# T028 — Rogers Private Donor Camera Records Exclusion Bentonville's captain reasoned privately that vendor-hosted sharing configuration might not be a City record. Rogers wrote the equivalent proposition into an adopted policy and signed it. ## Statement A Rogers Policy 406.4, Public Safety Camera Network System, effective 2026-04-14, § 4.4.4, governing Private Donor Cameras: > "The private donor is responsible to respond to any request from the media or public regarding their cameras. **All private donor video is owned by the private donor and is not subject to public records requests.**" The same policy defines the Public Safety Camera Network as "any camera providing access to either live or recorded" video, and Policy 406.7 directs Real Time Information Center personnel to "Access available PSCN Cameras." ## Statement B The Arkansas FOIA reaches records "created or received" by a public agency and kept in the performance of its functions, and the corpus already documents the principle that records held by a third party on an agency's behalf are not thereby placed beyond reach ([[Arkansas FOIA Electronic Records and Vendor Custody]]). Rogers's own policy establishes that the Department negotiates the arrangement, sets the access conditions, requires that "the private donor agrees to share any video footage for investigative purposes," requires the donor to obtain "specific equipment to enable agency access," and reaches the feeds through its RTIC. Footage a police RTIC views and uses investigatively is at minimum a record *received* by the agency in the ordinary sense, whatever the ownership of the underlying camera. The policy does provide real limits that cut the other way: private donor feeds "will not be recorded by the RPD," "All recorded video footage shall be the property of the private donor," and RTIC access is conditioned on areas "where the public has no reasonable expectation of privacy." If the Department genuinely never takes possession, the exclusion may describe a factual absence rather than assert a legal exemption. ## Why it matters This is the corpus's clearest instance of the ownership-based records exclusion moving from private reasoning into adopted policy. Its practical effect is that a citizen asking Rogers what its camera network saw is redirected to a private business, and a category of surveillance the police can watch has no public custodian at all. The policy makes the private donor "responsible to respond to any request from the media or public," which is a duty Arkansas law does not impose on private parties and which no private party is obliged to honour. The structure also interacts with the Volunteer Registry pathway in the same policy, under which private camera owners register the existence and location of their cameras without granting access. Whether the registry itself is a public record is not addressed. ## Resolution status open — untested. This investigation has not asked Rogers for private donor camera records, and no denial has been issued under § 4.4.4. The clause is documented as adopted policy, not as an applied exemption. ## Discovery Surfaced 2026-07-24 during ingest of the first Rogers production. ## Notes No private donor roster, participation agreement, or registry content was produced, so the corpus cannot say how many private cameras the arrangement covers or whether any are enrolled. An Attorney General opinion on vendor-hosted and privately-titled surveillance records would reach this clause; Conway Police Department gave its City Attorney a draft request for such an opinion on 2026-05-26, and its status is unresolved.