Vigilant Data Sharing Information - 2018 - Assignment Submission (Milton Police Department)

Dave Maass filed this request with the Milton Police Department of Georgia.
Multi Request Vigilant Data Sharing Information - 2018 - Assignment Submission
Submitted Dec. 13, 2018
Status
Completed

Communications

From: Dave Maass

Subject: Georgia Open Records Act Request: Vigilant Data Sharing Information - 2018 - Assignment Submission (Milton Police Department)

Mail


To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act, I hereby request the following records:

1) The names of agencies and organizations with which the Agency shares ALPR data;
2) The names of agencies and organizations from which the Agency receives ALPR data;
3) The names of agencies and organizations with which the Agency shares “hot list” information;
4) The names of agencies and organizations from which the Agency receives “hot list” information;

This information is easily available within the Agency’s LEARN system. The simplest way to extract this data is to generate an “Agency Data Sharing Report” PDF file from within LEARN. To do this, a user may simply go to the “Sharing” section of LEARN and select “Output Report.” A CSV/XLS file containing these records would also satisfy this request.

The instructions for extracting this data is described on pages 62-63 of the LEARN Agency Manager Guide, which may be found at this link:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3860685-LEARN-5-1-Agency-Manager-Guide.html

An example of this record may be found at this link:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3936113-Palos-Verdes-Estates-Police-Department-Data.html

A number of other agencies have regularly determined the above information constitutes a public record and have provided an “Agency Data Sharing Report.” These agencies include:

Anaheim Police Department, Antioch Police Department, Bakersfield Police Department Chino Police Department, Clovis Police Department, Elk Grove Police Department, Fontana Police Department, Fountain Valley Police Department, Glendora Police Department, Hawthorne Police Department, Irvine Police Department, Livermore Police Department, Lodi Police Department, Long Beach Police Department, Montebello Police Department, Orange Police Department, Palos Verdes Estates Police Department, Red Bluff Police Department ,Sacramento Police Department, San Bernardino Police Department, San Diego Police Department, San Rafael Police Department, San Ramon Police Department, Simi Valley Police Department, and the Tulare Police Department.

We further request the following records

The aggregate number of “detections” (i.e. license plate scans and associated data) collected during 2016.
The aggregate number of detections collected during 2017.
The aggregate number of detections collected during 2018.
The aggregate number of “hits” (i.e. times that a plate on a hotlist was detected) during 2016.
The aggregate number of “hits” during 2017.
The aggregate number of “hits” during 2018.

This information is easily available within the Agency’s LEARN system. The simplest way to extract this data is to generate a “Dashboard Hit Ratio Report” PDF file from within LEARN. We would prefer the data for each year to be provided separately.

An example of this document may be found at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3870802-Sacramento-PD-Hit-Ratio-Rpt-010112-051917-Redacted.html

The instructions for extracting this data is described on pages 78-79 of the LEARN Agency Manager Guide, which may be found at this link:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3860685-LEARN-5-1-Agency-Manager-Guide.html

The following agencies have regularly determined the above information constitutes a public record and have provided an “Dashboard Hit Ratio Report.” These agencies include:

Anaheim Police Department; Bakersfield Police Department; Chino Police Department; Clovis Police Department; Elk Grove Police Department; Fontana Police Department; Irvine Police Department; La Habra Police Department; Laguna Beach Police Department; Lodi Police Department; Sacramento Police Department; San Diego Police Department; San Ramon Police Department; and the Red Bluff Police Department.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 3 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Dave Maass

From:

Subject: FW: LPR Open Records Request-Milton

Email

Mr. Maass:

We received your request for information Wednesday, December 26th via first-class mail. We did not receive any prior requests for information from you. We are again in receipt of two additional requests that appear to be duplicates as well. In the future, please make sure that we do not receive duplicate requests for the same information. Attached is the response that we previously sent fulfilling these requests.

"Materials related to this agency's acquisition of, access to, preservation of, or disclosure of automated license plate readers (ALPR) or ALPR data". Any open bidding process is protected under the ORA. O.C.G.A. 50-18-72 (10).

"Policies related to the adoption of ALPR technology, including those guiding the procurement process or necessary administrative obligations before acquisition"

1. "Training policies, requirements, and materials for automatic license plate reader system operators"
2. Policies related to the retention and security of captured ALPR data, including those regarding: the length of time after capture that data may be preserved, exceptions to general data preservation policies, internal data security and access, and data destruction"
3. Policies related to the sharing of captured ALPR data by this agency with other agencies, including those directing: the manner in which another agency may request data, the circumstances under which captured data may be shared, and the responsibilities of the recipient agency in regards to data retention and use, access by this agency to data obtained by automatic license plate reader systems not operated by the law enforcement agency"
4. Policies related to the sale of data or the sharing of data with non-law enforcement actors. If applicable, please provide all agreements between this agency and non-law enforcement actors."
5. Policies regarding oversight of automated license plate reader system use
6. "Policies related to maintenance and calibration"
7. "Any other policies or reports on subjects related to automatic license plate reader system use by the agency". Attached
.

Finally, several requests contained in your request are not subject to disclosure:

1. "The aggregate number of 'detections' (i.e. license plate scans and associated data) collected during 2016.
2. The aggregate number of detections collected during 2017
3. The aggregate number of detections collected during 2018
4. The aggregate number of 'hits' (i.e. times that a place on a hotlist was detected) during 2016
5. The aggregate number of 'hits' during 2017
6. The aggregate number of 'hits' during 2018.

This information is not subject to disclosure. As you may know, the legislature recently passed O.C.G.A. 35-1-22. O.C.G.A. 35-1-22(a)(2) defines "Captured license plate data" as "the global positioning device coordinates, date and time, photograph, license plate number, and any other data captured by or derived from an automated license plate recognition system or any other source." O.C.G.A. 35-1-22(f) states that all "Captured license plate data collected by a law enforcement agency shall not be subject to public disclosure pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50." Furthermore, the department may only access collected data for law enforcement purposes and may only retain that data for 30 months after it was originally collected, O.C.G.A. 35-1-22(b). Accordingly, any records that would require the department to access the ALRP data is not subject to disclosure. Most likely, the above listed items would fall under this exception, and would not be subject to disclosure.

The following requests are fulfilled with the attached document.

1. The names of agencies and organizations with which the Agency shares ALPR data;
2. The names of agencies and organizations from which the Agency receives ALPR data;
3. The names of agencies and organizations with which the Agency shares "hot list" information
4. The names of agencies and organizations from which the Agency receives "hot list" information
5. "Databases used to compare data obtained by the automatic license plate reader system" Please note, any data collected or derived from the Automated License Plate Recognition System would not be subject to disclosure. Accordingly, we cannot release the databases but we will provide the name of the database/s with our January 9th response.

Please be advised that your request for "The aggregate number of 'detections' (i.e. license plate scans and associated data) collected during 2016. The aggregate number of detections collected during 2017. The aggregate number of detections collected during 2018. The aggregate number of 'hits' (i.e. times that a plate on a hotlist was detected) during 2016. The aggregate number of 'hits' during 2017. The aggregate number of 'hits' during 2018", does not request any records or documents. However, even if we construe this request as containing a request for documents or records, such records are exempt from the Open Records Act and are not subject to production, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 35-1-22(f)."

Files

pages

 Close