The following table tracks open records requests submitted to the City of Oklahoma City and the Oklahoma City Police Department regarding the Flock ALPR program. These requests are the foundation of everything documented on this site.
| Request ID | Submitted To | Summary | Status | Key Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OCPD-2885-2026 | Oklahoma City Police Department | Policies, SOPs, training materials, access controls, audit procedures, and transparency reporting for Flock ALPR | Received | Responded with a link to the online OCPD Operations Manual only. Manual §5-118 addresses vehicle-mounted ALPRs - not Flock's static camera system. No Flock-specific policies produced. |
| OCPD-2886-2026 | Oklahoma City Police Department | Data retention periods, deletion verification, and cross-agency sharing configuration for Flock ALPR | Received | Identical response: linked to the online OCPD Operations Manual. No Flock-specific retention or sharing documentation provided. |
| OCPD-2887-2026 | Oklahoma City Police Department | All contracts, purchase orders, invoices, council authorization documents for Flock/ALPR services | Received | Identical response: linked to the online OCPD Operations Manual. No contracts or authorization documents produced. All three OCPD responses confirm the department does not manage Flock implementation or usage at the department level. |
| ORR-1094-2026 | City of Oklahoma City | Complete Flock Safety contract, amendments, and renewal documents | Received | Produced 6 documents: Master Agreement, addendum, two City Council memos, and two renewal letters confirming 90 Falcon cameras, current term through June 30, 2026. All available on our Documents page. |
| ORR-1095-2026 | City of Oklahoma City | Re-filed request for ALPR policies after OCPD redirected to Operations Manual only | Received | Most significant finding to date. Produced the Master Agreement, the OKCPD Department Memorandum (responding to OCPD-2885-2026), and a link to the online OCPD Manual. The memo confirms in writing that, as of March 10, 2026, OKCPD had no access controls, no prohibited-use policies, no discipline standards, no audit procedures, and no transparency reporting for Flock. |
| ORR-1096-2026 | City of Oklahoma City | Data collection, retention, and deletion policies for Flock ALPR | Received | Produced the Master Agreement, a Department Memorandum identical to OCPD-2886-2026, and a link to the online OCPD Manual. No Flock-specific data retention documentation exists beyond the contract terms. |
Round 2: Filed July 2, 2026 onward
The Round 1 filings above produced the March 10 OKCPD memo confirming there is no governance framework for Flock. Round 2 is the audit round. These eleven requests target the records the Department and the City cannot easily deflect - search logs, data-sharing agreements, the paper trail behind the June 2026 rewrite of Operations Manual Section 5-118, the specific documents any competent Flock program would already publish, the effectiveness metrics OKC has never produced, and the right-of-way permits and MUTCD roadside-safety compliance records for every Flock pole in the city.
OKC FOIA Round 2
All eleven requests, formatted with subject lines, statute citations, filing strategy notes, and reference to the March 10 memo where relevant. Includes Request #11: right-of-way permits and MUTCD roadside-safety compliance records for every Flock pole in the city. Fill in your contact info and file them yourself. The more residents running the same requests in parallel, the harder they are to slow-walk.
Bacy presented the new limits as the city's safeguards. By his own account, Flock built them, and the department can lift them.
The account below is from OKCPD Chief Ron Bacy's presentation and his answers to council at the August 18 meeting, quoted from the full meeting video (his presentation begins around 1:06:10). The 109-agency exchange is also on the published record via KOSU and KOCO.
- Sharing is discretionary. Chief Bacy told the council the department had turned off Flock's automatic national sharing, then added that it “can turn it on for significant incidents on a case-by-case basis” (KOSU). The limit to a set list of agencies is a setting OKCPD controls, not a term of the contract, and it can be switched back on without a vote.
- The 7-day deletion is Flock's feature, with a built-in override. The chief presented the 30-to-7-day retention cut as a safeguard, but by his own words it is the vendor's product feature, not the city's rule: “when they created this update they created an evidence mode ... instead of a 30-day deletion per our contract, we can move to a 7-day deletion because they've added this additional feature of evidence mode.” Records moved to “evidence mode” are kept past seven days. The cut is a default the department can set aside case by case, using a switch Flock added and Flock controls.
- The ban is federal-only, and the chief will not name the rest. Amendment No. 1 bars Flock from sharing with federal agencies, but it does nothing about the 109 local agencies the chief acknowledged already have access to OKC's data. When Councilwoman JoBeth Hamon asked, on the record, “Can you make that list available to us to review?”, Chief Bacy answered “No, ma'am” (KOCO). The council renewed the contract without being allowed to see who receives the data. And the door is not hypothetical: as of November 4, 2025, roughly 750 Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers, effectively the entire Highway Patrol, are credentialed under ICE's 287(g) “Operation Guardian” agreement (News9; ICE), so data shared with a state agency can reach an officer carrying federal immigration authority. The people who advise police chiefs for a living say the same thing about networks this size. Eric R. Atstupenas, general counsel of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and immediate past chair of the IACP Legal Officers Section, told Security Management that in a broad sharing arrangement “data in a wide network is governed by the weakest policy in it and accountability diffuses,” and warned that when broad sharing is a platform default, “the most consequential data-governance choice in the program gets made by a default unless the agency makes it deliberately, and consent on paper is not the same as a decision in fact.” Oklahoma City's council was not permitted to see the 109 policies its own data now answers to.
- And it would not say where the cameras are. When Councilwoman Hamon asked “how do you choose locations of where to mount cameras?”, the chief gave the same answer he gave on the agency list: “I would consider that to be law enforcement sensitive data.” The two questions any real oversight starts with, who receives the data and where the cameras are, were both refused to the council as “sensitive.”
- No case number is required to search. A councilmember asked “is there a reason a case number is not required to do a search?” The chief confirmed it is not, pointing to fast-moving situations. Officers enter a written reason, but not a case number. That is the mechanism behind OCPD-10088 (below): the department produced no records linking Flock searches to case outcomes because it does not require the link to exist.
- The audit leans on Flock's own AI. The chief said the continuous audit is run by AI that flags anomalies and auto-suspends a user, with a manual review every 30 days. He did not say the manual review examines anything beyond what the AI flags. An audit confined to what the software calls suspicious can only catch the misuse the software already recognizes; whatever it treats as normal is never seen. It is the department checking Flock's system with Flock's own tools, on an audit log it will not release to the public (OCPD-10716, below).
A limit the department can lift at its own discretion is not a limit. And the one restriction with contractual force, the federal ban, still leaves a state door that now leads to ICE.
Flock's July 14 corporate statement to KOCO 5 made specific claims about data ownership, local oversight, access controls, and effectiveness. Five of those claims are directly contradicted by the Master Services Agreement Oklahoma City signed with Flock in 2023, each verified verbatim against the signed contract. Read the five side-by-sides on The Case, Section 04 →
ORR-5225-2026 came back the day after it was filed, marked completed, with no search performed and no record produced. The Office of the City Clerk wrote: “That list if there is one to be generated would come from the Flock system used by OCPD. This is an OCPD request.” This is the same answer that closed ORR-4292-2026 on July 23, reused on a different record. The City's position is now consistent across two requests and two months: anything touching Flock belongs to the police.
Set that against what the same City said on July 10. Denying OCPD-10080-2026, the Municipal Counselor's office wrote that the requested Flock records “are not law enforcement records pursuant to 51 O.S. § 24A.8(A).” The Open Records Act defines a law enforcement agency as “any public body charged with enforcing state or local criminal laws ... including, but not limited to, police departments” (51 O.S. § 24A.3(5)). So the City has told this requester both that these are not law enforcement records, and that they can only be sought from the law enforcement agency. Those cannot both be true. Whichever one the City means, a channel exists that has to answer.
Note also the hedge. The Clerk writes “if there is one.” Ten days before this response, the chief of police told the City Council on the record that 109 agencies can reach Oklahoma City's Flock data. The City is expressing doubt about the existence of a list its own police chief counted in public.
The response is a third request, going to the City Manager's Office. Rather than argue about which office owns the Flock platform, it asks the City only for the City's own paperwork: communications between the City Manager's Office and OKCPD about who receives Oklahoma City's Flock data, and any copy of that agency list held, transmitted, or reviewed anywhere outside the Police Department. An email in the City Manager's office is a City record no matter whose software produced the attachment, and it cannot be referred to OKCPD without the City claiming it does not keep its own mail. If the City has never once discussed in writing who its surveillance data goes to, that answer is worth having too. This tracker will carry the ticket number once it is assigned.
On August 18, Councilwoman JoBeth Hamon asked Chief Ron Bacy on the record whether the list of agencies that can reach Oklahoma City's Flock data could be made available for council to review. He answered “No, ma'am.” The council renewed the contract anyway, without ever seeing who receives the data. Two requests filed today ask for that list under the Open Records Act instead: ORR-5225-2026 with the City and OCPD-12606-2026 with the Police Department.
Both are written against the three rationales already collected in this tracker. They ask only for the roster in the form the Flock platform itself generates and exports, which is the point that removes the “not kept in the way requested” ground cited under 51 O.S. § 24A.8(C). They ask for agency names and access status only, with every per-user and per-officer field redacted up front, so there is no investigatory record to protect. And they are filed in both channels at once, because the City's own July 22 guidance routes non-law-enforcement records to the City portal while its July 10 denial called comparable Flock records “not law enforcement records.” One channel or the other has to answer on the merits.
The strongest fact in the file is the department's own arithmetic. The chief said 109. A count of 109 cannot be produced without a list of 109, and a record does not stop existing because the number was said out loud instead of written down.
OCPD-10716-2026, the request built to defeat the "not kept that way" rationale by asking only for the Flock platform's own native export, came back denied through the Municipal Counselor's office under 51 O.S. § 24A.8(A), (B)(1), and (C). Three things follow. First, the log exists. Subsection (B)(1) is a discretionary withholding of an existing law-enforcement record; you cannot "may deny" a record that is not there. The denial confirms what Flock's own July 8 press release said - every search generates a comprehensive audit record. Second, withholding it is a choice. Subsection (B) says an agency "may" deny, and that a court may order release where the public interest outweighs the reason for denial. The department is permitted to hand over the usage log of a mass-surveillance system the public paid for, and is choosing not to. Third, the classification is now incoherent by design. The same audit log has been called not-a-law-enforcement-record (to route it away on July 10), an-OCPD-system-the-City-cannot-access (the ORR-4292 bounce on July 22), and a-law-enforcement-record-the-department-may-withhold (here). Three labels, one file, each conveniently pointing away from disclosure. What no response has ever done is produce it - even though the department has, at least once, read this very system's records closely enough to sustain an internal misconduct finding against one of its own officers (see The Case, Section 05). The capability is real. It is used when a complaint forces it, and withheld from everyone else.
The written follow-up produced the first full accounting from the OKCPD Records Unit - and a confirmation, in writing, that the portal's public status is not what it appears to be: "OCPD records utilizes the 'completed' status in our records system to clarify internally that this request has been worked on. It does not always mean that the request is finished." For ten days, the public record showed five accountability requests as complete. By the department's own account, none of them was.
The accounting also revealed where the five requests actually are: forwarded to the Municipal Counselor's office, determined to be "not a law enforcement record," and routed to personnel review, where they remain pending. OKCPD says the requester will be contacted when that review concludes. Note the toggle. When the City denied the 5-118 paper trail, those records were law enforcement records, exempt from disclosure. The sharing agreements, federal-access, System Administrator, training, and effectiveness requests are "not a law enforcement record" - and still nothing has been produced. Either classification, same result. The July 13 correspondence turned out to be one-line notices that each request had been "forwarded for Personnel Review" - notices that did arrive, contrary to an earlier version of this update (see the corrections log). What they are not is a response: no records, no findings, no denial, no statutory citation. And the review they describe now has a shape: it is conducted by a single attorney in the Municipal Counselor's office - the same office that authored every denial in this tracker and made the classification determinations - with no reference number and no timeline, and the requests "still being worked as an open record" until that attorney "will advise what is releasable." Separately, the City records office declined ORR-4292-2026 as "an OCPD system" matter it cannot access - the same records the City's July 10 response called "not law enforcement records." Requested from the police: not police records. Requested from the City: a police system. OCPD-10716-2026 remains live and will have to resolve that contradiction one way or the other.
One day after the written challenges went in, the Municipal Counselor's office answered - on procedure, not on the merits. The office will not process supplements to existing or prior requests: "the better course of action is that you file a second request for the documents you are seeking." Neither substantive point - the citation to a statute section that does not exist, or the governance-versus-law-enforcement mismatch - was addressed. The response did put two useful things in writing. First, a requester may list documents already produced so staff do not re-review them; the new requests are scoped exactly that way. Second, the City routes law-enforcement records through the OCPD portal and everything else through the ORR portal. That routing rule matters more than it looks: the City's July 10 denial of OCPD-10080-2026 called the requested audit records "not law enforcement records." Under the rule the City just confirmed, records that are not law-enforcement records belong in the ORR channel, so the audit-log request is being re-filed there, resting on the City's own classification. The office also identified the City Clerk as the authority on which requests remain open, so a written status inventory of every Round 2 ticket is going to the Clerk. The clock restarts; the questions do not change.
Filed the same day: OCPD-10715-2026 (successor to OCPD-9710, the five unproduced 5-118 paper-trail categories), OCPD-10716-2026 (successor to OCPD-10080, the platform's native audit-log export), and ORR-4292-2026 (the same audit records through the City channel, on the routing described above). The third supplement, on OCPD-10088, drew the same answer as the first two. A same-day portal review shows the full board: every OKCPD ticket is now marked Completed. Of the eight, three came back as denials or partial denials, and five - Requests #2, #4, #5, #7, and #9 - were marked Completed on July 13, four days after filing, with no records produced - only one-line notices that each had been forwarded for personnel review. All four City ORR requests remain In Progress. The OCPD-9710 pattern - a portal status that says finished while nothing is produced - now covers the majority of what the department was asked. What remains open is the City channel.
Later the same day, the status inventory came back from the City Clerk's office and completed the circle. The Municipal Counselor's office had directed status questions to the City Clerk. The Clerk's office directed the OCPD questions back to OCPD - the department that closed every one of its tickets, through a portal that does not accept replies from requesters. The four City ORR requests were confirmed "still in process" with no ETA available. The direct question - what response was transmitted on the five Completed-but-pending tickets, on what date, and to what address - was not answered. A written follow-up now goes to OKCPD Records directly: the same channel that previously produced the OCPD-9710 findings after that ticket was likewise marked Completed with nothing delivered.
OCPD-9710-2026, the request for the paper trail behind the June 15 rewrite of Section 5-118, finally produced written findings after being marked "Completed" on July 7 with nothing attached. The Municipal Counselor's office now says it will "refer the requestor to the electronic published Operations Manual and provide a copy of the revised Procedure 5-118," and denies the rest as "law enforcement records not required to be disclosed." Both documents produced are already public, and the revised 5-118 text has been on this site since July 9. The five things actually requested - drafts and redlines, internal emails about the revision, communications with Flock Safety, communications with the Mayor, City Manager, Municipal Counselor and Council, and the written approval that authorized the change - were not produced and were not addressed. The denial describes them as records "regarding the placement of cameras and use of technology." None of the five is about camera placement or technology use. Every one is about who wrote, discussed, and signed off on a policy edit. That is a governance question, and the exemption cited is a law enforcement one. Three for three: every substantive Round 2 request routed through the Municipal Counselor's office has now come back withheld. The same request remains open with the City as ORR-4000-2026. All three outstanding challenges - OCPD-9710, OCPD-10080, and OCPD-10088 - were sent to the Municipal Counselor's office on July 21, 2026, each asking the City to either produce the records or state plainly, in writing, that they do not exist.
Two Round 2 responses arrived this morning, both routed through the Municipal Counselor's office. OCPD-10088-2026 (stolen vehicle case linkage) received a partial response - pointers to the June 15 Operations Manual and the public "Crime Prevention & Data" page - with the remainder denied pursuant to 51 O.S. § 24A.8(C) on the ground that "records are not kept in the way requested nor does the open records act impose any new recordkeeping requirements." The "we do not track this" confirmation is itself the finding this request was designed to surface. OCPD-10080-2026 (audit / search logs) was fully denied under 51 O.S. §§ 24A.8(A), (B)(1), and (C) - a stack of citations that treats platform-native records as if OKCPD would have to create them. Written follow-ups going out on both. Same Municipal Counselor boilerplate on both denials is a pattern worth watching as the other nine responses arrive.
OCPD-9710-2026 (Request #3, Section 5-118 revision paper trail) was marked "Completed" in the JustFOIA portal on July 7, five days after filing, with no response documents produced and no written explanation delivered. The portal is read-only for requesters, so a written follow-up to the OKC records officer is going out separately to compel a response on the record. On July 9, eleven additional Round 2 filings went in: new tickets for Requests #1, #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, and #11, plus a re-file of Request #3 with the City records office as ORR-4000-2026. Every Round 2 request is now in the system. Tracker below reflects current status of each ticket.
| Request ID | Submitted To | Summary | Status | What we're looking for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORR-5225-2026 Agency list · City |
City of Oklahoma City | The list of every outside agency, department, or organization able to access, receive, query, or search OKC's Flock data, requested in the form the Flock platform already exports it, plus the same list as it stood on August 18, 2026 | Referred OutAug 28 | The record Chief Bacy declined to give the council on August 18. Filed with the City as well as the Department because the City's own July 22 routing guidance sends non-law-enforcement records through this channel, and a roster of government agency names is not an investigatory record by any reading of the exemption. Closed the next day without a search. The Office of the City Clerk replied: “That list if there is one to be generated would come from the Flock system used by OCPD. This is an OCPD request.” That is the identical bounce that ended ORR-4292-2026 on July 23, now applied to a second and different record. Two things are worth marking. The Clerk writes “if there is one” about a list the chief of police quantified at 109 from the dais ten days earlier. And the City has once again routed a Flock record to the police after its own July 10 response called comparable Flock records “not law enforcement records” - a classification that, under 51 O.S. § 24A.3(5), is what makes a record the police department's to begin with. |
| OCPD-12606-2026 Agency list · OKCPD |
Oklahoma City Police Department | The same outside-agency access roster through the police channel: agency names and access status as the Flock Admin Console exports them, with all per-user and per-officer fields redacted up front | FiledAug 27 | Filed in parallel so neither office can route the question to the other without answering it. Distinct from OCPD-10081-2026, which asked for the sharing agreements and has sat in personnel review since July. This one asks only for the list, in the form the system already keeps it. |
| OCPD-9710-2026 Request #3 of 11 · OKCPD |
Oklahoma City Police Department | Section 5-118 revision paper trail (Feb-June 2026): drafts, emails, Flock communications, City Manager / Mayor / Council communications, and policy review board authorizations for the June 2026 rewrite of the ALPR data-sharing rule | Partial DenialJul 21 | Filed July 2, 2026. Portal marked "Completed" July 7 with no documents and no explanation. On July 21, after a written follow-up, the Municipal Counselor's office issued findings: "Refer the requestor to the electronic published Operations Manual and provide a copy of the revised Procedure 5-118. The remaining requests regarding the placement of cameras and use of technology are law enforcement records not required to be disclosed under the Open Records Act, Section 21A.8B(1)." What was produced is the already-public manual and the revised 5-118 text this site has published since July 9 - the output of the rewrite, not the paper trail behind it. The request asked for five specific things: drafts and redlines, internal emails about the revision, communications with Flock Safety, communications with the Mayor / City Manager / Municipal Counselor / Council, and the written approval that authorized the change. None of the five concerns camera placement or technology use, and none was produced. Note the Act is codified at 51 O.S. § 24A.8; there is no Section 21A.8. Under § 24A.8(B) an agency may deny access, subject to a public-interest balance - it is a choice, not a requirement. Written challenge sent July 21, 2026. Same substance remains live with the City as ORR-4000-2026 (row below), which is the channel most likely to hold the Mayor / Council / Municipal Counselor communications. July 22: the Municipal Counselor's office declined to process the supplement and directed that a new request be filed instead. A narrowed successor request, scoped to only the five unproduced categories and expressly excluding the documents already produced, was filed July 22 as OCPD-10715-2026 (row below). |
| OCPD-10715-2026 Request #3, refiled · OKCPD |
Oklahoma City Police Department | Successor to OCPD-9710-2026, filed at the City's direction: the five unproduced 5-118 revision paper-trail categories - drafts and redlines, internal emails, Flock Safety correspondence, Mayor / City Manager / Municipal Counselor / Council correspondence, and the written approval - expressly excluding the already-produced Operations Manual and revised 5-118 text | FiledJul 22 | The Municipal Counselor's office declined to process a supplement and directed a second request. This is that request, scoped so the "we already gave you documents" answer is off the table: everything previously produced is listed and excluded up front. If it comes back withheld, the denial has to cite a real subsection of 51 O.S. § 24A.8 and say whether the records exist. |
| OCPD-10080-2026 Request #1 of 11 |
Oklahoma City Police Department | Flock audit / search logs, June 2025 to present. Officer ID, timestamp, search criteria, case-number field, hit/miss result, exports, and whether the search retrieved data from Flock's National Lookup network | DeniedJul 10 | Response via Municipal Counselor: "Requested records are not law enforcement records pursuant to 51 O.S. § 24A.8(A) and are therefore denied pursuant to 51 O.S. § 24A.8(B)(1). Additionally, records are not kept in manner requested and the open records act does not impose new recordkeeping requirements pursuant to 51 O.S. § 24A.8(C)." The 24A.8(C) rationale does not fit the facts: Flock's platform natively generates a complete audit log of every search, query, and export in the ordinary course of the system's operation, and that log is accessible to OKCPD through the vendor's Admin Console. Written follow-up sent July 21, 2026, citing the platform's native audit-log feature and offering to accept the Admin Console's own CSV / XLSX export with plate numbers and PII redacted. July 22: the office declined to process the supplement and directed a new filing. Successor requests were filed July 22 through both portals - OCPD-10716-2026 for the platform's native audit-log export, and ORR-4292-2026 quoting the City's own July 10 statement that these records "are not law enforcement records" (rows below). |
| OCPD-10716-2026 Request #1, refiled · OKCPD |
Oklahoma City Police Department | Successor to OCPD-10080-2026: the Flock platform's native audit log, June 2025 to present, in the exact form the Admin Console generates and exports it (CSV / XLSX), with plate-number and PII redaction accepted up front | DeniedJul 28 | The July 10 denial leaned on 24A.8(C): records "not kept in the way requested." This request is confined to the way the records are actually kept - the platform's own export, as-is. Nothing has to be created and no new recordkeeping is requested, so the 24A.8(C) rationale no longer fits. Denied July 28. The Municipal Counselor's office cited 51 O.S. § 24A.8(A), (B)(1), and - though the request was scoped to the native export precisely to remove it - (C) again. What the denial concedes: to withhold a record under (B)(1) the record must exist, so the denial confirms the audit log exists - as Flock's own July 8 press release already stated. And (B) denials are discretionary: the statute lets a court order release where the public interest outweighs the reason for denial. In plain terms, the department may release this log and is choosing not to. Across three responses the same file has now been labeled not-a-law-enforcement-record (OCPD-10080), an-OCPD-system-the-City-cannot-access (ORR-4292), and a-law-enforcement-record-we-may-withhold (here) - three labels for one file, each pointing away from disclosure. |
| ORR-4292-2026 Request #1, refiled · City |
City of Oklahoma City | The same Flock audit records through the City records channel: user identifier, timestamp, search criteria or stated reason, case-number field if any, and whether each query reached data beyond OKC's own cameras | Referred OutJul 23 | Filed on the City's own two written statements: the July 10 denial said these records "are not law enforcement records," and the July 22 guidance routes non-law-enforcement records through the ORR portal. One channel or the other has to answer on the merits. If both decline, the City will have classified the same records both ways in writing. July 23: the City records office declined to process this request - "This is an OCPD system. This isn't our request as we don't have access to that system" - and referred it to OKCPD Records. The same records the City's July 10 response classified as "not law enforcement records" are, when requested from the City, an OCPD-system matter. Requested from the police: not police records. Requested from the City: a police system. The both-ways classification this filing was built to surface is now in writing; OCPD-10716-2026 carries the question from here. |
| OCPD-10081-2026 Request #2 of 11 |
Oklahoma City Police Department | National Lookup participation status and all outside-agency data-sharing agreements. Federal, state, out-of-state, and private entities. All queries against OKC's Flock data during the past 24 months | Personnel Reviewas of Jul 23 | KOSU asked; OKCPD dodged. This forces the answer in writing. Any agreement identified here is a distinct additional accountability question for council. Portal marked this ticket Completed on July 13, four days after filing; a one-line email notice the same day said the request had been "forwarded for Personnel Review." No records, findings, or denial have been produced. July 23: OKCPD Records confirmed in writing that "completed" is an internal status that "does not always mean that the request is finished," that the Municipal Counselor's office determined these records are "not a law enforcement record," and that the request is "still being worked as an open record" in personnel review - conducted by a single attorney in that office, with no reference number and no timeline. |
| ORR-4000-2026 Request #3 of 11 · City re-file |
City of Oklahoma City | Section 5-118 revision paper trail (Feb-June 2026): same substance as OCPD-9710-2026 above, filed with the City records office after the OKCPD ticket was closed with no response | In Progressas of Jul 22 | The City often holds documents OKCPD deflects on. This is the same substantive request through the City records channel - if OKCPD's July 7 closure was silent-denial, the City's response window becomes the parallel documentation. |
| OCPD-10083-2026 Request #4 of 11 |
Oklahoma City Police Department | Federal agency access to OKC Flock data during the past 24 months. ICE, HSI, FBI, ATF, DEA, USMS, DHS, GSA-IG. Task-force MOUs, credentials, mechanism of access, whether local personnel authorized or were notified | Personnel Reviewas of Jul 23 | The Mountain View analogue. Either OKCPD produces records they previously said they could not produce, or they confirm again that they cannot - which is a bigger story. Portal marked this ticket Completed on July 13, four days after filing; a one-line email notice the same day said the request had been "forwarded for Personnel Review." No records, findings, or denial have been produced. July 23: OKCPD Records confirmed in writing that "completed" is an internal status that "does not always mean that the request is finished," that the Municipal Counselor's office determined these records are "not a law enforcement record," and that the request is "still being worked as an open record" in personnel review - conducted by a single attorney in that office, with no reference number and no timeline. |
| OCPD-10084-2026 Request #5 of 11 |
Oklahoma City Police Department | System Administrator identity, criteria, and approval log. The June 2026 rewrite of Section 5-118 delegated all data-sharing approval to a single officer. Name, chain of command, criteria, approval records since June 2026 | Personnel Reviewas of Jul 23 | Who is the person the manual now says approves all external sharing? What criteria do they apply? Have they approved anything? Portal marked this ticket Completed on July 13, four days after filing; a one-line email notice the same day said the request had been "forwarded for Personnel Review." No records, findings, or denial have been produced. July 23: OKCPD Records confirmed in writing that "completed" is an internal status that "does not always mean that the request is finished," that the Municipal Counselor's office determined these records are "not a law enforcement record," and that the request is "still being worked as an open record" in personnel review - conducted by a single attorney in that office, with no reference number and no timeline. |
| ORR-4001-2026 Request #6 of 11 |
City of Oklahoma City | Discipline records and public complaints related to Flock use, June 2023 to present. Internal Affairs investigations, corrective action, public complaints, and any policy governing how the Department investigates alleged Flock misuse | ReceivedJul 24 | Answered - and the answer is yes. OKCPD disclosed that a complaint alleging Flock technology infringed on an individual's rights was sustained, and that an Oklahoma City police officer was disciplined - the allegation sustained - for using the department's ALPR access and records system for personal purposes from December 2024 to April 2025. The penalty was a three-day unpaid suspension and a year of probation. We are not naming the officer: the point is that it happened here, it was sustained, and it surfaced through a single citizen complaint, not a department audit - and OKCPD has confirmed it keeps no routine audit at all. Detail on The Case, Section 05. |
| OCPD-10086-2026 Request #7 of 11 |
Oklahoma City Police Department | Flock training curricula, lesson plans, completion records, and any materials supplied to OKCPD by Flock Safety. Specifically asks the Department to cite the statutory exemption relied on when the March 10 memo withheld training material | Personnel Reviewas of Jul 23 | Section 5-118 requires "properly trained" personnel. What is the training? Who has completed it? Why was it withheld from the first FOIA without a legal basis? Portal marked this ticket Completed on July 13, four days after filing; a one-line email notice the same day said the request had been "forwarded for Personnel Review." No records, findings, or denial have been produced. July 23: OKCPD Records confirmed in writing that "completed" is an internal status that "does not always mean that the request is finished," that the Municipal Counselor's office determined these records are "not a law enforcement record," and that the request is "still being worked as an open record" in personnel review - conducted by a single attorney in that office, with no reference number and no timeline. |
| ORR-4003-2026 Request #8 of 11 |
City of Oklahoma City | All Flock invoices, contract addenda, and pre-contract pilot documentation since Jan 2022. Includes a current inventory of every operating camera (address, mounting type, in-service date, authorization document) | In Progressas of Jul 22 | Reconciles the contract's 90 cameras with the community-mapped 299. Also targets Flock's documented "install first, contract later" business model - did that happen in OKC before June 2023? |
| OCPD-10087-2026 Request #9 of 11 |
Oklahoma City Police Department | Effectiveness reporting and impact metrics, June 2023 to present. Every internal or external report quantifying crime-reduction impact, all correspondence requesting effectiveness data from Flock, and written performance criteria used to evaluate the contract | Personnel Reviewas of Jul 23 | Has the Department ever measured whether Flock actually reduces crime, or just responded to it? A written "no responsive records exist" is itself a story - three years and $810,000 later, OKC has no idea if the program works. Portal marked this ticket Completed on July 13, four days after filing; a one-line email notice the same day said the request had been "forwarded for Personnel Review." No records, findings, or denial have been produced. July 23: OKCPD Records confirmed in writing that "completed" is an internal status that "does not always mean that the request is finished," that the Municipal Counselor's office determined these records are "not a law enforcement record," and that the request is "still being worked as an open record" in personnel review - conducted by a single attorney in that office, with no reference number and no timeline. |
| OCPD-10088-2026 Request #10 of 11 |
Oklahoma City Police Department | Stolen vehicle case linkage and outcome data, 2022 to present. Every closed stolen vehicle case, whether Flock was cited as material, and aggregate pre-Flock vs Flock-era clearance rates broken out by year | Partial DenialJul 10 | Response via Municipal Counselor: pointed to (1) the June 15, 2026 Operations Manual for policies (already on file), and (2) the public "Crime Prevention & Data" page at okc.gov - general year-over-year crime figures with no Flock-material breakdown. Remainder denied pursuant to 51 O.S. § 24A.8(C): "records are not kept in the way requested nor does the open records act impose any new recordkeeping requirements." That written confirmation - OKCPD does not track whether Flock is material to stolen vehicle case outcomes - is the finding this request was designed to surface. Neither the manual nor the public crime page distinguishes cases where Flock data mattered from cases where it did not. On the Department's own written words, no such measurement exists. Follow-up sent July 21, 2026 to memorialize the "not tracked" answer in writing. July 22: the office sent the same start-over answer on this request as well; no re-file is planned. The written "not tracked" answer is the record this request existed to create. |
| ORR-4005-2026 Request #11 of 11 |
City of Oklahoma City (routed to Public Works) | Right-of-way permits and MUTCD roadside-safety compliance records for every Flock pole. Permits, engineering approvals, MUTCD / AASHTO / NCHRP / MASH crashworthiness certifications, ODOT correspondence (including the Pryor Creek and Bartlesville removal directives), complaint and incident records, and a current camera inventory keyed to speed limit and offset from roadway edge | In Progressas of Jul 22 | The physical installation itself. Safety advocates in Maine, Colorado, Tennessee, Iowa, and South Carolina have documented widespread MUTCD non-compliance and unpermitted installations. ODOT has already directed Pryor Creek and Bartlesville to remove Flock cameras from state ROW. OKC has never publicly disclosed whether its 90 installations were reviewed. If they weren't, that is the story. |
Running these requests yourself? The Round 2 pack is formatted for direct copy-paste into OKC's records portal. Every parallel filing makes it harder for the Department to slow-walk any single one - and produces its own reference number that becomes documentable evidence if the response gets buried. Log your reference numbers, save every response, and send what you get to DeFlockOKC@proton.me.
How to File Your Own Request
The Oklahoma Open Records Act gives every person the right to inspect and copy public records. Here's how:
- Use JustFOIA - Visit justfoia.com to file requests digitally. It tracks deadlines and responses automatically.
- Be specific - Reference document types, date ranges, and department names. The more precise your request, the harder it is to deflect.
- Request digital delivery - Oklahoma law allows agencies to charge for copies, but digital delivery minimizes costs.
- Know your rights - Under the Open Records Act, agencies must respond promptly. If records are denied, the agency must cite a specific statutory exemption.
Suggested Requests to File
Specificity matters. Vague requests get vague responses. Below are three topic areas that have produced meaningful results. Use these as starting points - put them in your own words, adapt them to your city or department, and ask about what matters most to you. Unique requests from different residents carry far more weight than identical ones.
1. Policies, Oversight, and Accountability
Ask about the rules governing who can use the system and how. Key topics to cover:
- Policies, SOPs, directives, or training materials governing Flock/ALPR use
- Access controls - who is authorized to search, and what approvals are required
- Prohibited uses - are curiosity or personal searches explicitly banned? What are the discipline standards?
- Audit logging - does anyone review who searches the system, how often, and what happens when misuse is found?
- Transparency reporting - has the department ever published internal usage data?
2. Data Retention and Cross-Agency Sharing
Ask about what happens to the data after it's collected. Key topics to cover:
- Configured retention periods for plate reads, images, and metadata
- Policies or procedures verifying that data is actually deleted on schedule
- Whether cross-agency sharing is enabled - and which agencies have access
- Any MOUs or agreements governing how data is shared
- Whether sharing features are opt-in or enabled by default
3. Contracts and Council Authorization
Ask about the business relationship and how it was approved. Key topics to cover:
- Full contracts, amendments, renewals, and termination provisions with Flock Safety
- Purchase orders, invoices, and payment records
- Council agenda items, staff reports, or approval documents authorizing the purchase or renewal
- Any communications between city staff and Flock regarding system upgrades or new features
Tips for Effective Requests
- Be specific - name the system (Flock Safety, ALPR), the department, and a date range (e.g., Jan 1, 2021 to present)
- Request electronic delivery - Oklahoma law allows agencies to charge for physical copies, but digital delivery is typically free
- Ask for the basis of any withholding - if records are denied, the agency must cite a specific statutory exemption
- Use your own words - a dozen unique requests from different residents are harder to dismiss than identical form letters
- Send to both - consider filing with both the police department and the city records office, as we found they hold different documents