# T020 — Jonesboro Shared-Camera Documentation Statement vs Inventory Entries The Section 1 transmittal disclaims documentation of cameras owned and shared by other organizations, while the workbook it transmits itemizes a county Avigilon system, two private facility feeds, and a separately named private Flock network. The later completion notice categorically assigns Sections 6–8 to Flock, but the produced policy requires the City or Department to maintain several responsive local records. The evidence now presents a direct reasonable-search and record-custody question rather than only an ambiguity in the inventory's labels. ## Statement A "Cameras that are owned and shared by another government agency or organization are only shared with us through the host website. We have access through the FLOCK sharing network; therefore, they will have to provide the information you are seeking for this section, as we do not have any documentation or records on this." (Sally Smith transmittal, Gmail message `19f8fde41db5c885`, 2026-07-23.) The 2026-07-28 completion notice says: "Sections 6 through 8 will need to be provided by FLOCK; these are not records that we keep" (JustFOIA completion message `19faab2584ade60c`). ## Statement B JPD's own produced workbook lists `Craighead County Avigilon — 26 views`, `TrimGym — 9 Views`, `SW Church James — 8 views`, and a `(Bridger Place (AR) Network)` Flock section with two named sites ([[Jonesboro Camera and Views Inventory]], `Camera Locations.xlsx`, "Cameras and Views," Other Cameras in Avigilon and Flock Safety LPR sections). Policy 715.02 requires a City-participant MOU before RTCC camera access, directs the IT administrator to maintain all users with access, requires supervisors to ensure access and use are documented, requires officer video requests in writing or email, and requires outside LPR dissemination to be documented in a secondary-dissemination log ([[Jonesboro UAS RTCC and ALPR Policies 714 and 715]], `2025 Policy Manual-Complete.pdf`, pp. 411–414). Craighead County's later production identifies the external access directly: 31 County exterior Avigilon camera rows are reachable through a `"Site-Site VPN"`, and 32 JPD officers are listed at access level `"JPD Shared Exterior"` ([[Jonesboro Access to Craighead County Avigilon]], `JPD County Avigilon Access.pdf`, pp. 1–3). The County-held list does not establish which copy or audit records JPD itself retains. ## Why it matters The same platform-custody posture — treating platform-visible cross-organization data as not the agency's record — recurs at Cabot ([[T017 - Cabot Sharing Rule vs Unresolved External Account Scope]]) and LRPD ([[T004 - Ambiguous Audit-Log-Review Response vs Unresolved Item 3]]). Here, however, JPD's own policy independently names local records responsive to access, sharing, and communications categories. The distinction matters for whether Flock alone is the custodian of platform exports and whether JPD and City IT nevertheless retain responsive MOUs, user lists, emails, written requests, and dissemination logs. ## Resolution status `open` — resolve through a narrowed clarification and reasonable search of JPD, RTCC, City IT, and departmental email for existing MOUs, user/access lists, written video requests, secondary-dissemination logs, retained platform exports, and implementation communications. A category-specific no-records response can resolve an absent subcategory; the present blanket vendor-only disposition cannot reconcile the produced policy by itself. ## Discovery Surfaced during the 2026-07-23 Section 1 ingest by comparing the transmittal email to the workbook it delivered; deepened on 2026-07-28 by the completion notice and Policies 714.02 and 715.02, and on 2026-08-03 by Craighead County's concrete VPN/camera/user access list. ## Notes The tension concerns record custody and characterization, not bad faith; the custodian's statement may reflect Flock's and Avigilon's platform designs, which is itself corpus-relevant (see [[T001 - Default-On Sharing Policy or Product Design]]).