P264292 - 8.17.26 sfpd response.pdf

                                 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
                                    POLICE DEPARTMENT
                                             HEADQUARTERS
                                                1245 3RD Street
                                        San Francisco, California 94158
DANIEL LURIE                                                                                DERRICK J. LEW
   MAYOR                                                                                       CHIEF OF POLICE
August 17, 2026
Via GovQA portal
RE:    Public Records Request, dated July 11, 2026
Reference # P264292-071126
Dear Anonymous,
The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) received your Public Records Act request, dated July
11, 2026.
You requested, “Dear Custodian of Records:
Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code sections 7920.000 et seq.) and the San
Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (S.F. Admin. Code sections 67.1 et seq.), I request the following
records. Where a record exists in electronic form, I request it in that electronic form (native
format, CSV, or searchable PDF) delivered by email.
CONTEXT (for clarity, not a limitation): In June 2026, SFPD publicly disclosed that a routine
audit had found its Flock Safety Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) data was improperly
accessed on behalf of out-of-state and federal agencies. Per SFPD’s public statements, the
Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC) had granted access to the Western States
Information Network (WSIN), whose analysts ran approximately 299 improper inquiries over
roughly a year, and those inquiries simultaneously queried the ALPR databases of between 531 and
763 other law enforcement agencies. This request seeks the underlying audit and the identities of the
agencies whose data was queried.
RECORDS REQUESTED


The audit, report, or analysis (including any spreadsheet, log, or presentation) in which SFPD
identified the improper access of its ALPR/Flock data via NCRIC and WSIN, including its
findings, methodology, date range, and the count of improper inquiries.


Records sufficient to identify the law enforcement agencies whose ALPR databases were queried
in the improper inquiries described in that audit – i.e., the “531 to 763 other law
enforcement agencies” referenced in SFPD’s public statements – including any list, roster, or
log naming those agencies.


Records sufficient to show whether the Benicia Police Department’s ALPR cameras or data were
among those queried in the improper inquiries, including any audit-log entries referencing
Benicia.


The audit-log data for the improper inquiries, showing for each: the date/time, the searching
P A G E |2


user or organization (e.g., WSIN), the requesting or beneficiary agency (including any
out-of-state or federal agency), and the stated reason or case reference, with plate/personal
data redacted as required but non-exempt fields produced.


Records reflecting SFPD’s authorization or agreement granting NCRIC access to SFPD’s
Flock/ALPR network, and any records reflecting NCRIC’s onward grant of access to WSIN or other
entities.


Communications between SFPD and any of the following concerning the improper access, its
discovery, or its remediation, from January 1, 2025 to the present: NCRIC; WSIN; Flock Safety;
and the California Department of Justice / Office of the Attorney General.


Any notification SFPD sent to partner or affected agencies (including agencies whose data was
queried) regarding the improper access, and any records reflecting the decision to disable
NCRIC’s and WSIN’s access.


REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED / IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE
To the extent items 1 and 2 are already-compiled records (the audit and any agency list), I
request them as an Immediate Disclosure Request under S.F. Admin. Code section 67.25, which calls
for production by the close of the next business day for records that are readily available.
CLARIFICATIONS AND REQUESTS


Rolling production: Please produce responsive records on a rolling basis rather than waiting to
complete the entire request; the audit (item 1) and the agency list (item 2) are the priority.


Format: Please provide log and list data in machine-readable form (CSV or spreadsheet) rather
than a flattened image, so it remains searchable and sortable.


Redactions and segregability: If you withhold or redact any record or portion, please cite the
specific exemption for each withholding (Gov. Code section 7922.540; S.F. Admin. Code section
67.27) and produce all reasonably segregable non-exempt portions. The existence, scope, and
headline findings of this audit have already been publicly disclosed by SFPD; I ask that
administrative and statistical portions not be withheld wholesale on investigative grounds.


Fees: Please notify me before incurring any duplication fees over $20. Electronic production
should carry minimal or no cost.


Timeline: I understand SFPD must respond within 10 days under the CPRA and the Sunshine
Ordinance (with limited extensions), and by the next business day for any portion granted as an
Immediate Disclosure Request.


If any part of this request is unclear, please contact me so we can discuss it rather than denying
it outright; I am willing to reasonably narrow scope while preserving items 1-3.
Thank you for your assistance.”
P A G E |3
SFPD Response
SFPD has been providing you with correspondence via the GovQA portal under GovQA reference #
P264292.
On July 21, 2026, SFPD invoked the extension of time to respond to your request pursuant to
California Government Code section 7922.535(c)(1) & (2) due to the need to search and review our
records.
On August 5, 2026, SFPD informed you that we were still in the process of searching for responsive
records. We will continue to be in contact with you and provide you with an update by August 19,
2026.
SFPD received your follow-up email correspondence sent to Media Relations, dated August 13,
2026, as follows:
“Public records request P264292-071126 - no response received, request for status
To the Custodian of Records, San Francisco Police Department:
I am writing about public records request P264292-071126, submitted through the Department’s
portal at
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://sanfranciscopd.govqa.us&source=gmail&ust=1786767343278
000&sa=E on July 11, 2026.
I have received no response of any kind. Not a determination, not an extension, not an
acknowledgement, and no communication from any member of the Department’s staff. The portal’s
confirmation page, displayed to me at the time of submission, is the only communication connected
to the request. Thirty-three days have passed since it was filed and twenty-three since the ten-day
deadline in S.F. Administrative Code section 67.21(b) and Government Code section 7922.535.
I would like to resolve this directly with the Department rather than through a complaint, and I am
writing in that spirit.
WHAT I AM ASKING FOR NOW


Confirmation that the Department received the request and that it is assigned to a member of staff,
with that person’s name and contact details.


The Department’s determination under section 67.21(b) and Government Code section 7922.535 –
whether it holds disclosable records responsive to the request – and, if records are being withheld in
whole or part, the specific exemption claimed for each.


If the request cannot be answered in full promptly, a rolling production. The priority items are item
1 (the audit itself) and item 2 (the list of agencies whose ALPR databases were queried). If it is easier
to begin with item 3 – whether the Benicia Police Department appears anywhere in the audit logs –
that single answer would be valuable to me and I would accept it first.


WHY THE TIMING MATTERS
P A G E |4
The records concern the Department’s own finding that its ALPR data was queried improperly on
behalf of federal and out-of-state agencies. The Department has stated publicly that a single query
against its network often ran simultaneously against between 531 and 763 other agencies’ networks.
Whether a given California agency’s data was reached is a question those agencies cannot answer for
themselves. I have confirmed that at least one cannot: NCRIC told me in writing on July 23, 2026
that no record “exists, could be located, or could be created” identifying whether a Flock ALPR
query returned matching search results from a specific agency, camera, or location.
The Department’s audit therefore appears to be the only compiled record that speaks to it, and the
underlying data is subject to a thirty-day retention limit. Delay in this instance does not postpone the
answer; past a point it removes it.
ONE ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION
The portal’s confirmation page displayed to me on submission shows the “Contact E-Mail” field as
blank. I do not know whether that reflects how the page renders or whether the field was in fact
empty on the record. If the Department has no email address on file for this request, that would
explain the absence of any correspondence, and I would ask that [email redacted] be added
to the record now. I raise it because I would rather identify an administrative fault than assume bad
faith.
FOR COMPLETENESS
I have filed a complaint with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force concerning the absence of a
response; it is File No. 26108. I am copying this message to the Task Force so the record reflects that
I have sought to resolve the matter with the Department directly. If the Department responds, I will
tell the Task Force so.
I am also posting this message to the request record through the portal, so that it reaches the file
however it is routed internally.
I would be glad to narrow the request if scope is the obstacle. Please tell me what would help.
Thank you.
Gregg Horton
Benicia, CA
[email redacted]”
SFPD is still in the process of searching for responsive records. We will continue to be in contact
with you and provide you with an update by August 19, 2026.
If you have any questions, please contact the Legal Division at (415) 837-7394.
Thank you for your courtesy in this regard.
Sincerely,
P A G E |5
SFPD Legal Division, on behalf of
Acting Lieutenant Darwin Naval # 2271
Officer in Charge - Legal Division