# 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 (`raw/rogers-pd/2026-07-24-first-production/406.4 Public Safety Camera Network System.pdf`, PDF p. 3): > "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 Rogers's own policy assigns the Department an access role that is broader than passive private ownership. It requires equipment “to enable agency access” and says the donor “agrees to share any video footage for investigative purposes” (`raw/rogers-pd/2026-07-24-first-production/406.4 Public Safety Camera Network System.pdf`, PDF p. 3, §§ 4.4.2–4.4.3). Those policy terms independently document agency access and investigative use; they raise record-specific questions about copies, access logs, requests, and other records the Department may create or receive. They do not establish that a transient live view is necessarily a retained public record, and the corpus does not resolve the legal question. See [[Arkansas FOIA Electronic Records and Vendor Custody]]. 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” (`406.4 Public Safety Camera Network System.pdf`, PDF p. 3, §§ 4.4.1 and 4.5.1). If the Department genuinely never takes possession, the clause may describe a factual absence rather than an applied exemption. ## Later deployment and disclosure-positioning evidence The later production establishes that the Connect Rogers microsite was complete and ready for “camera registration and onboarding of eligible camera feeds” on March 6, 2026 (`extracted/rogers-pd/2026-08-12-second-communications-production/Alan FOI Dunlap 2.pst/BMA Export/Unfiled/12908.eml`, body). By July 1, Rogers was asking peers whether they had “successfully reject[ed]” requests concerning registrants and live-feed participants and “what basis did you use?” (`.../Alan FOI Dunlap.pst/BMA Export/Unfiled/836.eml`, body). The peer response says a confidential-informant theory had been used but adds, “I don't personally feel that was the best approach”; it separately says the only information was held in Fusus and frames retrieval as creating a document (`.../843.eml` and `846.eml`, bodies). The Rogers chief's forwarding comment objects that one item would reveal “citizen's participation and locations” (`.../824.eml`, body). None of those messages is a Rogers denial or a binding interpretation of Arkansas law. ## Why it matters This is the corpus's clearest instance of the ownership-based records exclusion moving from private reasoning into adopted policy. The policy redirects a media or public inquiry about those cameras to the private donor without documenting what records, if any, Rogers keeps after access or investigative use. 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 as a Rogers disposition. The later correspondence shows an actual disclosure concern and a search for possible rationales, but the production contains no Rogers denial applying § 4.4.4, no record-specific exemption analysis, and no legal ruling on platform-held registration or access records. ## 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. The completed microsite and test-onboarding correspondence establish implementation steps, not a participant count. An Attorney General opinion on vendor-hosted and privately-titled surveillance records could reach this clause; Conway Police Department drafted a related request on 2026-05-26, but the City Attorney's office did not submit it. Conway's resulting internal disagreement remains open at [[T046 - Conway City Attorney Disclosure Advice vs CPD Categorical ALPR Audit Withholding]].