, and what compliance with that cap would look like. ## Current-law authority crosswalk The 2026-08-10 legal audit uses these authorities only for the bounded propositions stated below: - (primary public record, [Cook v. ACS STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., 663 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2011)](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cook-v-acs-state-local-solutions-inc-663-f-3d-989-8th-cir-2011.md)) — Bulk acquisition and redisclosure can be permissible when downstream users have permitted purposes; section 2721(c) recordkeeping applies. Does not authorize impermissible downstream use or decide public-road ALPR imagery. - (primary public record, [James Andrews v. Sirius Xm Radio, Inc., 932 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2019)](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/james-andrews-v-sirius-xm-radio-inc-932-f-3d-1253-9th-cir-2019.md)) — DPPA coverage requires information sourced from a state motor-vehicle record; information copied from an individual-held license was outside the statute. Does not itself decide ALPR photographs or bind the Eighth Circuit. - (primary public record, [Jennifer Heglund v. City of Grand Rapids, 871 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 2017)](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/jennifer-heglund-v-city-of-grand-rapids-871-f-3d-572-8th-cir-2017.md)) — Law-enforcement access can fall within government-function use; official versus personal purpose remains material. The case is substantially about standing and relation back and does not validate every lookup. - (primary public record, [Johanna McDonough v. Anoka County, 799 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2015)](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/johanna-mcdonough-v-anoka-county-799-f-3d-931-8th-cir-2015.md)) — Viewing or accessing DMV personal information can be obtaining it; an impermissible obtain can violate the DPPA without later use. Liability still requires information from a motor-vehicle record and an impermissible purpose. - (primary public record, [Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000)](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/govinfo.gov/reno-v-condon-528-u-s-141-2000.md)) — DPPA constitutionally regulates disclosure and resale by state motor-vehicle database owners. Does not decide ALPR images or data acquired outside DMV records.