12 The network grows by vendor email with an "Accept All" buttonnew

Eight “Action Requested: Pending Flock Camera Share Requests” notices, 2025-09-10 → 2026-01-28, are new in this production. Each opens:

“Great news, your network is growing! There are multiple Flock Camera share requests pending your acceptance.”

and instructs: “Accept All or individually select using the Actions column.”

Tabulated in PR-2026-7/share-requests.csv:

• 70 requests from 59 distinct agencies over five months
• 21 requests (15 agencies) sought VMS scopes — VMS Go-Live, VMS Historical, VMS Download — i.e. live and recorded video, not just plate reads
• 56 of the 59 requesters do not appear in the acknowledgment-letter roster from PR-2026-155 (88 letters, 82 distinct agencies)
• Requesters run far beyond mutual aid: Cal Fire, California State Parks, Round Valley Indian Tribes, three community-college police departments, and agencies across the state — Barstow, Lancaster, Imperial County, Corona, Seal Beach, Desert Hot Springs, Visalia
• Repeat askers suggest requests that went unanswered or were revoked: Dublin CA PD (ACSO) 4×, Seaside 3×, Pasadena / Barstow / Folsom / San Pasqual / San Joaquin County SO / Cerritos College 2× each

The workflow was designed this way from the start. Graham Carter explained it to Benicia PD on 2021-08-26:

“when an automated sharing request comes in those of you in the admin, the group will get an email… all you would need to do is reach out to that person, send him the paperwork, and once you get it back just approve the request. For folks outside of a 50-mile radius, what I will do is actually give them your contact information…”

Why it matters. Finding #6 established that Benicia shares by one-page self-certification with “no formal MOU.” This shows the pipeline that feeds it: the vendor solicits, batches, and presents the expansion to a city employee as a one-click approval — including for video.

Important limit on this finding: these notices list pending requests. The record does not show which Benicia approved. That is precisely the gap the next records request should close (see below).

Evidence: PR-2026-7/share-requests.csv, PR-2026-7/text/Action Requested_ Pending Flock Camera Share Requests*.txt, PR-2025-199/text/Re_ ALPR policy(10).txt

Update, 2026-08-28: the requests were not all accepted

This finding rests on pending share requests: 59 agencies asking for access over five months, 56 of them with no acknowledgment letter on file. It has always been careful to say those were requests, not grants. The transparency portal now allows the other half of the question to be answered.

The portal capture of 2026-08-28 publishes Sharing Network Data With: Organizations granted access to Benicia CA PD data, naming 75 organizations. Reconciled against the 82 distinct agencies holding a signed acknowledgment letter in PR-2026-155/agency-roster.csv:

Every organization currently granted access to Benicia’s cameras holds a signed acknowledgment letter. On the evidence available, the “Accept All” button was not pressed indiscriminately. The 56 requesters without letters appear simply never to have been approved, which is what the finding allowed for and could not previously test.

That is a real answer in the City’s favour, and it should be said plainly. What the finding identified as a risk, a one-click path from vendor email to network membership, remains a description of the mechanism, not of an outcome that occurred.

Seven letter-holders are not on the current roster:

Alameda County Regional Auto Theft Taskforce (ACRATT) · Hayward PD · Milbrae PD · Mountain View PD · Orinda PD · Pinole PD · SFPD Strategic Investigation Unit

Two are probably artifacts of naming granularity rather than removals: ACRATT is a task force that may operate under Alameda County SO, which is on the roster, and the SFPD Strategic Investigation Unit is a sub-unit of San Francisco PD, which is also on the roster in its own right.

The five municipal departments are genuinely absent. Mountain View PD is the one to note: it suspended its own Flock program in February 2026 after federal agencies reached its data, which is the story Mayor Young forwarded to the Chief on 2026-02-04 (see Finding 21). Its absence is more likely explained by Mountain View leaving Flock than by Benicia removing it, but nothing in the record establishes which, or when any of the seven came off.

Reconciliation table: foia_docs/portal-captures/2026-08-28/roster-reconciliation.csv.