2018 Vigilant Data Sharing Information (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department)

Dave Maass filed this request with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department of Las Vegas, NV.
Multi Request 2018 Vigilant Data Sharing Information
Est. Completion None
Status
No Responsive Documents

Communications

From: Dave Maass

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Nevada Public Records Act, I hereby request the following records:

1) The names of agencies and organizations with which the Agency shares Automated License Plate Recognition (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 “hits” (i.e. times that a plate on a hotlist was detected) during 2016.
The aggregate number of “hits” during 2017.

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 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Dave Maass

From: Muckrock Staff

To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following request, copied below. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

From: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

LVMPD’s contract did not go into effect until July of 2017. LVMPD has only been a consumer of ALPR data which is collected by the vendor. LVMPD does not have any cameras or collect any data of its own. Therefore, LVMPD does not have any data that is contributed or shared with other agencies.

The information requested is maintained by the vendor Vigilante and LVMPD is prohibited from releasing the proprietary information from its database pursuant to a confidential agreement. The Nevada Supreme Court has adopted exceptions to the federal Freedom of Information Act. See Donrey v. Bradshaw, 106 Nev. 630, 798 P.2d 144, fn. 4 (1990) (Exemption 7); DR Partners v. Board of County Comm’rs, 116 Nev. 616, 6 P.3d 465 (2000) (Exemption 5); Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Las Vegas Review-Journal, --- Nev. ---, 429 P.3d 313, 319-20 (2018) (citing extensively to Cameranesi v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 856 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2017), which relies on Exemption 6). Exemption 4 is codified at 5 U.S.C. §522(b)(4), which makes “trade secrets and commercial or financial information” confidential. See also 18 U.S.C. §2512; NRS 332.061 (proprietary information is not public information and is confidential); NRS 333.020(5) (defining proprietary information defined); NRS 600A.030(5)(defining trade secret).

The release of information could also constitute an unwarranted invasion of a person’s privacy interests since the information is not LVMPD’s data to release. In Reno Newspapers v. Sheriff, 126 Nev. 211, 218, 234 P.3d 922, 927 (2010), the Nevada Supreme Court recognized that an individual’s privacy must be balanced with the public’s general right to open government, “especially because private and personal information may be recorded in government files”). Later, in Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Las Vegas Review-Journal, --- Nev. ---, 429 P.3d 313, 319-20 (2018), the Court adopted a balancing test in which the burden shifts to the requester of a record if the public agency demonstrates a “nontrivial personal privacy interest” including “intrusion[s] into a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, seclusion, or solitude.”

Therefore, there are no public records responsive to your request.

Office of Public Information
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
400-B South Martin L. King Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
* 702.828.4082 office│7 702.828.1550 fax
Follow us on Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/LasVegasMetro>, Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/lvmpd> and Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/lvmpd/>
AO

Files

There are no files associated with this request.