Requests and replies.

See what has been requested, which agencies have replied and what is still missing.

Latest updates

Fee itemization and inspection scheduling · Fort Mohave / Mohave Valley, Arizona

Mohave County supplies a $114.60 invoice and begins arranging inspection.

The Sheriff’s Office supplied a five-page fee packet on October 22. Its invoice counts 1,116 pages: 92 for agreements, purchase orders and emails; 520 for data sharing; 388 for data hotlist; 108 for data receiving; and 8 for data hotlist receiving. It charges $5 for the first 20 pages plus $109.60 for 1,096 additional pages at $0.10 each, totaling $114.60 before any card convenience fee. The reply says gathering, preparation and redaction time are not charged. The Office is arranging inspection at the Kingman Sheriff’s Office and expects to send more information the following week; no appointment is confirmed.

The invoice does not reconcile the earlier $114.50 and $144.50 quotes or explain why emailing existing Excel files requires a per-page charge. The supplied 2018 police-report fee row lists the same rate under “Current” but says it was not established by the Board of Supervisors and Finance did not review it. An accompanying action form is marked approved April 16, 2018; this packet does not explain how that approval applies to the Excel charge. Free digital delivery, free inspection and self-copying are not confirmed. Only fee-support papers accompanied this reply; the underlying ALPR records remain unreviewed. No fee has been authorized.

Read the reply summaryReply Oct 22, 2026 · Posted Oct 23, 2026

Agency response · unexplained fee difference · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona

Mohave County’s new email quotes $144.50; the $30 difference is unexplained.

The Mohave County Sheriff’s Office wrote October 15 that it has most of the requested information, including four Excel spreadsheets about sharing and receiving data with other agencies. The email offers to send the documentation after payment of $144.50 plus a credit-card convenience fee. That figure is $30 above the $114.50 quoted September 29 and October 13; the email does not explain the difference.

No records accompanied the reply. It gives no itemized calculation or legal basis for the charge, does not explain why emailing existing Excel files requires payment, and does not address free inspection and self-copying. Whether $144.50 is a revised fee or an error remains unconfirmed. The remaining records and coverage of non-Flock systems and third-party access are still unclear. No fee has been authorized.

Read the reply summaryReply Oct 15, 2026 · Posted Oct 16, 2026

Further notice · conditional availability estimate · Laughlin, Nevada

LVMPD gives November 13 as the earliest anticipated records availability.

LVMPD wrote October 15 that it could not make records available that day and was still researching and consulting the relevant units to identify responsive records. The notice gives close of business November 13, 2026 as the earliest point after which the department reasonably expects records, if any, to be available.

This is a conditional estimate, not a guaranteed date for first or complete production. The notice supplies no records, fee or request for clarification, and does not confirm which responsive records exist. The October 15 status-update watch is resolved by this notice.

Read the reply summaryReply Oct 15, 2026 · Posted Oct 16, 2026

Ombudsman staff guidance · Mohave County, Arizona

Ombudsman recommends a separate fee-breakdown request for Mohave records.

The Arizona Ombudsman–Citizens’ Aide replied October 14 with a case reference and staff guidance on the Mohave County records dispute. The reply recommends a standalone request for the fee breakdown and requests for specific existing records where questions remain unanswered. Staff said the $114.50 quote did not seem unreasonable, but expressly described that assessment as a rough estimate without an itemization.

The reply does not directly address emailing the existing Excel files without charge or free inspection and self-copying. It provides no fee calculation, records or response date, and does not resolve coverage of non-Flock systems. The office says it does not enforce public-records law. The case reference and guidance do not establish a formal investigation or a ruling on the fee. No fee has been authorized.

Read the reply summaryReply Oct 14, 2026 · Posted Oct 14, 2026

Fee dispute and access request sent · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona

Mohave County’s $114.50 fee disputed; free digital access or inspection requested.

On October 13, Needles / Flock disputed Mohave County’s $114.50 charge and asked for an itemized calculation and legal basis. The project requested existing electronic records, including the Excel files, by email or download link without charge, or an explanation of reproduction costs. If the Office continues to require payment for electronic delivery, the project requested free inspection and self-copying with a camera or portable scanner, subject to reasonable supervision.

Sending was verified; the County has not yet agreed to free delivery or inspection. The October 22 invoice supplies a page-count calculation; its application to electronic files, access arrangements and underlying records remain pending. No fee has been authorized. The request remains open and retains all ALPR vendors and third-party access within its original scope. The requested five-business-day reply window is not a statutory deadline or an agency promise. This summary reports the project’s request, not a ruling that the fee is unlawful.

Read the sending summarySent Oct 13, 2026 · Posted Oct 13, 2026

Ombudsman assistance requested · Mohave County, Arizona

Ombudsman assistance requested over Mohave County’s copying fee and records scope.

Needles / Flock asked the Arizona Ombudsman–Citizens’ Aide for help assessing Mohave County’s $114.50 copying charge and resolving access to existing ALPR records. The message asks whether any further internal review step is appropriate. The original request and complete County email correspondence were supplied privately.

Sending and the attachments were verified. Ombudsman staff guidance and a case reference arrived October 14. The submission and subsequent guidance do not establish that a formal investigation has opened or that the office has made a ruling on the County’s fee. No fee has been authorized. The original correspondence is not published here.

Read the sending summarySent Oct 13, 2026 · Posted Oct 13, 2026

Agency response · fee requested · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona

Mohave County identifies records in its $114.50 offer; fee calculation remains unanswered.

The Mohave County Sheriff’s Office says the records compiled for the request include the canceled Flock contract, available invoices and Excel spreadsheets concerning data sharing and receiving. The Office quotes $114.50 for those records, requires advance payment and says a card convenience fee applies only to card payments; in-person cash avoids that surcharge. The Office also offers to consider a narrower request to reduce the price.

No records accompanied the reply. It provides no itemized fee calculation, record date ranges or express confirmation that all four previously identified spreadsheet groups are included. Coverage of non-Flock systems, third-party access, policies and County Procurement records remains unclear. This is the Office’s account of records available, not a reviewed production or a finding about whether the fee is lawful. No fee has been authorized.

Read the reply summaryReply Oct 13, 2026 · Posted Oct 13, 2026

Follow-up sent · Needles, California

Needles follow-up asks for the agreement, contract dates and renewal deadline.

An October 9 follow-up asks the City Clerk for the status of the eight narrowed records and prioritizes the executed Flock agreement, activation and term dates, and renewal or nonrenewal deadlines. It resumes the other ALPR items held September 18 after those priorities, keeps the earlier-reader request separate and extends only Flock renewal decisions and notices through the reply date.

Sending is verified; receipt and any answer remain unconfirmed. The message does not establish contract dates, a renewal deadline or current camera settings. No fee is authorized.

Read the sending summarySent Oct 9, 2026 · Posted Oct 9, 2026

Follow-up sent · Needles, California

San Bernardino Sheriff follow-up prioritizes Flock contract timing and all ALPR vendors.

An October 9 follow-up in request 26-26645 asks for status and an estimated first production, with Flock’s executed agreement, activation, term and renewal-notice dates first. It retains all ALPR vendors, outside-system access, earlier equipment and the September 10 accuracy clarification, and extends only Flock renewal decisions and notices through the reply date.

Sending and inclusion in the request timeline are verified. No agency acknowledgment, answer or records accompanied the send. The request was open with zero listed documents before sending; the actual contract dates and notice deadline remain unresolved. No fee is authorized.

Read the sending summarySent Oct 9, 2026 · Posted Oct 9, 2026

Follow-up sent · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona

Mohave follow-up asks which records the fee covers and requests existing electronic files.

An October 9 follow-up asks about the September 29 all-vendor clarification, records ready for release, date ranges and existing formats, and categories still being searched or lacking records. It asks whether $114.50 covers all four sharing and receiving spreadsheet groups, contracts, policies and records supporting the end of Flock access, requests itemized charges and no-fee electronic records, and preserves the fee refusal.

Sending is verified. The October 13 reply addresses this follow-up but supplies no records or itemized fee calculation; other-vendor use remains unverified. The October 9 message declined the quoted fee and authorized no chargeable work.

Read the sending summarySent Oct 9, 2026 · Posted Oct 9, 2026

Agency response · fee requested · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona

Mohave County offers emailed records for $114.50 plus a convenience fee.

The Mohave County Sheriff’s Office says the requested information is complete and offers to email the documents and a receipt after payment of $114.50 plus a convenience fee.

The September 29 reply contained no attached records, itemized calculation, list of records covered or amount for the convenience fee. The October 15 reply identifies four sharing/receiving spreadsheets but does not name all four spreadsheet groups or their date ranges. No fee has been authorized and the records have not been reviewed.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 29, 2026 · Posted Sep 29, 2026

Follow-up sent · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona

Mohave County asked to provide records digitally or arrange supervised copying.

A follow-up in the existing request asks Mohave County to identify the records available from the four spreadsheet groups and their date ranges, provide electronic copies where available, and send a fee estimate before any chargeable work. If digital production is unavailable, it offers pickup or an appointment for supervised inspection, copying, or scanning.

Sending is verified. The September 29 and October 13 replies quoted $114.50; the October 15 email quotes $144.50 without explaining the difference. The October 22 reply later supplied fee-support papers; the underlying ALPR records remain unreviewed. This outgoing message did not establish a particular file format or price. No fee was authorized, and the request does not seek motorist records or a new analysis.

Read the sending summarySent Sep 29, 2026 · Posted Sep 29, 2026

Agency response · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona

Mohave County says its Flock access ended before the request; records may carry a fee.

On September 29, the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office said its access to Flock ended when the contract terminated, before the September 10 request. It said records staff would contact the project about payment and process documents it can provide. It also identified four approximate spreadsheet groups about data sharing, data hotlist sharing, data receiving and data hotlist receiving.

No records or fee estimate accompanied the response. The County did not provide a termination record, current access audit or the spreadsheets. The page counts are approximate and do not establish the time period, agencies, contents or cost. This does not independently verify that no other county office or agency holds related records.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 29, 2026 · Posted Sep 29, 2026

Receipt and routing · Needles, California

Needles acknowledges the earlier-reader request; records have not been scanned yet.

The City Clerk acknowledged the separate request for records behind Needles's earlier plate-reader purchases. The City Clerk wrote that the resolutions are not destroyed and that resolutions not already in the public records folder have not been scanned. The City Clerk will begin working on the request after the City's Flock request is finished.

This is an acknowledgment and preservation statement, not a production date or a finding that every requested payment, contract or policy record exists. The City has not supplied the unscanned records or said which other records it holds. The Clerk's response says the earlier-reader request will follow the Flock request.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 24, 2026 · Posted Sep 25, 2026

Status update · Needles, California

Needles says all eight requested records are still being searched for; next update by September 30.

On September 24 the City Clerk wrote, with the City Manager copied, that following the records already provided the City is continuing to search for and review records responsive to the remaining parts of the request, and listed all eight records from the September 18 narrowed list: the signed Flock agreement, purchase order 025069, the two invoices with their payment back-up, any renewal or cancellation terms and notices, the record of when the cameras went live, the Sheriff’s Department’s written COPS-fund requests, any City–Sheriff agreement on operation, retention and sharing, and the applicable usage and privacy policy. The Clerk wrote that records will continue on a rolling basis as they become available, that the City anticipates providing the next production or status update by September 30, and that the final response will address any remaining items, identify any for which no responsive records were located after a reasonable search and, if applicable, explain the legal basis for any withholding or redactions. The request remains open.

No records came with the message, and it does not say which of the eight exist or which will be released or withheld. The message gives the date as “Tuesday, September 30”; September 30, 2026 is a Wednesday, and the project does not resolve which day was meant. September 30 is the City’s estimate for its next production or status update, not a date for completing production and not a determination. The project does not assess whether the message meets the Public Records Act’s determination requirement.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 24, 2026 · Posted Sep 24, 2026

Records request · Needles, California

New request to Needles for the purchase papers behind its 2010, 2016 and 2021 plate readers.

A separate Public Records Act request went to the City Clerk on September 24, with the City Manager copied, for the papers behind the plate-reader purchases the City’s own records show before Flock: Resolution 2010-7 and its staff report, the PIPS Technology mobile system listed in the City Clerk’s resolution log; the staff report, quotation and any order or terms for the 2016 Vigilant Solutions cameras at the North K Street bridge (Resolution 2016-43), and any record of what became of them; the purchase order, invoice and payment for the 2021 trailer (Resolutions 2020-73 and 2021-19), with its licensing and Sheriff’s maintenance invoices since April 2021; the purchase order, invoice, payment and signed order for the 2021 Vigilant reader (Resolution 2021-56), and whether its five-year hosting is still active; and any usage and privacy policy for those readers. It asks the City to set these records aside while the request is open, because the City’s recent destruction resolutions reach payment back-up about five years old, and it offers to inspect and photograph paper files at City Hall, an offer that also covers the eight records in the Flock request. It asks the City to keep those eight first in line.

The City acknowledged the request September 24 and said work would follow Flock. Records remain pending. This separate request runs on its own clock, sets no deadline and authorizes no fees. Asking for a record does not establish that it exists.

Read the sending summarySent Sep 24, 2026 · Posted Sep 24, 2026

Follow-up sent · Bullhead City, Arizona

Bullhead City asked which office holds the request and when records might come.

A reply in the September 10 request thread went to the City’s public records address, with the Police Department’s records address copied. It notes that the only response so far is the Police Records automatic acknowledgment of September 10 and asks three things: which office is handling the request and any reference number; whether the City Clerk’s office also has it, since part of it covers contracts and payments; and a rough date for the first records or for a cost estimate. It suggests starting with the current contract and the camera inventory, says the rest can follow in batches, invites a one-line answer if the City has no plate readers and no access to anyone else’s, and offers to narrow the request.

Sending is verified; receipt is unconfirmed. Arizona’s public records law asks custodians to furnish records promptly and sets no fixed day count; the message cites that and sets no deadline. Silence so far is not a refusal, and the automatic acknowledgment does not show which office is handling the request.

Read the sending summarySent Sep 24, 2026 · Posted Sep 24, 2026

Receipt and routing · Needles, California

Needles formally acknowledges the request: received September 8, records to come in batches.

In a formal acknowledgment sent the evening of September 18, the City Clerk wrote that the City received the request on September 8, 2026 and that September 18 was day 10. The Clerk wrote that the City is reviewing the request to identify responsive records and decide whether any are exempt, has begun sending records, anticipates sending more the following week and will produce records on a rolling basis. In a separate note the same evening, the Clerk wrote that many City records are still on paper and are being converted as time permits.

The acknowledgment does not say which requested records exist, which will be released or withheld, or when the rest will arrive. It does not respond to the narrowed list of eight records sent that afternoon. The only record produced so far is the signed Resolution 2024-41. Paper files explain why the City’s shared folder is incomplete; absence from that folder does not show a record does not exist. The project does not assess whether the message meets the Public Records Act’s determination requirement.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 18, 2026 · Posted Sep 18, 2026

First records · Needles, California

Needles sends the signed resolution; most records are still outstanding.

The Needles City Clerk wrote on September 18 that the office is working on the request and anticipates a response the following week. Minutes later the City sent its first record: an eight-page scan with the signed Resolution 2024-41. It shows the October 22, 2024 roll-call vote (five ayes, one absent), the Mayor’s signature, the Clerk’s attestation and the City Attorney’s approval as to form. The other seven pages are the Flock quote, a sole-source letter and a photo that were already in the public agenda packet.

The City has not sent a signed agreement or order form, a purchase order, invoices, renewal or cancellation terms, camera locations, or retention and sharing policies. It has not said which records exist, which it will release or when. A formal acknowledgment later the same evening gives September 8 as the City’s receipt date. The quote in the file calls itself a non-binding proposal and shows an expiration date of October 17, 2024, five days before the vote.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 18, 2026 · Posted Sep 18, 2026

Follow-up sent · Needles, California

City request narrowed to eight specific records.

A message to the City Clerk, copied to the City Manager and the City Attorney contact listed on the City’s website, narrows the September 8 request to eight records: the signed Flock agreement for quote Q-101100; purchase order 025069; the invoices behind checks 23301 and 26270; any renewal or cancellation terms and notices; the record of when the cameras went live; the Sheriff’s Department’s written request to spend COPS funds; any City–Sheriff agreement on who operates the cameras and decides retention and sharing; and the usage and privacy policy that applies. It lists what the project has already reviewed, including the City’s shared records folder, and says none of the eight is there.

Sending is verified; the City’s answer has not arrived, and asking for a record does not establish that it exists. The message offers to treat the list as the whole request for now and holds the rest of the September 8 request; it does not withdraw it. It asks again for a written determination, asks the City to keep its 2024 correspondence about the cameras, and sets no deadline. The folder review rests on file names, text search and OCR, and the City called its portal new, so absence from the folder does not prove a record does not exist. The message’s statement that the term may end in early 2027 is an inference from the first payment date.

Read the sending summarySent Sep 18, 2026 · Posted Sep 18, 2026

Follow-up sent · Needles, California

City asked for the Flock agreement, purchase order and invoices.

A reply to the City Clerk, copied to the City Manager, thanks the City for the signed resolution and notes that the rest of the file was already public. It asks first for the signed agreement or order form with its terms; purchase order 025069 and the invoices behind the City’s two recorded payments to Flock; any renewal or cancellation terms; and the Sheriff’s written request to use COPS funds, citing Government Code section 30061(c)(2). It asks the City to say in writing if the resolution and quote are its only contract documents, and to give its determination for each part of the request.

Sending is verified; the City’s answer has not arrived. Asking for a record does not establish that it exists. The full September 8 request remains open.

Read the sending summarySent Sep 18, 2026 · Posted Sep 18, 2026

Extension notice · Needles, California

Sheriff’s Department says it will give a status update in 14 days.

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department wrote on September 18 that it is in receipt of request 26-26645. Citing Government Code § 7922.535, it said it will make contact in 14 days with an updated status. Counted from the notice, 14 days is October 2, 2026.

The notice gives no reason for the added time and no date for a determination. It does not say whether responsive records exist, and it does not mention the September 10 accuracy clarification. No records, fee estimate or clarification request accompanied it. October 2 is the project’s count, not a date the notice states, and it is not a records-production date.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 18, 2026 · Posted Sep 18, 2026

Routing answer · Needles, California

City Clerk says the Council next meets Tuesday, September 22.

Answering two routing questions sent September 15, the City Clerk wrote that the next City Council meeting is Tuesday, September 22, 2026. The Clerk also supplied a contact for each of the two mayoral and five Council candidates and pointed to the City’s election-information page.

The reply does not say how a resident can ask for a public report on camera costs, data access, retention and results. The City’s agenda portal did not show a September 22 Council meeting or agenda when checked the afternoon of September 18; the City’s Council page says regular meetings are held the second and fourth Tuesday of the month at 6 p.m. The candidate contacts arrived in correspondence and are not published here. No candidate invitation has been sent.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 18, 2026 · Posted Sep 18, 2026

Receipt and routing · Needles, California

Needles City Manager confirms receipt of a records request.

City Manager Patrick Martinez replied on September 18 that the City has received the public records request, copied the City Clerk and said the City will process it. It is the first reply from the City to any of the project’s emails.

The reply does not say when the City received the September 8 request, who is handling it beyond copying the Clerk, or when the City will decide what it can release. No records accompanied it. It arrived in the thread of the project’s September 15 questions to the Mayor, so it does not say which request it means, and it does not answer those questions.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 18, 2026 · Posted Sep 18, 2026

Follow-up sent · Needles, California

City asked for its receipt date and decision timetable.

A reply to the City Manager, copied to the City Clerk, identifies the request as the one sent September 8 about Resolution 2024-41 and the City’s Flock procurement. It asks when the City counts the request as received, who is handling it, and when the City will make its determination and estimate when records will be available, citing Government Code section 7922.535(a). It asks for the signed agreement, the date the cameras went live and the renewal and cancellation terms first, and notes that the questions sent to the Mayor and Council members are separate.

Sending is verified; the City’s answers have not arrived. This update does not establish a missed legal deadline or a contract renewal date. The full September 8 request remains open.

Read the sending summarySent Sep 18, 2026 · Posted Sep 18, 2026

Follow-up sent · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona

Mohave County Sheriff’s Office asked about countywide plate-reader agreements.

A reply to the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office, sent after its September 17 no-records answer, asks two questions within the original September 10 request. Does the office hold any countywide ALPR contract, policy or access agreement, including one that lets deputies search plate-reader data collected by another agency or a private party? And was County Procurement checked for the purchasing records?

Sending is verified; subsequent County replies are recorded below. The questions do not establish that such an agreement exists or that any plate reader operates in these communities. This is a follow-up within the September 10 request, not a new request.

Read the sending summarySent Sep 18, 2026 · Posted Sep 18, 2026

Records response · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona

Mohave County Sheriff’s Office reports no responsive records.

The Mohave County Sheriff’s Office replied that it has no responsive documents for January 1, 2024 through September 10, 2026. It gave as its reason that there were no automated license plate readers (ALPRs) in Fort Mohave or Mohave Valley. Staff said they wanted to be sure they were looking for all responsive documents and offered further help.

This is the Sheriff’s Office’s account, not an independently verified inventory. No supporting records accompanied the reply. It does not mention County Procurement, plate readers run by other agencies or private parties that the Sheriff can search, or countywide contracts and policies. It does not identify who operates the community-mapped reader in the Fort Mohave area or locate the six Flock readers that EFF’s Atlas lists for the Sheriff’s Office.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 17, 2026 · Posted Sep 18, 2026

Extension notice · Laughlin, Nevada

LVMPD extends its review of the Laughlin request.

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) said increased request volume and workload mean it cannot complete its review of request X017028-091026 within the initial five-day response period. Its notice says additional time is required to determine what records, if any, are responsive, and that a status update can be expected by October 15, 2026.

October 15 is LVMPD’s date for a status update, not a promise to release records by then. The notice does not say whether responsive records exist. No records, fee estimate or clarification request accompanied it.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 17, 2026 · Posted Sep 18, 2026

Follow-up sent · Needles, California

City asked to clarify the records timetable.

A follow-up to the Needles City Clerk, copied to the City Manager, asks for confirmation of the September 8 request’s receipt date, the disclosure determination and production timetable, and clarification of conflicting response guidance. It prioritizes the signed Flock agreement, activation date and renewal or cancellation-notice terms so residents can review them before contract decisions and the November election.

Sending is verified. On September 18 the City confirmed receipt and then stated that it received the request September 8; it promised rolling production without a timetable. This update does not establish a missed legal deadline or a contract renewal date. The full September 8 request remains open.

Read the sending summarySent Sep 16, 2026 · Posted Sep 16, 2026

Receipt and routing · Needles agriculture station, California

CDFA acknowledges the station request.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) acknowledged request PID 17131 and forwarded it to the Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services Division to collect records. It believes responsive records may exist but has not confirmed that. In its September 15 reply, CDFA estimates collection, attorney review and production within the next three months if records exist.

No records accompanied the reply. This confirms receipt and routing, not the existence of responsive records, camera ownership or current settings. The three-month estimate is conditional; CDFA did not give a fixed calendar production date.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 15, 2026 · Posted Sep 15, 2026

Questions sent · Needles, California

The mayor and Council were asked for a public camera report.

The same three questions were sent separately to the current Needles mayor and all six Council members: will they request a public camera report before the next contract decision, what can the City change or end, and what evidence would support continuing, changing or ending the program? A separate follow-up to the City Clerk copied City Manager Patrick Martinez and prioritized the signed agreement, activation and renewal or cancellation-notice dates.

Sending is verified. On September 18 the City Manager replied in the thread of the message sent to the Mayor to acknowledge a public records request; the reply did not answer the three questions, and no officeholder has replied. These are questions about current public offices, not campaign invitations. No official’s position, Council action or contract deadline is established.

Read the sending summarySent Sep 15, 2026 · Posted Sep 15, 2026

Search clarification · I-40 near Needles, California

Caltrans says its I-40 traffic cameras do not record.

Caltrans says its encroachment-permits staff handled the original search and found no camera permits or agreements. It describes cameras in its I-40 right-of-way as Caltrans-owned, used for live traffic monitoring and not recording.

This is Caltrans’s account, not a site-by-site inventory or a verified right-of-way boundary. No supporting records accompanied the reply. It does not identify equipment at the agriculture station or on nearby property.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 15, 2026 · Posted Sep 15, 2026

Follow-ups sent · Needles agriculture station and I-40, California

Station records requested; Caltrans asked to clarify its search.

A records request went to CDFA for cameras at the Needles agriculture station, including ownership, costs, retention and sharing rules. A separate reply in the existing Caltrans case asks how it searched for I-40 permits, sharing agreements and construction files.

These messages establish what was requested. They do not establish camera ownership, operating settings or records production.

Read the sending summarySent Sep 15, 2026 · Posted Sep 15, 2026

Records request · I-40 near Needles, California

Caltrans reports no records and points to CDFA.

Caltrans directs the I-40 records request to CDFA, the state agriculture department. It says Caltrans worked on the station building but has no role in its maintenance or infrastructure after construction.

No records were supplied. The reply leaves the search for wider I-40 permits, sharing agreements and construction files unclear.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 15, 2026 · Posted Sep 15, 2026

Records request · Fort Mohave and Mohave Valley, Arizona

Mohave County Sheriff received the request.

Sheriff staff acknowledged the ALPR records request and said it would go to their attorney to determine which office should handle it.

No records or response date accompanied this acknowledgment. It did not confirm which office would handle the request.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 11, 2026 · Posted Sep 13, 2026

Research outreach · Needles and the tri-state area

DeFlock acknowledged a research inquiry.

An automated reply confirmed receipt of the inquiry about connecting with ALPR researchers around Needles and Laughlin. DeFlock said its volunteer support team would review it.

This is an automated receipt, not a research finding, endorsement or partnership. No substantive answer or response date was supplied.

Read the reply summaryReply Sep 11, 2026 · Posted Sep 13, 2026

I-40 near Needles · Caltrans ·

What Caltrans says about I-40 cameras.

Caltrans says its encroachment-permits staff handled the original search and found no camera permits or agreements. It describes cameras in its I-40 right-of-way as Caltrans-owned, used for live traffic monitoring and not recording. 11:31 a.m. reply

This is Caltrans’s account, not a site-by-site inventory or a verified right-of-way boundary. No supporting records accompanied the reply. It does not identify equipment at the agriculture station or on nearby property.

Follow-ups sent September 15. On September 15, a clarification was sent in the existing Caltrans case asking which offices and systems were searched for the wider I-40 request. A separate records request was sent to CDFA for the agriculture station. Caltrans replied at 11:31 a.m. See the separate station request for CDFA’s current status. Sending summary

Next step: Await CDFA’s station records. The Caltrans reply does not explain which record systems or construction files were searched.

Read the dated response summary Request R054059-090426

The replies and the four questions sent to Caltrans

September 15, 8:49 a.m.: no records; contact CDFA

“Please contact CDFA for your request.”

Caltrans again reported no responsive records and directed the request to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). It says it worked on the station building but has no role in its maintenance or infrastructure after construction. The reply says this was confirmed with District 8’s Deputy District Director for Construction.

The further response arrived September 15, before the September 28 date previously given. No new response date was supplied.

September 10: a further response date

“You will receive a further, more complete response no later than September 28, 2026.”

On September 10, Caltrans said it was gathering and reviewing the requested records. It cited the need to search for and collect records from field facilities or offices separate from the office handling the request, and invoked a response-time extension under Government Code section 7922.535.

No records accompanied the September 10 message. September 28 was the agency’s date for a further response, not a promise to deliver all records. That further response arrived September 15.

September 9: reopening promised

After the clarification sent September 9 at 12:47 p.m. Pacific, Caltrans replied at 1:09 p.m. that it would reopen the request.

The reply promises reopening; a completed portal status change has not been verified. No records, search details or production estimate accompanied it.

The earlier reply, at 11:51 a.m.

Caltrans initially said: “There are no records responsive to your request.” No records or search details accompanied that determination.

  1. Camera, CCTV, ALPR and vehicle-imaging records on or near I-40 within about 10 miles of the Arizona line, including the agricultural inspection station.
  2. Encroachment permits, licenses or agreements for federal or third-party cameras in that I-40 right-of-way.
  3. Records or agreements about sharing camera or ALPR data from that area.
  4. Camera and related infrastructure documents for the replacement project named in the original request. The request used the name “Needles Border Protection Station Replacement.”

The correspondence does not establish whether cameras exist, who operates them, whether permits were issued, or whether data is shared. The separate City of Needles and San Bernardino County Sheriff requests remain unresolved by this reply.

What the follow-up asks.

The follow-up asks Caltrans to clarify the search scope, identify offices and record systems consulted, and conduct a supplemental search if a category or likely records location was omitted. It also asks about custodian routing and any withheld records.

CDFA lists the agricultural inspection station at 142150 Westbound I-40. That identifies the facility, not the operator of a nearby camera. CDFA station listing

This summary covers correspondence through September 15. Originals are retained privately; personal details and account links are omitted.

The agriculture station request

CDFA is a separate state agency. This request follows Caltrans’s direction to contact it about the station.

Sent Sep 15, 2026

CDFA station camera records

California Department of Food and Agriculture / Legal Office

Received · records pending

Agency estimate: Within three months of CDFA’s September 15 reply, if responsive records exist. This covers collection, attorney review and production; no fixed calendar date was given.

Read the Sep 15, 2026 reply summary
Read the Sep 15, 2026 sending summary

Request details and next step

Receipt confirmed Sep 15, 2026. Agency reference: PID 17131.

CDFA forwarded the request to its Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services Division. No records accompanied the acknowledgment. Await records or a revised estimate under PID 17131; electronic copies are free, according to CDFA.

Preview R08 request text

This template asks for existing records. Check the dates and add your reply details before sending.

Subject: Public records request — cameras at the Needles agricultural inspection station

Hello,

Caltrans directed me to CDFA after responding to request R054059-090426 about I-40 near Needles. Please provide the following records under the California Public Records Act for cameras and license plate readers at the Needles agricultural inspection station:

1. The current equipment inventory, including make/model, installation dates, ownership and the agency or contractor responsible for operation and maintenance.
2. Purchase orders, contracts, renewals and invoices for that equipment, including funding sources and recurring costs.
3. Current policies and agreements governing collection, retention, deletion, searches, exports, audits and access by other agencies or vendors.
4. Permits, site-use agreements and construction or handover documents identifying camera equipment, its ownership and responsibility for it after construction.

Please include records for equipment operated by another agency on the station property. For financial and agreement records, please search January 1, 2020 through September 15, 2026, plus any earlier documents governing equipment still installed. Original construction and handover records should be included regardless of date.

I am requesting policies and equipment records, not individual plate reads or vehicle images. Electronic copies are preferred. Please identify any withheld material and the exemption relied on, and provide the remaining portions. Please let me know before incurring any charges. If another office holds a category, please identify it.

Thank you.
Download this request.txt

Add your reply details and check the dates before reusing this request.

Needles requests at a glance

An acknowledgment means the agency received a request. It does not mean the records have arrived.

Sent Sep 8, 2026

Signed agreement and city decisions

City of Needles Clerk

Received · response pending

Follow-up Oct 9, 2026. An October 9 follow-up asks the City Clerk for the status of the eight narrowed records and prioritizes the executed Flock agreement, activation and term dates, and renewal or nonrenewal deadlines. It resumes the other ALPR items held September 18 after those priorities, keeps the earlier-reader request separate and extends only Flock renewal decisions and notices through the reply date. Sending is verified; receipt and any answer remain unconfirmed. The message does not establish contract dates, a renewal deadline or current camera settings. No fee is authorized.

Initial determination expected Sep 18, 2026; this is not the records-production deadline. A qualifying extension may change the date. Response rules

Agency estimate: The City Clerk wrote September 24 that records will continue on a rolling basis and that the City anticipates the next production or status update by September 30 (the message says “Tuesday, September 30”; September 30, 2026 is a Wednesday); no date certain for completing production.

Read the Sep 24, 2026 reply summary
Read the Oct 9, 2026 sending summary

Request details and next step

Receipt confirmed Sep 8, 2026.

An October 9 follow-up asks for status, the executed Flock agreement, activation and term dates, and renewal-notice deadlines. The signed Resolution 2024-41 is held; the other requested records remain pending. City receipt of this follow-up is unconfirmed.

Preview R01 request text

This template asks for existing records. Check the dates and add your reply details before sending.

Subject: Public records request — Resolution 2024-41 and Needles ALPR procurement

Hello Ms. Clark,

Under the California Public Records Act, please send electronic copies of records for Needles' Flock or other ALPR procurement associated with Resolution 2024-41, North K Street bridge and East Broadway / Highway 95 South.

Please cover January 1, 2024 through receipt of this request, including earlier agreements or policies still in effect:

1. The signed resolution, final minutes and recorded vote for October 22, 2024, item 9, and later authorizations.
2. Executed contracts, order forms, scopes of work, quotes, amendments and renewals, including activation dates, current terms, termination provisions and notice deadlines.
3. Purchase orders, invoices, payments and grant records showing funding sources and spending restrictions.
4. Camera inventories, deployment plans, installation/acceptance, service and removal records, and right-of-way or pole approvals. Include vendor, count, general locations and responsible agencies where recorded.
5. Current and superseded usage, privacy, retention and sharing policies or agreements; records identifying system control and contract administration.
6. Delegations, City/County agreements, staff reports, meeting notices and public review records concerning authority over retention, sharing, expansion, renewal or termination.
7. Implementation correspondence or reports addressing retention, plus nonprivileged compliance, decommissioning and deletion records. The 2024 quote lists 365 days; Sheriff Manual section 2.455.30 (June 4, 2026) describes two years for server-downloaded data. Please include records showing how these provisions apply or were superseded; they may concern different copies.

Please prioritize the executed agreement, activation date and notice provisions. I'm requesting existing administrative records, not individual plate scans, travel histories, credentials or a new analysis.

Please provide records in their existing electronic formats, release nonexempt portions and identify the legal basis for any withholding. If a category has no responsive records, please say so. Contact me if clarification or another custodian is needed.

Rolling production and an estimated production date would help. Please notify me before any charges; no fees or paid work are authorized.

Thank you,
[Requester name, optional]
[Reply address chosen for this request]
Download this request.txt

Add your reply details and check the dates before reusing this request.

Sent Sep 8, 2026

Retention, sharing and audits

San Bernardino County Sheriff

Received · response pending

Follow-up Oct 9, 2026. An October 9 follow-up in request 26-26645 asks for status and an estimated first production, with Flock’s executed agreement, activation, term and renewal-notice dates first. It retains all ALPR vendors, outside-system access, earlier equipment and the September 10 accuracy clarification, and extends only Flock renewal decisions and notices through the reply date. Sending and inclusion in the request timeline are verified. No agency acknowledgment, answer or records accompanied the send. The request was open with zero listed documents before sending; the actual contract dates and notice deadline remain unresolved. No fee is authorized.

Read the Sep 18, 2026 reply summary
Read the Oct 9, 2026 sending summary

Request details and next step

Receipt confirmed Sep 8, 2026. Agency reference: 26-26645.

An October 9 follow-up in request 26-26645 prioritizes Flock’s executed agreement, actual contract dates and renewal-notice deadline, while retaining all ALPR vendors and the September 10 accuracy clarification. The request timeline contains the new message; request 26-26645 is open and no documents have been posted. Await an agency answer and records.

Preview R02 request text

This template asks for existing records. Check the dates and add your reply details before sending.

Subject: Public records request — Needles / Colorado River Station ALPR operation

Hello,

Under the California Public Records Act, please provide electronic copies of the following records for ALPR systems operated for Needles, including the Resolution 2024-41 project. Please coordinate with Needles / Colorado River Station and Information Services.

Unless specified below, the period is January 1, 2024 through receipt, including earlier policies or agreements still in effect.

1. Current and superseded usage, privacy and operating policies; records identifying the operator, administrator and custodian.
2. Camera inventories and installation, acceptance, deactivation and removal records, including vendors and general locations. Distinguish City-funded cameras from County, State or other installations.
3. Retention settings, changes, schedules and administrative reports for vendor storage, department servers, exports, backups and evidence copies. Include destinations, custodians, routine replication, deletion success/failure records and preservation exceptions. The 2024 City quote lists 365 days; section 2.455.30 of the June 4, 2026 Department Manual describes two years for server-downloaded data. Please include records showing which rules govern each copy, superseding instructions and adopted authority for the periods used.
4. Sharing agreements, enabled recipient lists, approvals/denials and permission histories, including recipient agencies/states, dates and approving roles. Cover direct and pooled/federated access, integrations, exports and onward disclosure where used. Distinguish outside access to Needles data from Department searches of outside databases. Include restrictions and compliance reviews concerning out-of-state, federal and private access.
5. For June 1–August 31, 2026: administrative query/access/export logs for Needles-collected data, covering internal and outside users. Include Organization Audit and Network Audit exports or equivalents. Requested fields are date/time, organization, role, stated purpose, access type and dataset/source. Please redact plates, query values, images, travel histories, sensitive case details and unrelated personal information; retain role/organization fields if names are withheld. Include field definitions, log-retention rules, logging gaps and documentation distinguishing permission, query, returned match, view and export events. For the broader period, include completed random audits under section 2.455.50, compliance reviews, misuse findings, complaint totals and corrective actions.
6. Reports of scans, alerts, confirmed matches, false alerts, investigative uses and outcomes, with definitions; evaluations of ALPR and alternatives.
7. Executed contracts, amendments, renewals, notice deadlines and termination records.
8. Vendor, subcontractor and integration terms covering access, secondary use or model training, breach notification, ownership and return/deletion. Include security/compliance assessment summaries and remediation records, excluding credentials and detailed security configurations.
9. Training and supervisory procedures for alert verification, error correction, hotlists, search purposes and complaints, with completion totals or redacted compliance records.

Please prioritize items 1, 3, 4 and 5. If Needles cannot be isolated, describe the available report scope so we can agree on a workable request. Please preserve responsive administrative and audit records as required by law and identify any already deleted; I'm not requesting longer retention of motorists' underlying scans.

I seek existing administrative records, not plate-level observations or new analyses. Please use existing electronic formats, release nonexempt portions and identify the legal basis for withholding. Identify other custodians as needed. Rolling production and estimated dates would help. Please notify me before charges; no fees or paid work are authorized.

Thank you,
[Requester name, optional]
[Reply address chosen for this request]
Download this request.txt

Add your reply details and check the dates before reusing this request.

Sent Sep 24, 2026

Earlier plate-reader purchase papers

City of Needles Clerk

Received · records pending

Read the Sep 24, 2026 reply summary
Read the Sep 24, 2026 sending summary

Request details and next step

Receipt confirmed Sep 24, 2026.

The City acknowledged R09 and said the resolutions are not destroyed, but the unscanned records have not yet been produced. The City will work on R09 after the Flock request.

Preview R09 request text

This template asks for existing records. Check the dates and add your reply details before sending.

Subject: Public records request: earlier plate-reader purchases (Resolutions 2010-7, 2016-43, 2020-73, 2021-19 and 2021-56)

Hello Ms. Clark,

The City’s shared records folder shows that the Flock cameras weren’t the City’s first plate readers: the Council bought Vigilant Solutions cameras for the North K Street bridge in 2016 and a trailer-mounted reader in 2021, and the City Clerk’s resolution log lists a mobile system from PIPS Technology in 2010.

This is a separate request under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 and following) for the purchase papers behind those earlier decisions. It can run on its own clock.

I’m asking now for one reason. The City’s recent records-destruction resolutions list payment back-up about five years out. Resolution 2024-36 lists “FY 18 & FY 19 – Warrants – check copies with backup,” and Resolution 2025-36 lists “Warrants 2020.” The 2021 papers would be next. Please set the records below aside so they aren’t put on a destruction list while this request is open.

The records:

1. Resolution 2010-7 (February 9, 2010; PIPS Technology; mobile plate-recognition system), which the resolution log lists and the shared folder doesn’t include: the resolution and its staff report. I expect the payment papers are long gone, and that’s fine.
2. The 2016 cameras, Resolution 2016-43 (July 12, 2016; Vigilant Solutions; $39,375.84): the staff report and the Vigilant project quotation, and any order, agreement or terms that went with it.
3. Any record of what became of those cameras: removal, replacement, surplus or transfer, with dates. The 2024 Flock packet proposes replacing a camera at the same bridge.
4. The 2021 trailer, Resolutions 2020-73 and 2021-19 (All Traffic Solutions; bought April 5, 2021; $18,511.67): the purchase order, invoice and payment record.
5. Under paragraph 3 of Resolution 2021-19: the software licensing invoices for the trailer’s plate reader, the Sheriff’s quarterly maintenance invoices, and the City’s payments, from April 2021 to now. Also any written permission under paragraph 2 to use the trailer outside city limits, and any notice ending the donation or returning the trailer.
6. The 2021 reader, Resolution 2021-56 (September 28, 2021; Vigilant Solutions LLC; $19,321.25; account 225-2010-421.72-17): the purchase order, invoice and payment record, and the signed order or agreement with its terms. The quote includes five years of hosting.
7. Any record showing whether that Vigilant hosting is still active, was cancelled, or was replaced when the Flock cameras came in.
8. Any usage and privacy policy the City adopted or posted for these readers (Civil Code § 1798.90.51). If the City had none and relied on the Sheriff’s, a line saying so is enough.

If any of these were destroyed under the retention schedule, please tell me which destruction resolution covered them. For anything the City never had, one line saying so is all I need.

Since many of these are paper files, here is an offer that might save you time. I can come to City Hall, look through the files and photograph them myself. The Act lets a requester inspect records during office hours and copy them with their own equipment at no charge, as long as nothing touches the pages (Gov. Code §§ 7922.525 and 7922.530(b)). If that works, tell me a day and time and which files will be pulled.

Otherwise scanned copies are fine, in batches. Please let me know before any charges; I’m not authorizing fees at this point.

Thank you,
[Requester name, optional]
[Reply address chosen for this request]
Download this request.txt

Add your reply details and check the dates before reusing this request.

Regional requests

Sent and received dates appear with each request. An acknowledgment confirms receipt; it does not supply the records.

Bullhead City

Bullhead City / Police Department

Automatic acknowledgment · routing unconfirmed

Sent Sep 10, 2026. Automatic acknowledgment Sep 10, 2026; agency routing is unconfirmed.

A September 24 follow-up asks which office is handling the request, whether the City Clerk’s office has it too, and for a rough date for the first records or a cost estimate. Awaiting a reply.

Read the Sep 24, 2026 sending summary

Fort Mohave & Mohave Valley

Mohave County / Sheriff’s Office

Replied · records and fee pending

Sent Sep 10, 2026. Receipt confirmed Sep 11, 2026.

On October 13, Needles / Flock disputed the $114.50 fee and requested itemization, existing digital files without charge, or free inspection and self-copying. The October 22 invoice now calculates $114.60 for 1,116 pages, without reconciling the earlier $114.50 and $144.50 quotes. The County is arranging inspection in Kingman and expects to send more information the following week; no appointment or free-access/self-copying terms are confirmed. The Excel page-charge basis and underlying ALPR records remain unresolved. Ombudsman staff guidance arrived October 14 with a rough estimate without itemization of the earlier quote. No fee has been authorized.

Read the Oct 22, 2026 reply summary

Laughlin

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Received · response pending

Sent Sep 10, 2026. Receipt confirmed Sep 10, 2026. Agency reference: X017028-091026.

LVMPD sent a further notice October 15 and is still identifying responsive records. It gives close of business November 13, 2026 as the earliest point after which records, if any, are reasonably expected to be available. This is a conditional estimate, not guaranteed first or complete production.

Read the Oct 15, 2026 reply summary

How the status was checked

Status as of October 9, 2026. LVMPD expects a status update October 15. CDFA estimated production within three months of September 15 if responsive records exist; it gave no fixed date. Agency replies and records received are listed below.

Caltrans’s reply is documented in the response summary above.

Who has been contacted?

The current Needles mayor and all six Council members were sent the same oversight questions separately on September 15. None has answered yet. On September 18 the City Manager replied in the Mayor’s thread to acknowledge a records request, without answering the questions. The City Clerk supplied candidate contacts on September 18; no campaign invitation has been sent.

Needles staff clarification

Staff questions were sent September 8, with follow-ups September 15 and 16. The City’s September 18 replies confirmed the request, supplied the signed Resolution 2024-41 and candidate contacts, but left the staff questions unanswered. The Clerk described September 22 as the next meeting then; the current City listing is October 13 at 6:00 p.m.

Partly answered September 18

Needles campaign-contact inquiry

The Clerk supplied all seven candidate contacts September 18 and corrected two that evening. They remain private; invitations have not been sent.

Answered September 18

What was sent · Current official directory

Seven current officeholders · sending status

Janet Jernigan

Mayor · Sent Sep 15, 2026

Also a listed candidate. This was an inquiry about the current office; no campaign invitation has been sent.

City Manager replied — questions unanswered

Ellen Campbell

Vice Mayor · Sent Sep 15, 2026

Sent — receipt unconfirmed

Henry Longbrake

Council Member · Sent Sep 15, 2026

Also a listed candidate. This was an inquiry about the current office; no campaign invitation has been sent.

Sent — receipt unconfirmed

Jamie McCorkle

Council Member · Sent Sep 15, 2026

Also a listed candidate. This was an inquiry about the current office; no campaign invitation has been sent.

Sent — receipt unconfirmed

JoAnne Pogue

Council Member · Sent Sep 15, 2026

Sent — receipt unconfirmed

Tona Belt

Council Member · Sent Sep 15, 2026

Sent — receipt unconfirmed

Larry Ford

Council Member · Sent Sep 15, 2026

Sent — receipt unconfirmed

Ask for a public report

Needles candidates and official election links