Springdale, Washington County

10 statements from Springdale, next to the documents.

Springdale approved its purchase on July 22, 2025. Its Master Services Agreement is in the council packet, which makes it the only one of the three cities whose contract terms the public can read.

Data ownership

What was said

Springdale PD maintains absolute control over our local data.

Chief Derek Wright — "Dear Springdale Community," Springdale Police Department letterhead, Office of the Chief of Police. Emailed by the Chief to the Mayor as an attachment on July 31, 2026, and produced by the City under FOIA.

What the document says

Customer hereby grants Flock a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right to use and distribute such Anonymized Data to improve and enhance the Services and for other development, diagnostic and corrective purposes, and other Flock offerings.

Master Services Agreement § 4.3 — City of Springdale, July 22, 2025 council packet. § 4.1 grants a limited, irrevocable, worldwide licence — limited to providing the Services. § 4.3, above, carries no such limit.

Where they meet, and where they don't

A right the City granted perpetual and irrevocable is, by the plain meaning of those two words, not a right the City can take back. The vendor's own use of anonymized and derived data is not a partner agency, is not bound by department standards, and is not revocable by the department.

The written question

Identify the provision under which the City may revoke, limit, or audit Flock's own use of data derived from Springdale — or confirm in writing that none exists.

What was bought

What was said

SPD has 10 ALPR-capable cameras from Flock Safety. We also purchased 14 additional Flock cameras that do not have ALPR technology; these function like any other live-streaming video camera and are used to supplement existing cameras in city parks and on the trails.

What the document says

10 + 14 = 24, which matches the Order Form. Springdale Police Department Policy 10.14, effective April 9, 2026, governs ALPR.

Order Form, July 22, 2025 packet; SPD Policy 10.14.

Where they meet, and where they don't

Fourteen of the twenty-four devices sit outside the technology his written policy covers — and every protection described in the rest of the letter is written as an ALPR protection. The letter also never mentions the twelve video integration gateways at all, which carry capacity for roughly 192 additional outside camera streams.

The written question

Identify the written policy governing the 14 non-ALPR Flock cameras and the video integration gateways: retention, access, permitted uses, and audit. If Policy 10.14 does not cover them, state what does.

AI and search

What was said

Our ALPR cameras capture a still image of the rear of a vehicle with the focus on the license plate… The ALPR cameras do not allow us to view video, they do not capture images of people, and they do not use facial recognition.

What the document says

The Order Form includes FreeForm — AI plain-language search across LPR and video. The vendor's own sole-source materials describe Vehicle Fingerprint (color, make, type, objects, paper plates, no-plate vehicles) and Visual Search from any digital image.

Order Form and Flock sole-source letter, July 22, 2025 packet.

Where they meet, and where they don't

Read the subject of that sentence: it is "our ALPR cameras" — the ten. The other fourteen are described three paragraphs earlier as functioning "like any other live-streaming video camera." A live-streaming camera in a public park views video and captures images of people. The letter does not claim otherwise; it simply never addresses them. The open question is not faces. It is the search layer.

The written question

State whether any AI or computer-vision search capability operates on the 14 live-streaming cameras or on gateway-integrated streams, and what it is capable of identifying.

Outside access

What was said

While we partner with other law enforcement agencies, they are required to adhere to the exact same strict standards and legitimate law enforcement purposes that we require of our own employees.

What the document says

A department can discipline its own employees. It cannot discipline another agency's officers. What it can have is an audit log of outside searches.

No audit log of outside-agency searches has been produced in the public record.

Where they meet, and where they don't

The question is not whether the requirement exists. It is who enforces it, and how anyone would know it had been broken. If Springdale is genuinely walled off, the audit log is the proof — and it is a record.

The written question

Produce the audit log of searches of Springdale data run by any agency other than SPD for the last 12 months, and identify every network, sharing setting, or partnership through which outside agencies can query Springdale data.

Outside access

What was said

Regular audits of ALPR searches are conducted by the supervisor assigned to the Real Time Information Center (RTIC). Additionally, I personally conduct regular audits of ALPR searches. Any searches that give even a hint of doubt of having a legitimate law enforcement purpose are investigated.

What the document says

An entity that uses an automatic license plate reader system … shall … Promulgate rules and policies concerning the manner and method of obtaining, retaining, and destroying captured plate data … and make those rules and policies available for public inspection.

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1805(a)(3)(A).

Where they meet, and where they don't

Audits that happen leave records. Records that exist are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. And the statute already requires the written rules to be available for public inspection.

And what the law says

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1805(a)(3)

(A) Promulgate rules and policies concerning the manner and method of obtaining, retaining, and destroying captured plate data, including without limitation specific rules and policies concerning retention of material in excess of one hundred fifty (150) days under § 12-12-1804(b), and make those rules and policies available for public inspection. (B) Failure to comply with subdivision (a)(3)(A) of this section shall be grounds for a court of competent jurisdiction to exclude any evidence obtained under this subchapter.

Act 668 of 2025 moved this requirement; it used to sit at § 12-12-1805(b)(4).

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1805(b)

The preserved data shall include: (1) The number of license plates scanned; (2) The names of the lists against which captured plate data were checked; and (3) For each check of captured plate data against a list: (A) The number of confirmed matches; (B) The number of matches that upon further investigation did not correlate to an alert; and (C) The number of matches that resulted in arrest and prosecution.

Compiled every six months, preserved eighteen months, in a format sufficient to allow the general public to review it. These are the numbers that would answer whether the system works, and every Arkansas law-enforcement user is already required to keep them.

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1808(a)(2)

Practice and usage data compiled and preserved under § 12-12-1806 are a public record for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq.

These numbers are a public record under the Freedom of Information Act — anyone can request them. The section as printed cross-references § 12-12-1806; the data itself is compiled under § 12-12-1805.

The written question

Produce the audit records for the past 12 months — dates conducted, number of searches reviewed, number flagged, and outcomes — together with the written rules and policies § 12-12-1805(a)(3)(A) requires to be available for public inspection.

Data ownership

What was said

We welcome legislative and legal guardrails related to the use of ALPRs, and look forward to working with our legislators to ensure that the rights of the people are protected. We will continue to set and adhere to strict guidelines related to the use of ALPR technology, and will not tolerate misuse.

What the document says

Springdale Police Department Policy 10.14 governs LPR only. Fourteen of the twenty-four Flock cameras, the twelve gateways, FreeForm, Flock911 and Nova are not covered by any written policy identified in the public record.

SPD Policy 10.14, effective April 9, 2026; Order Form, July 22, 2025 packet.

Where they meet, and where they don't

The department's own letter shows fourteen devices its written policy does not reach. The Chief says the rules should be written down and welcomes help writing them.

The written question

The rules described for ten cameras — put them in writing for all twenty-four.

What was bought

What was said

hardware and software safety products

The resolution, as it appeared on the public agenda — Resolution, July 22, 2025 council packet.

What the document says

10 Falcon ALPR cameras · 8 Condor PTZ live-video cameras · 6 community partnership cameras · 12 Video Integration Gateways at 16 streams each · FlockOS Premium real-time crime center · Flock911 live 911 video · FreeForm AI plain-language search across plate data and video · Traffic Analytics · Flock Nova, which fuses CAD, RMS, DEMS and inter-agency networks.

Order Form, same packet.

Where they meet, and where they don't

Council members were told a great deal more than this in committee eight days earlier, on the record. The agenda is what residents saw.

The written question

Who drafted the agenda description, and what drafts exist? The public notice a resident reads is the only terms of service they get.

AI and search

What was said

For you guys specifically it's gonna be able to give you guys detailed reads of who is coming into Springdale. So traffic counts, where are they from, you know, when's the busiest time of day, month, year and then are they coming from in town, out of town

Jordan, Flock Safety representative — Police & Fire Committee meeting, July 14, 2025 — citizen transcript of the recording, file line 70.

What the document says

An automatic license plate reader system may be used: (1) By a state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency for the comparison of captured plate data with data held by the Office of Motor Vehicle, the Arkansas Crime Information Center, the National Crime Information Center, a database created by law enforcement for the purposes of an ongoing investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for any lawful purpose;

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1803(b)(1). The Order Form includes Traffic Analytics.

Where they meet, and where they don't

The statute's law-enforcement exception is written as a purpose limitation, and the purpose is comparison against five named sources. Population-level traffic analysis is a different use. Whether it fits is not something this site decides — the City can say which exception it operates under.

And what the law says

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1803(b)(1)

An automatic license plate reader system may be used: (1) By a state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency for the comparison of captured plate data with data held by the Office of Motor Vehicle, the Arkansas Crime Information Center, the National Crime Information Center, a database created by law enforcement for the purposes of an ongoing investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for any lawful purpose;

The permitted use is written as a purpose: comparing captured plate data against five named sources. One of those five is "a database created by law enforcement."

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1804(a)

Except as provided under subsection (b) of this section, captured plate data obtained for the purposes described under § 12-12-1803(b) shall not be used or shared for any other purpose and shall not be preserved for more than: (1) Sixty (60) days by a private landowner, private leaseholder, or commercial business; or (2) One hundred fifty (150) days by all other eligible entities.

This is where Arkansas sets its retention caps — sixty days for private users, one hundred fifty days for everyone else. Subsection (b) suspends the cap for data held as part of an ongoing investigation.

The written question

Is Traffic Analytics enabled on Springdale plate data? Identify the statutory exception under which it operates.

Data ownership

What was said

Flock may use data in aggregate or technical ways to make the platform work better for all customers (for example, to continuously improve the system's read accuracy, to train the system to recognize new and/or special occasion license plate designs, etc.).

Flock Safety, in its own public Data Ownership guide — flocksafety.com/legal/data-ownership, last updated August 21, 2026.

What the document says

Except as provided under subsection (b) of this section, captured plate data obtained for the purposes described under § 12-12-1803(b) shall not be used or shared for any other purpose…

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1804(a). And § 12-12-1802(3)(A) defines captured plate data to include "any other data captured by or derived from any automatic license plate reader system."

Where they meet, and where they don't

Flock's own plain-English page describes training the system on customer data. Arkansas's definition of captured plate data reaches data derived from the system. Two published texts, side by side. What follows from that is a question for a court, and no court has answered it.

And what the law says

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1804(a)

Except as provided under subsection (b) of this section, captured plate data obtained for the purposes described under § 12-12-1803(b) shall not be used or shared for any other purpose and shall not be preserved for more than: (1) Sixty (60) days by a private landowner, private leaseholder, or commercial business; or (2) One hundred fifty (150) days by all other eligible entities.

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1802(3)(A)

"Captured plate data" means the global positioning device coordinates, date and time, photograph, license plate number, and any other data captured by or derived from any automatic license plate reader system;

The definition reaches anything "derived from" the system — not only the photograph and the plate number.

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1802(3)(B)

Captured plate data shall not include any personal data;

"Personal data" is not defined anywhere in this subchapter.

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1804(e)(2)

(A) Captured plate data obtained by a private landowner, private leaseholder, or commercial business under § 12-12-1803(b)(4) may be shared with a third-party processor providing asset protection analytical services on the captured plate data as part of a contractual agreement with the private landowner, private leaseholder, or commercial business. (B) The terms of the contractual agreement shall expressly prohibit a third-party processor from using the captured data for any other purpose and impose a data retention period not to exceed sixty (60) days from receipt of the captured plate data.

Added in 2025, and written only for private landowners, leaseholders and businesses — § 12-12-1803(b)(4). It does not reach data a police department collects. Even this one pathway requires the contract to expressly prohibit any other use, and caps retention at sixty days.

The written question

Identify the provision of the executed Master Services Agreement that makes the representations at flocksafety.com/legal/data-ownership contractually binding on Flock with respect to Springdale's data. If there is none, identify each document that does govern, and provide the version in effect as of execution.

Data ownership

What was said

…bars use of city data to train, fine-tune, or improve any machine learning, artificial intelligence, or algorithmic models except as expressly authorized in writing by the City Manager.

The City of Dunwoody, Georgia — the same vendor's agreement, negotiated — Dunwoody Flock Master Services Agreement, a public record.

What the document says

Customer hereby grants Flock a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right to use and distribute such Anonymized Data … including the training of machine learning algorithms.

Springdale Master Services Agreement § 4.3.

Where they meet, and where they don't

One city obtained a written prohibition on the exact use another city's agreement affirmatively grants. This is not a legal theory. It is one contract next to another.

The written question

What data-use terms did the City negotiate before execution, and who reviewed them?

All comparisons →