# 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, the operational records of its automatic-license-plate-reader program: a snapshot of the network it shares data with, an export of every federal-agency search that touched its data over a two-month window, 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 the operational records of a surveillance program 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`, the snapshot of the 1,384 organizations Conway PD's Flock system was configured to share with ([[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-agency lookups against Conway data, with officer-identifying fields redacted ([[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 "does not waive" principle.** The letter anticipates the obvious question — the Department produced these records once — and answers it in advance: "A prior production of a record or record category does not determine the Department's current legal review and does not waive statutory restrictions or exemptions applicable to captured plate data, LPR-derived data, investigative records, computer-system security information, personal contact information, or financial/payment information" ([[Custodian Response Letter]], p. 2). The principle is restated in item K. As a statement of law it is unremarkable: disclosing a record once does not, by itself, forfeit an exemption that genuinely applies. **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.* Arkansas FOIA does not, as a general matter, permit a record to be withheld in full because it contains some exempt information. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(f) provides that no request "shall be denied on the ground that information exempt from disclosure is commingled with nonexempt information," and that "[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided after deletion of the exempt information" (primary public record, [Ark. Code § 25-19-105](../../web%20archive/2026-05-22/codes.findlaw.com/ark-code-25-19-105.md)). A withholding in full therefore depends on the records being *not reasonably segregable* — and the letter so states. The difficulty is that the Department's own `PD-2026-354` production is evidence to the contrary: it produced the SharedNetworks snapshot, and it produced the Federal Searches export with officer-identifying fields redacted. A record type an agency has already segregated and produced is, on its face, reasonably segregable. The "does not waive" principle does not meet this point, because waiver is not the question. What § 25-19-105(f) asks is whether segregation is *feasible*, and a prior redacted production is direct evidence that it is. **The burden, and the unchanged statute.** *Analysis.* Under the Arkansas FOIA the custodian, not the requester, carries the burden of justifying a withholding, and the Act's exemptions are construed narrowly. The statutes the letter relies on — the ALPR Act and § 25-19-105 — read the same in May as in April; nothing in the record indicates an intervening amendment or court decision. The variable that changed between the two productions is the Department's "current legal review." Whether a change of position, unaccompanied by a change in the law or in the records themselves, carries the custodian's burden is a question this page does not resolve — but it is the question the reversal raises. **What this is, and is not.** This page documents a reversal of disclosure posture; it does not allege that either production was unlawful, and it imputes no motive. A records custodian is entitled to revisit a legal conclusion, and a good-faith reassessment is not misconduct. What the record establishes is narrower, and it is established by the Department's own documents: the same agency produced three categories of ALPR operational records in one FOIA response and withheld the equivalents in the next; the governing statutes did not change; and the response letter gives no reason for the difference. Whether the withholdings are sustainable is a question for the Arkansas FOIA's enforcement process — a circuit-court appeal under Ark. Code § 25-19-107 — and ultimately for a court. This page records the reversal; it does not adjudicate it. ## Status — appeal denied on substance; AG opinion requested On 2026-05-22 Joshua Dunlap filed an administrative appeal of the items-D/G/H/I withholdings, anchored on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(f) (the segregability mandate) and on the prior `PD-2026-354` production as evidence that the record categories are reasonably segregable in practice. On **2026-05-27** the Department issued a six-page reasoned response, transmitted 2026-05-28 09:01 CDT by [[Drake Vickers]] as PDF attachment to the appeal Gmail thread. The Department **denies the appeal on substance** and maintains all four items-D/G/H/I 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). The procedurally consequential element is the Department's announcement that **the City is concurrently requesting an opinion from the Arkansas Attorney General** on the underlying legal questions ([[Custodian Response on Appeal]], p. 6: *"the City is also requesting guidance from the Arkansas Attorney General. That request does not alter the Department's current response or withholding decision."*). Arkansas AG opinions are advisory, but the Attorney General's public-information coordinator regularly issues opinions interpreting FOIA's interaction with sectoral statutes like the ALPR Act, and Arkansas courts and agencies give those opinions substantial weight. The AG opinion (if issued) is a Tier-2 source that would directly bind future agency conduct in its reasoning — and would shape every Arkansas ALPR FOIA going forward, not just Conway's. The Department's exhaustion of the administrative process leaves two procedural routes: (a) the requester's § 25-19-107(a)(1)(A) circuit-court remedy (mandamus or injunctive relief, mandatory seven-day hearing, attorney's-fee shifting against the municipal defendant unless its position is "substantially justified") — a decision for Joshua; and (b) the announced AG opinion request, which is the City's own initiation. These routes can run in parallel. *Analytical observation, distinct from the record:* the Department's substance-versus-incidental segregability frame is a stronger argument than the original letter's bare "not reasonably segregable" assertion, but its weakness remains the same — the `PD-2026-354` production is the agency's own evidence that field-level redactions on these record types are feasible, and the response does not engage that evidence except to assert that the prior production was discretionary and does not control the current review. Whether a court or the AG accepts the substance-versus-incidental frame on these record types is the live question. ## 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. § 25-19-105(f) (primary public record, [Ark. Code § 25-19-105](../../web%20archive/2026-05-22/codes.findlaw.com/ark-code-25-19-105.md)). - *The appeal denial and substance-versus-incidental segregability frame.* [[Custodian Response on Appeal]], pp. 1–5; conclusion at p. 5. - *The announced AG opinion request.* [[Custodian Response on Appeal]], p. 6. - *The § 12-12-1804 retention argument and its rejection.* [[Custodian Response on Appeal]], p. 4. - *The enforcement route.* Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-107 — a circuit-court appeal, mandatory seven-day hearing, attorney's-fee shifting against a municipal defendant whose position is not "substantially justified" (primary public record, [Ark. Code § 25-19-107](../../web%20archive/2026-05-22/codes.findlaw.com/ark-code-25-19-107.md)). ## 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. - `confidence: medium` — the reversal is firmly documented; the assessment of how it fares under the FOIA is analysis. ## Open questions - Why did the Department's "current legal review" reach a different conclusion in May than in April? The record gives no reason. The 2026-05-27 appeal response elaborates the legal theory but still does not address the change in posture itself. - Will the Arkansas Attorney General accept the Department's substance-versus-incidental segregability frame for these record types? The City has formally requested an opinion ([[Custodian Response on Appeal]], p. 6). The AG's reasoning, if issued, will shape every Arkansas ALPR FOIA going forward — not just Conway's. - Would a circuit court, on a § 25-19-107 appeal, accept "the substance of the records is exempt" for record types the Department has already produced in segregated form? The argument is more defensible than the bare "not reasonably segregable" assertion, but the `PD-2026-354` evidence cuts against it. - 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.