JimmieJoe / KC6YRU

In my post, “The Final Flock – and the answer is “NO”, the City of Visalia closed out my Public Records Request without providing all of the information I requested, citing privacy laws, and police department policy.

Sorry, that’s not good enough. I’m trying again. Today, August 7, 2026, I’ve filed the following supplemental Public Records Request:

“RE: Formal Public Records Request & Demand for Disclosure — Personal ALPR Data (Plate: JJRJR)

Supplemental to PRAR Dated April 24, 2026 / Response Dated August 3, 2026

Dear Custodian of Records and Ms. Berglund:

I am writing to formally request—and respectfully demand—the release of public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA), California Government Code § 7920.000 et seq. This letter serves as a specific, narrow request following the supplemental response issued by Herr Pedersen & Berglund LLP on August 3, 2026 regarding my initial April 24, 2026 request.

1. Scope of Request

Pursuant to the CPRA, I request copies of all Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) records, data files, metadata logs, and associated digital images captured or maintained by the Visalia Police Department (including fixed cameras and mobile units) that reference or identify the following California license plate registered to me:

• License Plate: JJRJR
• Time Period: The 30-day period immediately preceding and ending on the date this written demand is received by the City/Department.

2. Legal Basis and Response to Department Denials

The City’s August 3, 2026 response asserts that raw ALPR data is exempt under the CPRA balancing test (Gov. Code § 7922.000), cites Department Policy 428.2 stating ALPR data is “not open to public review,” and references Civil Code § 1798.90.55 regarding transfers to non-public agencies. Respectfully, these assertions misapply established California case law and statutory rules regarding individual requests for personal records.

A. Rejection of Blanket Exemptions (ACLU v. Superior Court)

In ACLU Found. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1032, the California Supreme Court explicitly held that routine ALPR data collection is not automatically exempt as an investigative record (Gov. Code § 7923.600) because the scans are indiscriminately gathered rather than generated for a targeted inquiry. Furthermore, the Court established that agencies cannot issue blanket denials or rely on generalized privacy claims to withhold all ALPR records.

B. Absence of Privacy Exemption for the Subject Citizen

The primary justification for withholding raw ALPR data under the CPRA balancing test (Gov. Code § 7922.000) is protecting the privacy of individual vehicle owners. However, when an individual requests their own vehicle’s records, the privacy interest belongs entirely to the requester. Releasing location records of license plate JJRJR to the registered owner of plate JJRJR poses zero invasion of personal privacy. The privacy protections of the CPRA exist to safeguard citizens from government intrusion, not to shield public agencies from disclosing non-sensitive records to the data subject.

C. Statutory Duty to Segregate and Disclose (Gov. Code § 7922.525)

California Government Code § 7922.525 mandates that “any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after the deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.”

To the extent the Department contends that releasing raw database files might expose third-party details or systemic operational configurations, the law requires the Department to redact or segregate those exempt elements and release the non-exempt data points (i.e., timestamps, coordinates/locations, and images matching plate JJRJR).

D. Misapplication of Civil Code § 1798.90.55 and Internal Policy

Civil Code § 1798.90.55 prohibits ALPR operators from selling, sharing, or transferring ALPR information to commercial entities or non-public agency third parties for private commercial use. It does not override an agency’s statutory obligations under the CPRA to release records to a requesting citizen. Furthermore, local agency policy (such as VPD Policy 428.2) cannot supersede state statutory law or Supreme Court precedent.

3. Requested Action & Timelines

Because this request is narrow, limited strictly to a single license plate over a 30-day window, and involves an individual seeking their own vehicle data, it presents minimal administrative burden to locate and process.

Pursuant to California Government Code § 7922.535, please provide a determination within 10 calendar days of receipt of this letter as to whether the City will comply with this request. If the Department asserts that any portion of the requested 30-day dataset or images remains exempt, please cite the specific statutory exemption for each redacted or withheld portion and demonstrate how the public interest in withholding clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure under Government Code § 7922.000.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and your continued service to our community. I look forward to receiving your response and the responsive data files.”

We’ll see if that shakes loose my data stored on the Flock Automated License Plate Reader system employed by the Visalia Police Department. I’m crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath.

As in my previous posts, here are my blogs about the Flock adventure I’ve been on:

1. What the Flock?
2. Well, Flock Me!
3. More Flock, more fun
4. Flock you later
5. Flock the Lawyers
6. Flock Me A Little Bit
7. Tick tock tick Flock
8. The Final Flock – and the answer is “NO”
9. Hidden in the Flock
10. Reason me this, Flock