CPRA request — directives concerning non-disclosure of ALPR use in reports, to vehicle occupants, and in discovery

Re: CPRA request — directives concerning non-disclosure of ALPR use in reports, to vehicle occupants, and in discovery. Related to, but not duplicative of, PR-2026-209.

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code § 7920.000 et seq., and Article I, § 3(b) of the California Constitution, I request copies of the records described below.

Purpose of this request. Law enforcement agencies in several states have adopted written policies and training materials instructing officers not to disclose automated license plate reader use to vehicle occupants, not to name ALPR in incident reports, and to substitute general phrasing — for example, “using county resources” — when the source of a vehicle identification must be documented at all. This request asks whether the Benicia Police Department has issued, received, adopted, or considered any such guidance, and how ALPR provenance is handled when a case proceeds to charging and discovery.

Note on scope. I filed PR-2026-209 on August 3, 2026, which at Category 4.5 seeks directives concerning how to document an ALPR hit. This request is not duplicative. It seeks directives concerning whether to document ALPR involvement, the substitute language used when it is not named, guidance the Department has received from outside agencies or from its vendor on describing ALPR use, and the treatment of ALPR provenance in prosecution and discovery. If the City believes any item below is fully answered by production already underway in PR-2026-209, please identify that item specifically rather than deferring this request as a whole.

Definitions

• “ALPR” means any automated license plate recognition system operated by, on behalf of, or accessible to the Benicia Police Department, including Flock Safety cameras (fixed and mobile), Vigilant/Motorola systems, and any ALPR data received through NCRIC or any other agency or network.
• “Hit” means any ALPR alert, hot list match, or notification generated to or received by Department personnel.
• “Relevant Period” means January 1, 2021 through the date this request is processed.
• “Directive” includes any policy, standard operating procedure, general order, training bulletin, roll-call briefing, field training material, slide deck, memorandum, email, text or chat message, or verbal instruction that has been reduced to writing in any form.

Category 1 — Directives concerning disclosure of ALPR use

1. All Directives issued to Department personnel during the Relevant Period concerning whether, when, or how to disclose ALPR use to the occupants of a stopped vehicle, to a detained or arrested person, or to any member of the public.
2. All Directives concerning whether, when, or how ALPR use is to be described in an incident report, arrest report, supplemental report, probable cause declaration, search warrant affidavit, citation, or CAD narrative.
3. Any Directive that instructs, advises, or permits personnel to omit reference to ALPR, to describe an ALPR-derived vehicle identification in general terms, or to attribute a vehicle identification to a source other than ALPR — including any approved, suggested, or example phrasing (such as “department resources,” “investigative means,” “a law enforcement database,” “information received,” or equivalent).
4. Any Directive requiring, recommending, or describing independent corroboration or verification of an ALPR hit before a stop is initiated, and any Directive addressing whether such corroboration affects what must be documented about the hit.
5. Any Directive addressing what personnel should say if asked directly by a member of the public, a detained person, or an attorney whether ALPR was used.

Category 2 — Guidance received from outside the Department

1. All guidance, advisories, bulletins, model policies, talking points, template language, or recommendations received by the Department or the City during the Relevant Period from Flock Safety or any other ALPR vendor concerning how to describe, characterize, disclose, or decline to disclose ALPR use — whether in reports, in court, to the media, or to the public.
2. All such guidance received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Department of Justice, the California Department of Justice, NCRIC, WSIN, any fusion center, any regional task force, or any other law enforcement agency or association, including but not limited to any advisory using or paraphrasing the formulation “as vague as permissible.”
3. All communications between Department or City personnel and any of the entities in items 1–2 concerning the disclosure or non-disclosure of ALPR use.
4. Any record showing that the Department obtained, reviewed, circulated, or considered adopting the ALPR policy, SOP, or training materials of another agency, including any of those recently reported publicly (Wapello County Sheriff’s Office, Altoona Police Department, or Mar-Mac Police Department, Iowa; Seattle Police Department; any Sacramento County agency).

Category 3 — Discovery, charging, and Brady handling

1. All Directives, protocols, memoranda, or communications concerning the disclosure of ALPR involvement to prosecutors, in discovery, or to the defense.
2. All communications during the Relevant Period between Department personnel and the Solano County District Attorney’s Office concerning ALPR — including but not limited to whether ALPR provenance must be disclosed in charging documents or discovery, whether ALPR-derived information is treated as confidential intelligence, and any request by the District Attorney for ALPR records or audit data in a specific case.
3. Any Directive or communication addressing whether ALPR records or hit data constitute discoverable material, Brady material, or an investigative technique exempt from disclosure.
4. Records sufficient to show whether the Department maintains any record that would allow it to identify, after the fact, which cases originated from an ALPR hit — and if no such capability exists, a statement to that effect.
5. Any motion to suppress, motion to compel discovery, defense subpoena, writ, or court order received by the Department during the Relevant Period concerning ALPR use, and the Department’s response.

Category 4 — Classification of ALPR data as confidential

1. All Directives or records classifying ALPR data, hits, or query results as confidential criminal intelligence, law enforcement sensitive, or otherwise restricted from disclosure, and any record describing what that classification means in practice for report writing, discovery, or public records responses.
2. Records sufficient to show where ALPR queries are logged, whether that log is separate from the incident report or CAD narrative, and who may access it.
3. Any legal opinion, City Attorney memorandum, or written advice obtained by the Department or the City concerning disclosure of ALPR use to the public, to defendants, or in response to public records requests. I am not seeking material subject to a valid privilege; produce any such record in redacted form with the privilege asserted identified, and produce any portion that has been shared beyond the privileged relationship.

Category 5 — Complaints and internal review

1. Any complaint, inquiry, internal affairs record, or after-action review during the Relevant Period arising from a stop, detention, or arrest in which the person involved asserted they were not told why they were stopped, or in which the ALPR basis for the contact was later disputed.
2. Any record in which Department personnel raise a concern, question, or objection about the non-disclosure of ALPR use in reports or to the public.

Format, fees, and process

Format. Where records exist in an electronic format, I request production in that native electronic format rather than as scanned images or printed pages (Gov. Code § 7922.570 et seq.). For email, please produce with headers and attachments intact.

Search scope. Because much of the guidance sought here travels informally, I ask that the search include email, Microsoft Teams or equivalent messaging, and any text messages on City-issued or personally owned devices used for City business, consistent with City of San José v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608.

Segregability. Where a responsive record contains both exempt and non-exempt material, I request that reasonably segregable non-exempt portions be produced with exempt portions redacted and the basis for each redaction identified (Gov. Code § 7922.525). A policy instructing officers what to write in reports is not itself an investigative technique whose disclosure would endanger an investigation; the existence and text of a documentation policy is categorically different from the details of a specific case.

Fees. I request a waiver of fees on the basis that this request serves the public interest in understanding how a publicly funded surveillance program is documented and disclosed. If fees cannot be waived, please notify me before processing if costs will exceed $25.

Assistance. If any portion of this request is unclear, overbroad, or does not reasonably describe an identifiable record, I ask the City to fulfill its duty to assist under Gov. Code § 7922.600 by contacting me to discuss scope. I am readily available to narrow date ranges or categories, and I would prefer a rolling production beginning with the most readily available categories over a single delayed release.

Nonexistent records. If no responsive record exists for a given item — for example, if the Department has issued no directive concerning disclosure of ALPR use, or maintains no means of identifying which cases originated from an ALPR hit — please state that affirmatively for that item rather than omitting it. A statement that no such directive exists is itself responsive, and is material to this inquiry.

Timeline. I look forward to your determination within 10 days as required by Gov. Code § 7922.535. If the Department invokes the 14-day extension, please identify the specific unusual circumstances relied upon.