# T004 - Item-3 No-Records vs Deconfliction Audit Trail ## The tension [[Little Rock Police Department]]'s response to FOIA request PDFOI-2026-1874 certified that no records existed for the portion of the request seeking officer-search audit data (Item 3, "Usage and audit data"), while the production released under the same request contains hundreds of Flock Safety "Deconfliction Advisory" emails that each record a specific hot-list search: the searching agency by name, the target plate, a UTC timestamp, and the overlapping Alert Owners. The Item-3 request sought "All audit logs and equivalent platform-generated records reflecting officer searches of any ALPR system operated by, or whose data is accessible to, LRPD" (Emails 36-63.pdf p. 1474, "All audit logs and equivalent platform-generated records reflecting officer searches of any ALPR system operated by, or whose data is accessible to, LRPD"), and named three specific platform exports: "any 'Federal Searches' CSV exports (the Flock platform export listing searches by [Federal]-prefixed agencies); any SharedNetworks CSV snapshots (the platform export listing LRPD's data-sharing relationships with other Flock-customer organizations); the standard monthly audit-log exports (per the Flock platform's 'Audit' view)" (Emails 36-63.pdf p. 1475, "any 'Federal Searches' CSV exports ... any SharedNetworks CSV snapshots ... the standard monthly audit-log exports"). This is an **evidentiary** tension: it concerns whether the agency's "no records" disposition for Item 3 is reconcilable with the search-attributing records the agency itself produced under Item 2 (internal communications). The dispute is not over the content of any single document but over the completeness and accuracy of the records disposition, and over what should be inferred from a "no records" certification that sits beside a contemporaneous audit trail. A note on the certification text: LRPD's May 26, 2026 response certifying "no records" for the Item-3 audit-log portion is a statement in the agency's FOIA-response correspondence to the requester. That correspondence is **not part of the three production PDFs** quoted elsewhere in this investigation ("Emails 1-24.pdf," "Emails 25-35.pdf," "Emails 36-63.pdf"), so the certification language is described here from the FOIA correspondence record rather than anchored to a production page. The records that the certification is measured against — the deconfliction advisories and the audit-control disclosures — are anchored to the production below. ## Statement A — the "no records" certification is defensible On this reading, LRPD's "no records" disposition for Item 3 is a defensible answer to what Item 3 actually asked for, even though the deconfliction advisories exist. The deconfliction advisories are vendor-generated notification emails that arrived in individual officers' mailboxes, not the agency's formal "audit log." They were released because they fell within Item 2 (internal communications), which swept the mailboxes; they are correspondence, not an audit-view export. Each advisory is an overlap notice keyed to a single hot-list match: "Please be advised that Flock Safety has identified overlaps between a Flock Safety LPR hot list entry of yours and at least one other organization" (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 562, "Please be advised that Flock Safety has identified overlaps between a Flock Safety LPR hot list entry of yours and at least one other organization"). It is not the same artifact as a "monthly audit-log export" pulled from the Flock "Audit" view. The production also documents that Flock's formal audit records mask information from anyone but the searching agency. Flock's own disclaimer states: "We've added clear disclaimer text to explain what information means when customers or the public see records with ***. This message clarifies that the information does exist, but is intentionally only visible to the searching agency" (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 564, "the information does exist, but is intentionally only visible to the searching agency"). On Statement A, this supports the view that a clean, exportable audit-log artifact responsive to Item 3 may not be something LRPD maintains as a discrete record in the form requested. If the agency does not routinely generate or retain "monthly audit-log exports," and if the Flock audit view restricts visibility, then a literal "no records" answer to the audit-log-export portion of Item 3 can be accurate as to the specific artifacts named, even while the underlying search activity is documented elsewhere as correspondence. Under Statement A, the certification answers the question as posed (do responsive audit-log exports exist as held records?) rather than the broader question of whether any record anywhere reflects officer searches. ## Statement B — the certification is materially under-inclusive On this reading, the "no records" certification for Item 3 understates what the platform demonstrably logs and what the agency could produce. The deconfliction advisories prove that the underlying search-level data exists and is attributed to LRPD by name and to the minute. Each advisory states the searching agency, the plate, and a UTC timestamp: a representative pair from February 6, 2026 logs an LRPD search at "8:15 AM UTC" and a second at "8:23 AM UTC," both "conducted by Little Rock AR PD" for the same plate (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 566, "On February 6, 2026 at 8:15 AM UTC, a Flock Safety hot list search was conducted by Little Rock AR PD for target plate"; Emails 1-24.pdf p. 562, "On February 6, 2026 at 8:23 AM UTC, a Flock Safety hot list search was conducted by Little Rock AR PD"). That Flock can attribute each search to the agency by name and timestamp shows the platform maintains per-search records of exactly the kind Item 3 sought. The three exports Item 3 named are platform-generated artifacts retrievable from the Flock console, not bespoke documents LRPD would have to author. The request named "the standard monthly audit-log exports (per the Flock platform's 'Audit' view)" and the "Federal Searches" and "SharedNetworks" CSVs (Emails 36-63.pdf p. 1475). The production's own audit-control material confirms these views exist on the platform LRPD uses: Flock describes "search-usage analytics by agency" and a "Network Audit filter" that lets an agency "see only out-of-state searches for any date range ... across your full audit history" (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 1330, "see only out-of-state searches for any date range"), and an agency-level federal-sharing control under which "Agencies can now decide, at the agency level, whether they receive data-sharing requests from federal partners" (Emails 25-35.pdf p. 565, "Agencies can now decide, at the agency level, whether they receive data-sharing requests from federal partners"). Comparable Flock platform exports were produced by another Arkansas agency (the City of Conway) in response to an analogous request, which on Statement B undercuts the premise that such exports are unobtainable. Under Statement B, the search activity is logged, the named exports are pullable from the console, and the deconfliction advisories independently prove the data exists; a "no records" certification for Item 3 is therefore materially under-inclusive even if no document titled "audit log" sat in a folder. ## What the record supports and does not support The production directly supports several anchor facts on both sides. It establishes that LRPD received and retained hundreds of dated, agency-attributed deconfliction advisories ([[Flock Deconfliction Advisories and the LRPD Sharing Network]]); that those advisories are vendor notification emails, not formal audit-view exports; that Flock's formal audit records can be masked with "***" so that information "does exist, but is intentionally only visible to the searching agency" (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 564); and that the platform offers agency-level audit, network-audit, and federal-sharing views (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 1330; Emails 25-35.pdf p. 565). It also establishes that the FOIA request expressly named the "Federal Searches" CSV, the "SharedNetworks" CSV, and the monthly audit-log exports (Emails 36-63.pdf pp. 1474-1475), and that none of those three exports appears anywhere in this production (see [[Federal Data-Sharing Controls and Federal-Access Posture]]). The production does **not** contain the May 26, 2026 "no records" certification itself, which lives in the FOIA-response correspondence rather than in the three production PDFs; the certification is described here from that correspondence. The production does not contain any Flock audit-view export, "Federal Searches" CSV, or "SharedNetworks" CSV from LRPD, so it cannot show what those exports would contain or whether LRPD generates and retains them. It does not contain any LRPD statement explaining the basis for the Item-3 disposition, any segregability or search-adequacy analysis, or any record of whether LRPD attempted to pull the named console exports. Whether the named exports were withheld, not located, never generated, or deemed non-records is **not stated in the record reviewed here**. This page does not resolve which of those is the case, and neither Statement A nor Statement B is a finding of unlawful conduct. ## Why it matters The resolution determines whether a supplemental request or an appeal is warranted to compel the three named platform exports. If Statement A holds, the Item-3 disposition is an accurate answer about discrete held artifacts and a supplemental request would simply re-ask for console exports that the agency may have to generate rather than locate. If Statement B holds, the certification is under-inclusive against the agency's own production, and an appeal or supplemental request targeting the Flock "Audit" view export, the "Federal Searches" CSV, and the "SharedNetworks" CSV is the appropriate next step — particularly because those exports are the only quantitative record of LRPD's officer-search volume, its out-of-state querying, and its federal-access posture, none of which the deconfliction advisories capture in aggregate. The tension also bears on the reliability of "no records" dispositions generally in this production, where the same request returned both a "no records" answer (Item 3) and a large body of records that document the very activity Item 3 sought. ## Resolution status Open. The decisive missing evidence is (1) the full text and stated basis of the May 26, 2026 Item-3 certification, and (2) any LRPD record showing whether the Flock "Audit" view export, "Federal Searches" CSV, and "SharedNetworks" CSV exist as retrievable artifacts. Neither is present in this production. A targeted supplemental request or appeal for those three console exports, paired with a request for the search-adequacy basis of the Item-3 disposition, would test the tension directly. ## Discovery Surfaced 2026-06-17 during analysis of PDFOI-2026-1874. The deconfliction-advisory volume (documented at [[Flock Deconfliction Advisories and the LRPD Sharing Network]]) was reconciled against the Item-3 request language (Emails 36-63.pdf pp. 1474-1475) and the FOIA-response correspondence certifying "no records" for the audit-log portion, revealing that the agency produced contemporaneous per-search records under Item 2 while certifying no records under Item 3. ## Notes - The "no records" certification text is from the LRPD FOIA-response correspondence and is **not** anchored to a page in the three production PDFs; this is flagged above and should be confirmed against the response letter before the tension is cited in any synthesis or appeal. - The deconfliction advisories reproduce specific license-plate numbers and some officers' direct-dial numbers; per PII discipline, neither is reproduced on this page. The advisories' evidentiary value here is that they attribute searches to LRPD with timestamps, not the plate values themselves. - The Conway comparison (another Arkansas agency producing analogous Flock console exports) is asserted on Statement B as undercutting the unobtainability premise; the specifics of the Conway production are documented on that agency's source pages and are not re-verified here. - This page takes no position on whether the Item-3 disposition was lawful or made in good faith. It frames an evidentiary gap between two records dispositions under the same request. ## Related - [[Flock Deconfliction Advisories and the LRPD Sharing Network]] (source page — the contemporaneous per-search audit trail) - [[Flock Audit and Compliance Controls and Gaps]] (source page — the "***" mask and the platform audit views) - [[Federal Data-Sharing Controls and Federal-Access Posture]] (source page — the absent Federal Searches and SharedNetworks CSVs) - [[Flock Audit Logs and Retention]] - [[Flock Deconfliction Advisory]] - [[Little Rock Police Department]]