{
 "version": 1,
 "generatedAt": "2026-08-16T01:24:55.484Z",
 "license": "CC BY 4.0. Linked source material remains the property of its publishers.",
 "documentation": "https://unsurveilled.org/sources/",
 "fieldNotes": {
  "claimStanding": "Each claim carries its evidentiary standing: documented-fact, official-claim, allegation, charge, conviction, disputed, or analysis. These are not interchangeable — an arrest is not a charge and a charge is not a conviction.",
  "tier": "Record-level sourcing strength, strongest first: primary-document, court-documented, official-agency, multi-source, news-reported, contested, unconfirmed-lead.",
  "discoveryLeads": "Where a story was found, not what proves it. Social posts appear here and never as evidence.",
  "unknowns": "Facts not established. Published deliberately rather than omitted."
 },
 "count": 14,
 "items": [
  {
   "id": "deflock-national-week-of-action",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/deflock-national-week-of-action/",
   "title": "The national week of action against ALPRs runs August 16–22, and it is a civic one",
   "dek": "More than 400 events in nearly every state, organised by DeFlock. Council meetings, records requests, information sessions. The organisers say plainly what it is not.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-15T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-15T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": "2026-08-16",
   "storyType": "campaign",
   "importance": 5,
   "scope": "national",
   "state": null,
   "stateAb": null,
   "jurisdictionIds": [],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [],
   "tags": [
    "national",
    "campaign",
    "week-of-action",
    "take-action"
   ],
   "summary": "DeFlock, a national anti-ALPR organising group led by Ed Vogel, has called a National Week of Action Against ALPRs for August 16 to 22, 2026. Organisers report more than 400 events planned across nearly every US state, with roughly 22,000 people registered. There is deliberately no single national action: each participating city is asked to hold at least one event of its own, and the published formats are ordinary civic ones — city council appearances, public records requests, town halls, information sessions, and neighbourhood gatherings. A map at noalprs.com shows where events are happening, though organisers withhold specific details from the public listing. Vogel has stated that DeFlock does not advocate or organise around damaging cameras.",
   "whyItMatters": "This site exists to make local action possible, and for one week there is a national scaffold for it. Almost everything Unsurveilled publishes is designed to be used by a person acting alone — a records request, a dossier, a council question — and acting alone is slow and discouraging. Four hundred events means the person in your town who has been reading about this quietly is probably not the only one, and finding each other is most of what turns a concern into a campaign. It also matters that the published tactics are the boring ones. Council meetings and records requests are what actually moved Chandler, Pinal County, Renton and Duluth, and a week of them is worth more than a week of noise. We are not the organisers of this and it is not our campaign; DeFlock called it, and pointing people toward it is simply the useful thing to do. The distinction the organisers draw is the same one we draw: opposing a surveillance system through public process is a different activity from damaging its equipment, and the difference is not a technicality.",
   "tier": "multi-source",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "DeFlock has called a National Week of Action Against ALPRs for August 16 to 22, 2026.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "noalprs-week-of-action",
      "atlpress-week-of-action-launch",
      "popularresistance-week-of-action"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "There is no single national action. Each participating city is asked to hold at least one event of its own.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "popularresistance-week-of-action"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Published formats include city council advocacy, public records requests, town halls, information sessions and neighbourhood gatherings.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "atlpress-week-of-action-launch"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "DeFlock is led by Ed Vogel, who stated that \"DeFlock doesn't advocate or organize around smashing or taking down cameras.\"",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "atlpress-week-of-action-launch"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Organisers deliberately withhold specific event details from the public map to avoid interference.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "atlpress-week-of-action-launch"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [
    {
     "text": "The figures of more than 400 events and roughly 22,000 registered participants are the organisers' own counts, reported by the Atlanta Press Collective. Nobody independent has tallied them, and registration is not attendance. We cite them as the organisers' figures.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "atlpress-week-of-action-launch",
      "noalprs-week-of-action"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Separate incidents of ALPR camera vandalism have occurred across the country and have drawn law-enforcement attention, including from the FBI. Reporting attributes these to people acting on their own rather than to the organised week, and DeFlock has stated it does not organise around them. Unsurveilled records both facts and does not merge them: a person damaging a camera is not a participant in a council meeting, and treating the two as one movement would misdescribe both.",
     "standing": "analysis",
     "sourceIds": [
      "atlpress-week-of-action-launch"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "How many of the registered events actually took place, and with what attendance?",
     "resolveVia": "unknown"
    },
    {
     "question": "Which jurisdictions changed a policy, contract or vote in the weeks following?",
     "resolveVia": "council-agenda"
    },
    {
     "question": "How many public-records requests were filed during the week, and what did they establish?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "noalprs-week-of-action",
     "url": "https://noalprs.com/",
     "title": "National Week of Action Against ALPRs",
     "publisher": "DeFlock",
     "sourceType": "ngo-research",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "primary",
     "publishedAt": null,
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "atlpress-week-of-action-launch",
     "url": "https://atlpresscollective.com/2026/08/15/flock-week-of-action/",
     "title": "Organizers launch week of action against Flock and other ALPRs",
     "publisher": "Atlanta Press Collective",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-15",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "popularresistance-week-of-action",
     "url": "https://popularresistance.org/august-16-22-national-week-of-action-against-alprs/",
     "title": "August 16-22: National Week of Action Against ALPRs",
     "publisher": "Popular Resistance",
     "sourceType": "ngo-research",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": null,
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  },
  {
   "id": "aclu-get-the-flock-out-campaign",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/aclu-get-the-flock-out-campaign/",
   "title": "The ACLU's national ALPR campaign puts a number on Flock. We can check it.",
   "dek": "Get the Flock Out coordinates state affiliates, model legislation, and litigation. It also publishes figures — and one of them is testable against our own map.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": "2026-08-12",
   "storyType": "campaign",
   "importance": 3,
   "scope": "national",
   "state": null,
   "stateAb": null,
   "jurisdictionIds": [],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [
    "flock-safety"
   ],
   "tags": [
    "national",
    "campaign",
    "model-policy",
    "methodology"
   ],
   "summary": "The ACLU launched Get the Flock Out in June 2026, a national campaign coordinating the litigation, advocacy and legislative work of its state affiliates on automated license plate readers. The campaign released model ALPR legislation in February 2026, filed an amicus brief in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk in April 2026, and supported a bipartisan amendment to the federal highway funding bill in May 2026 that would have restricted ALPR use except for tolling. Affiliates including the ACLU of Massachusetts and the ACLU of Indiana have published organising toolkits containing public-records request templates and a model surveillance-oversight ordinance. The national campaign page, updated August 12, 2026, states that 120,000 Flock cameras are installed, that fewer than 1% of scanned vehicles are connected to crimes, and that roughly one in ten plates is misread.",
   "whyItMatters": "Two things are worth saying about this campaign, and the second matters more to how this site works. The first is that it is the missing piece structurally. Individual councils have been fighting these systems one at a time, which is how you get Binghamton — a majority vote that cannot reach the contract. A campaign that pairs local organising with model legislation, appellate amicus work, and a federal amendment is aimed at the levels where the decision actually sits. The second is that the ACLU publishes numbers, and we can test one of them, and we should. Its figure of 120,000 installed Flock cameras sits next to our own count of 96,780 Flock-attributed camera coordinates mapped by OpenStreetMap volunteers. Those are not in conflict — ours is a floor built from what somebody physically recorded, theirs is a claim about an installed base — and the fact that a crowd-sourced map independently reaches roughly four-fifths of the asserted total is the most useful thing either number can tell you. We would say so if it went the other way. An organisation we agree with is not exempt from the sourcing standard, and treating allies' figures as automatically established is precisely how a research project stops being one.",
   "tier": "multi-source",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "The ACLU launched the Get the Flock Out campaign in June 2026 to coordinate the litigation, advocacy and legislative work of its state affiliates on automated license plate readers.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "aclu-get-the-flock-out"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The ACLU released model ALPR legislation in February 2026.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "aclu-get-the-flock-out"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The ACLU filed an amicus brief in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk in the Fourth Circuit in April 2026.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "aclu-get-the-flock-out",
      "epic-amicus-schmidt-v-norfolk"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The ACLU supported a bipartisan amendment to the federal highway funding bill in May 2026 that would have restricted state and local ALPR use except for tolling purposes.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "aclu-get-the-flock-out"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The ACLU of Massachusetts published a community advocacy toolkit containing public-records request templates and a model surveillance-oversight ordinance.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "aclu-massachusetts-flock-toolkit"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Unsurveilled's own camera layer holds 96,780 coordinates attributed to Flock Safety by OpenStreetMap contributors, out of 118,623 ALPR coordinates across all vendors.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": []
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [
    {
     "text": "The campaign states that 120,000 Flock cameras are installed. That is an advocacy organisation's figure and we have not seen its derivation. It is compatible with our own mapped count of 96,780 Flock-attributed coordinates, which is a floor rather than an inventory — a camera nobody has walked past and recorded does not appear on our map. We cite the ACLU's number as the ACLU's number.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "aclu-get-the-flock-out"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The campaign states that fewer than 1% of scanned vehicles are connected to crimes and that roughly one in ten plates is misread. We have not obtained the underlying studies or audit data for either figure, and we do not repeat them as established. Both are the kind of claim that would be straightforward to verify from agency audit logs, which is a reason to request them rather than a reason to assume.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "aclu-get-the-flock-out"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The ACLU is a party and an advocate in several of the matters it reports on. That does not make its factual claims wrong, and it does mean they are positions rather than findings. We apply the same rule to Flock's claims about its own product, and to our own.",
     "standing": "analysis",
     "sourceIds": []
    }
   ],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "How does the ACLU derive its figure of 120,000 installed Flock cameras?",
     "resolveVia": "vendor-disclosure"
    },
    {
     "question": "What data underlies the claims about crime-connection rates and misread rates?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Which states have introduced bills based on the ACLU model legislation, and what became of them?",
     "resolveVia": "council-agenda"
    },
    {
     "question": "What became of the May 2026 federal highway bill amendment?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "aclu-get-the-flock-out",
     "url": "https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/get-the-flock-out",
     "title": "Fight creepy ALPR cameras",
     "publisher": "American Civil Liberties Union",
     "sourceType": "ngo-research",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": null,
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "aclu-massachusetts-flock-toolkit",
     "url": "https://www.aclum.org/campaigns-initiatives/get-the-flock-out-resource-guide/",
     "title": "Get the FLOCK Out — community advocacy toolkit",
     "publisher": "ACLU of Massachusetts",
     "sourceType": "ngo-research",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": null,
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "aclu-response-flock-updates",
     "url": "https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/as-public-opposition-to-flock-grows-aclu-responds-to-surveillance-companys-new-updates",
     "title": "As public opposition to Flock grows, ACLU responds to surveillance company new updates",
     "publisher": "American Civil Liberties Union",
     "sourceType": "ngo-research",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": null,
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "epic-amicus-schmidt-v-norfolk",
     "url": "https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/EPIC-Amicus-Schmidt-v.-Norfolk.pdf",
     "title": "Brief of amicus curiae EPIC, Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, No. 26-1227",
     "publisher": "Electronic Privacy Information Center",
     "sourceType": "court-filing",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "primary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-04-01",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  },
  {
   "id": "apache-junction-flock-pole-arrest",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/apache-junction-flock-pole-arrest/",
   "title": "Arizona man arrested after bending Flock camera pole amid growing ALPR backlash",
   "dek": "A Pinal County resident said he used his work truck to bend a license-plate reader pole so the camera pointed at the sky. He was arrested and faces a felony criminal-damage charge — in a state where two agencies have just walked away from their ALPR contracts.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": "2026-08-08",
   "storyType": "backlash",
   "importance": 4,
   "scope": "local",
   "state": "Arizona",
   "stateAb": "AZ",
   "jurisdictionIds": [
    "apache-junction-az",
    "pinal-county-az"
   ],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [
    "flock-safety"
   ],
   "tags": [
    "arizona",
    "backlash",
    "criminal-case"
   ],
   "summary": "FOX 10 Phoenix reported on August 8, 2026 that Pinal County resident Ed Kahle said he used his work truck to bend a Flock Safety license-plate-reader pole near Superstition Boulevard and Goldfield Road in Apache Junction, leaving the camera pointed toward the sky. He said he understood the conduct was illegal and did not regret it. He was arrested and faces a felony criminal-damage charge. The report placed the incident against a backdrop of intensifying Arizona scrutiny of automated license plate readers.",
   "whyItMatters": "This is not an ALPR misuse case, and filing it as one would be wrong. Nothing here suggests the camera was abused; the event is public backlash directed at surveillance infrastructure, and an alleged crime committed in the course of it. It matters because of where it sits in a sequence. Within roughly one week in Arizona, a county sheriff declined to renew a Flock contract on Fourth Amendment grounds, the largest Arizona city running the technology shut its program down after an audit anomaly, and a resident damaged a pole and told a television station he had no regrets. Read together, those three facts describe a legitimacy problem — a technology deployed faster than public consent for it was ever established. The lawful response to that problem is the one that actually changes policy: records requests, contract scrutiny, council votes, and warrant requirements. Bending a pole changes nothing except the defendant's own legal exposure.",
   "tier": "news-reported",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "FOX 10 Phoenix reported that Ed Kahle said he used a work truck to bend a Flock Safety ALPR pole near Superstition Boulevard and Goldfield Road in Apache Junction.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "fox10-apache-junction-flock-pole"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Kahle was reported as having been arrested and facing a felony criminal-damage charge.",
     "standing": "charge",
     "sourceIds": [
      "fox10-apache-junction-flock-pole"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Kahle stated that he understood his conduct was illegal and that he did not regret it.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "fox10-apache-junction-flock-pole"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The Pinal County Sheriff's Office announced days earlier that it would not renew its Flock Safety contract, citing Fourth Amendment concerns.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "abc15-pinal-county-nonrenewal"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Chandler discontinued its 40-camera Flock program on August 7, 2026 after an audit identified use that could not be explained by standard police action.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "chandler-city-release-alpr-end"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [
    {
     "text": "A charge is an accusation, not a finding. As of publication we have seen no reporting of a conviction, plea, or disposition, and this record will not describe the conduct as established beyond what Kahle himself said publicly.",
     "standing": "analysis",
     "sourceIds": []
    }
   ],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "The police report and probable-cause statement for the arrest",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "The Pinal County court docket, charge disposition, and any plea",
     "resolveVia": "court-record"
    },
    {
     "question": "Who owns and operates the specific pole that was damaged — the city, the county, or a private property owner",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Whether the camera was repaired, relocated, or removed",
     "resolveVia": "field-research"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "fox10-apache-junction-flock-pole",
     "url": "https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-man-uses-truck-bend-flock-camera-apache-junction",
     "title": "Arizona man uses truck to bend Flock camera pole in Apache Junction",
     "publisher": "FOX 10 Phoenix",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-08",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "abc15-pinal-county-nonrenewal",
     "url": "https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/",
     "title": "Coverage of the Pinal County Sheriff's Flock contract non-renewal",
     "publisher": "ABC15 Arizona",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-05",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "chandler-city-release-alpr-end",
     "url": "https://www.chandleraz.gov/news-center/chandler-discontinues-use-flocks-automated-license-plate-readers",
     "title": "Chandler discontinues use of Flock's automated license plate readers",
     "publisher": "City of Chandler",
     "sourceType": "agency-release",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "primary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-07",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [
    {
     "id": "x-lead-apache-junction",
     "url": "https://x.com/i/status/2088048914632974509",
     "title": "Social post describing an Arizona arrest over a bent Flock camera pole",
     "publisher": "X (post)",
     "sourceType": "social-lead",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": null,
     "isDiscoveryLead": true
    }
   ],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [
    "pinal-county-az-2026-08-05",
    "chandler-az-2026-08-07"
   ],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  },
  {
   "id": "binghamton-council-asks-mayor-to-end-flock",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/binghamton-council-asks-mayor-to-end-flock/",
   "title": "Binghamton's council voted to end its Flock contracts. It has no power to do it.",
   "dek": "A resolution is not a cancellation. In Binghamton the authority sits with the mayor, the mayor has said no, and one of the contracts renews automatically this month.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": "2026-08-06",
   "storyType": "backlash",
   "importance": 3,
   "scope": "local",
   "state": "New York",
   "stateAb": "NY",
   "jurisdictionIds": [
    "binghamton-ny"
   ],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [
    "flock-safety"
   ],
   "tags": [
    "new-york",
    "procurement",
    "council-action",
    "auto-renewal"
   ],
   "summary": "On August 6, 2026 the Binghamton City Council adopted a resolution calling on Mayor Jared Kraham to terminate the city's contracts with Flock Safety, to refrain from new agreements until local policies are adopted, and supporting statewide privacy standards. Reporting on July 31 established that cancellation authority in Binghamton rests with the mayor rather than the council; Council Chair Michael Dundon said the council had no power over the renewal. Mayor Kraham has said the cameras are not going anywhere, and Deputy Mayor Megan Heiman described the technology as an indispensable resource. One Binghamton contract was reported as renewing automatically in August 2026, with a second up for possible renewal in January 2027.",
   "whyItMatters": "This is the most useful failure case in the batch, and organisers everywhere should read it before their own council vote rather than after. Binghamton did everything that looks like winning. Committee discussion, public comment, a majority vote, a resolution that carefully concedes ALPRs can serve legitimate purposes and asks for transparency and safeguards rather than abolition. And the cameras will still be there next month, because in this city the power to sign and unsign a contract belongs to the executive, and no amount of legislative sentiment moves it. Worse, one of the contracts renews by itself. Nobody has to defend it, schedule it, or vote for it — the default is continuation, and the effort required to keep the cameras is zero while the effort required to remove them is a charter fight. That asymmetry is the actual mechanism by which surveillance infrastructure becomes permanent, and it is almost never what a campaign is aimed at. The lesson is not that resolutions are worthless. It is that the first question in any local ALPR campaign is who holds the pen, and the second is when the contract renews itself.",
   "tier": "news-reported",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "On August 6, 2026 the Binghamton City Council adopted a resolution calling on Mayor Jared Kraham to terminate the city's Flock Safety contracts and to refrain from new agreements until comprehensive local policies are adopted.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wbng-binghamton-council-flock-resolution"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The resolution acknowledges that automated license plate readers can serve legitimate public-safety purposes, and asks for transparency, accountability and safeguards rather than prohibition.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wbng-binghamton-council-flock-resolution"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Authority to cancel the Flock contracts rests with the mayor rather than the city council.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wskg-binghamton-mayor-holds-authority"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Council Chair Michael Dundon said the council was looking for any option it had on the renewal but had no power over it.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wskg-binghamton-mayor-holds-authority"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Deputy Mayor Megan Heiman said the city's ALPR technology has proven to be an indispensable resource for the Binghamton Police.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wskg-binghamton-mayor-holds-authority"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "One Binghamton Flock contract was reported as renewing automatically in August 2026, with a second up for possible renewal in January 2027.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wskg-binghamton-mayor-holds-authority"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Mayor Kraham has stated he does not intend to terminate the contracts, and has said the technology contributed to a reduction in crime in Binghamton.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wbng-binghamton-council-flock-resolution"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [
    {
     "text": "Council Majority Leader Rebecca Rathmell stated at the meeting that over 80 municipalities across 28 states have terminated automated license plate reader contracts. That is a claim made by an elected official in a council setting, not a figure Unsurveilled has verified. Our own Decision Record holds fewer, because it holds only what we have confirmed to a source. We cite her statement as her statement.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wbng-binghamton-council-flock-resolution"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The mayor's statement that the technology contributed to a reduction in crime in Binghamton is an official claim about program effectiveness. No audit, study, or dataset supporting it has been published that we have seen, and no evaluation of a city ALPR program should be accepted or dismissed on an official's assertion alone.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wbng-binghamton-council-flock-resolution"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The reported vote was 4–2 with one member absent. We cite the adoption of the resolution as established and treat the precise tally as pending the council's own minutes.",
     "standing": "disputed",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wbng-binghamton-council-flock-resolution"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "What charter or code provision assigns contracting authority to the mayor in Binghamton?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Did the August 2026 contract in fact auto-renew, and on what terms?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "How many Flock cameras does Binghamton operate, and at what annual cost?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "What is Binghamton's ALPR retention period, and which outside agencies can search the data?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "What evidence underlies the city's claim that the technology reduced crime?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "wbng-binghamton-council-flock-resolution",
     "url": "https://www.wbng.com/2026/08/07/binghamton-city-council-resolution-urges-mayor-terminate-flock-camera-contract/",
     "title": "Binghamton City Council resolution urges mayor to terminate Flock camera contract",
     "publisher": "WBNG",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-07",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "wskg-binghamton-mayor-holds-authority",
     "url": "https://wskg.org/regional-news/2026-07-31/in-binghamton-the-mayor-has-authority-to-cancel-flock-safety-contracts-not-city-council",
     "title": "In Binghamton the mayor has authority to cancel Flock Safety contracts, not city council",
     "publisher": "WSKG",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-07-31",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  },
  {
   "id": "chandler-ends-flock-after-audit-anomaly",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/chandler-ends-flock-after-audit-anomaly/",
   "title": "Chandler shuts down 40 Flock cameras after an audit finds use it cannot explain",
   "dek": "Three years of routine audits found nothing. The fourth found something. The largest Arizona city running Flock Safety cameras responded by revoking every officer's access and ending the program outright.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": "2026-08-07",
   "storyType": "cancellation",
   "importance": 5,
   "scope": "local",
   "state": "Arizona",
   "stateAb": "AZ",
   "jurisdictionIds": [
    "chandler-az"
   ],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [
    "flock-safety"
   ],
   "tags": [
    "arizona",
    "east-valley",
    "audit",
    "wins"
   ],
   "summary": "On August 7, 2026 the City of Chandler announced it would discontinue its use of Flock Safety automated license plate readers after a routine audit at the Chandler Police Department identified an anomaly in system use that could not be explained by standard police action. The police chief described it as potential misuse by someone inside the department. The city cut all departmental access, discontinued all 40 cameras, and did not renew the service agreement.",
   "whyItMatters": "The significant detail is not that misuse happened. It is that Chandler had been running audits for three years before one caught anything — and then that the city's response was to stop rather than to tighten controls and carry on. Both halves matter. The first is the strongest available argument against \"we audit it, so it is fine\": an audit regime that works is also a regime that ran for three years without surfacing this, which leaves open how much went undetected before. The second is the part every council considering the same technology should be asked about directly. Chandler's department found the problem itself, and Chandler's conclusion was that the capability was not worth keeping. That is a precedent with a specific, citable date attached, and it is roughly twenty miles from every other East Valley council chamber.",
   "tier": "official-agency",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "The City of Chandler announced on August 7, 2026 that it would discontinue use of Flock Safety automated license plate readers.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "chandler-city-release-alpr-end"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "A routine audit identified an anomaly in ALPR use that could not be explained by standard police action.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "chandler-city-release-alpr-end",
      "azfamily-chandler-audit-anomaly"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "All 40 cameras were discontinued, the service agreement was not renewed, and access was revoked for every member of the department.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "chandler-city-release-alpr-end"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The police chief characterized the finding as potential misuse by someone inside the department, and an internal investigation was ongoing at the time of the announcement.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "chandler-city-release-alpr-end",
      "kjzz-chandler-potential-misuse"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [
    {
     "text": "The city stated that its initial review made clear no Chandler resident or member of the public had their privacy compromised. That is the city's characterization of an investigation it had not yet completed. We present it as the city's position, not as an established fact.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "chandler-city-release-alpr-end"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "The audit report itself, and the specific anomaly it identified",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "The outcome of the internal investigation and whether any individual was identified or disciplined",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "What happened to data already collected and to any of it shared with outside agencies before shutdown",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Whether Chandler retains access to any regional or neighbouring ALPR database that would provide equivalent capability",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "The three prior years of audit reports, for comparison against the one that found something",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "chandler-city-release-alpr-end",
     "url": "https://www.chandleraz.gov/news-center/chandler-discontinues-use-flocks-automated-license-plate-readers",
     "title": "Chandler discontinues use of Flock's automated license plate readers",
     "publisher": "City of Chandler",
     "sourceType": "agency-release",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "primary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-07",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "azfamily-chandler-audit-anomaly",
     "url": "https://www.azfamily.com/2026/08/07/chandler-ends-use-flock-license-plate-readers-after-audit-finds-anomaly/",
     "title": "Chandler ends use of Flock license plate readers after audit finds anomaly",
     "publisher": "AZFamily",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-07",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "kjzz-chandler-potential-misuse",
     "url": "https://www.kjzz.org/politics/2026-08-07/chandler-police-end-flock-camera-partnership-after-potential-misuse",
     "title": "Chandler police end Flock camera partnership after potential misuse",
     "publisher": "KJZZ",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-07",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [
    "chandler-az-2026-08-07"
   ],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [
    "chandler-az-audit-anomaly"
   ],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  },
  {
   "id": "flock-cuts-default-retention-to-seven-days",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/flock-cuts-default-retention-to-seven-days/",
   "title": "Flock cuts default ALPR retention from 30 days to seven — and still does not require a warrant",
   "dek": "The largest ALPR vendor in American policing announced real, substantial limits on its own product. It also left the one question this campaign is about exactly where it was.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": "2026-08-13",
   "storyType": "vendor-policy",
   "importance": 5,
   "scope": "national",
   "state": null,
   "stateAb": null,
   "jurisdictionIds": [],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [
    "flock-safety"
   ],
   "tags": [
    "national",
    "retention",
    "warrant-required",
    "vendor-change"
   ],
   "summary": "On August 13, 2026, Flock Safety announced a package of changes to its automated license plate reader platform: the default data retention period drops from 30 days to seven, all law-enforcement searches must carry a case code by the end of 2026, exigent searches that bypass the requirement are flagged for administrator review, audit-monitoring tooling becomes mandatory for agencies by end of 2026, and a new \"Evidence Mode\" lets investigators preserve specific records tied to an open case. Flock says over 90% of searches without a full plate happen within a week. The announcement contains no warrant requirement.",
   "whyItMatters": "Take the retention change seriously: it is the single field that most changes what an ALPR system is, and cutting the default from 30 days to seven is a real reduction in the size of the movement archive. A company does not do that because things are going well. Fifty-odd jurisdictions walking away, an audit-driven shutdown in Chandler, a sheriff citing the Fourth Amendment in Pinal County, and a Supreme Court that just held location history is protected are all pressure, and the pressure produced a concession. But read what the concession is. A case code is typed by the officer running the search. Nothing in the announcement validates it against a real, open, relevant case at the moment of the query — it produces an audit trail after the fact, which is useful, and it is not a legal standard applied before the fact, which is what a warrant is. Flock has moved the retention dial and improved oversight while leaving untouched the question of what an officer must show before searching a database of people suspected of nothing. That is precisely the gap Warrant Required exists to close, and this announcement is the clearest evidence yet that the industry will move on everything else first.",
   "tier": "primary-document",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "Flock Safety announced on August 13, 2026 that its default data retention period drops from 30 days to seven days.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "flock-guardrails-announcement-2026",
      "wapo-flock-changes-backlash-2026"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "By the end of 2026, law-enforcement users will be required to enter a case code before running a search.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "flock-guardrails-announcement-2026",
      "cnn-flock-auditing-controls-2026"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Searches conducted under exigent circumstances may bypass the case-code requirement, and every such search is flagged for administrator review.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "flock-guardrails-announcement-2026"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Audit Assistance, which detects abnormal activity, becomes mandatory for agencies by the end of 2026, alongside a proactive lockout that suspends access when behaviour meets abuse criteria pending administrator review.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "flock-guardrails-announcement-2026"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "A new \"Evidence Mode\" allows investigators to preserve specific records in cold storage for active investigations, free to customers who adopt the seven-day default.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "flock-guardrails-announcement-2026"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Flock states that over 90% of searches without a full plate are performed within a week of the scan.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "flock-guardrails-announcement-2026"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The announcement does not commit to any warrant or court-order requirement for access to ALPR data.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "flock-guardrails-announcement-2026"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [
    {
     "text": "A case code is entered by the officer running the search. Reporting notes that nothing validates the code against a genuine, relevant, open case at the time of the query, which would make it an audit artefact rather than a pre-search legal standard. Unsurveilled has not independently tested the system, so we present this as reported analysis rather than as an established property of the product.",
     "standing": "disputed",
     "sourceIds": [
      "techtimes-flock-case-number-gap"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Whether a seven-day default meaningfully reduces risk depends entirely on adoption. It is a default, not a floor — the announcement does not say agencies are prevented from configuring longer retention, and Unsurveilled has not established what the ceiling is.",
     "standing": "analysis",
     "sourceIds": []
    }
   ],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "Can an agency still configure retention longer than seven days, and what is the maximum?",
     "resolveVia": "vendor-disclosure"
    },
    {
     "question": "Is a case code validated against the agency's records management system at search time, or merely recorded?",
     "resolveVia": "vendor-disclosure"
    },
    {
     "question": "How many agencies have actually adopted the seven-day default, and by when must they?",
     "resolveVia": "vendor-disclosure"
    },
    {
     "question": "Does the retention change apply retroactively to data already collected?",
     "resolveVia": "vendor-disclosure"
    },
    {
     "question": "What is the exigent-circumstances definition, and who reviews the flagged searches?",
     "resolveVia": "vendor-disclosure"
    },
    {
     "question": "Do these changes alter the default sharing configuration between agencies, or only retention and audit?",
     "resolveVia": "vendor-disclosure"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "flock-guardrails-announcement-2026",
     "url": "https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-guardrails-address-lpr-privacy-concerns-and-police-transparency",
     "title": "Flock updates privacy, accountability, security, and transparency safeguards",
     "publisher": "Flock Safety",
     "sourceType": "vendor-material",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "primary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-13",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "wapo-flock-changes-backlash-2026",
     "url": "https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/08/13/flock-license-plate-cameras-surveillance-deflock/bced9880-9725-11f1-9ef9-1be722184483_story.html",
     "title": "Flock announces changes amid backlash over its license plate reader network",
     "publisher": "The Washington Post",
     "sourceType": "national-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-13",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "cnn-flock-auditing-controls-2026",
     "url": "https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/13/tech/flock-cameras-police-auditing-controls",
     "title": "Flock rolls out new police auditing and accountability controls following surveillance concerns",
     "publisher": "CNN Business",
     "sourceType": "national-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-13",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "police1-flock-seven-day-default",
     "url": "https://www.police1.com/technology/flock-safety-sets-7-day-default-for-alpr-data-adds-mandatory-misuse-safeguards",
     "title": "Flock Safety sets 7-day default for ALPR data, adds mandatory misuse safeguards",
     "publisher": "Police1",
     "sourceType": "national-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-13",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "techtimes-flock-case-number-gap",
     "url": "https://www.techtimes.com/articles/324372/20260813/flock-safety-reforms-leave-warrant-gap-open-officers-can-type-any-case-number.htm",
     "title": "Flock Safety reforms leave the warrant gap open — officers can type any case number",
     "publisher": "Tech Times",
     "sourceType": "national-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-13",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [
    "chandler-az-2026-08-07",
    "narragansett-ri-2026-08-03"
   ],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  },
  {
   "id": "fusion-centers-monitored-anti-alpr-activists",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/fusion-centers-monitored-anti-alpr-activists/",
   "title": "Fusion centers monitored anti-ALPR activists and circulated intelligence on planned events",
   "dek": "Public-records reporting shows state and regional fusion centers monitoring publicly visible anti-Flock activity online and distributing intelligence products to law enforcement. Some material concerned vandalism. Other material tracked lawful organizing.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": null,
   "storyType": "intelligence-monitoring",
   "importance": 5,
   "scope": "multi-state",
   "state": null,
   "stateAb": null,
   "jurisdictionIds": [],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr",
    "social-media-monitoring"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [
    "flock-safety"
   ],
   "tags": [
    "first-amendment",
    "fusion-centers",
    "intelligence-sharing",
    "national"
   ],
   "summary": "Reporting by 404 Media, building on earlier work by journalist Dan Boguslaw, describes public-records material and intelligence bulletins involving multiple state and regional fusion centers. The records describe monitoring of publicly visible anti-Flock and anti-ALPR social-media activity, the identification of accounts and planned events, and the circulation of intelligence products to law-enforcement recipients. Organizations named in the reporting include the Colorado Information Analysis Center, the Wisconsin Statewide Intelligence Center, the New Jersey State Police, the Central Florida Intelligence Exchange, and the North Florida Fusion eXchange, with wider distribution indicated in related records.",
   "whyItMatters": "Investigating vandalism is one thing. Treating lawful opposition to government surveillance as an intelligence subject is another. Some of the material described in this reporting concerned actual damage to ALPR equipment, or posts advocating property damage — that is ordinary criminal investigation and nobody should pretend otherwise. But the reporting also describes intelligence products that tracked public meetings, planned events, and organized civic campaigns to end ALPR contracts. Those are core First Amendment activities: speech, association, assembly, and petition. When a system built to detect threats starts producing bulletins about the people trying to end it through ordinary politics, the surveillance debate stops being abstract. It becomes evidence for the thing anti-surveillance advocates have been arguing all along — that capabilities built for one purpose migrate toward whoever is inconvenient.",
   "tier": "news-reported",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "Reporting based on public-records material describes fusion centers monitoring publicly visible anti-ALPR social-media activity and circulating intelligence about it to law-enforcement recipients.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "404media-fusion-centers-anti-flock",
      "boguslaw-government-spy-hubs"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Organizations named in the reporting include the Colorado Information Analysis Center, the Wisconsin Statewide Intelligence Center, the New Jersey State Police, the Central Florida Intelligence Exchange, and the North Florida Fusion eXchange.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "404media-fusion-centers-anti-flock"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Some of the intelligence material concerned vandalism of ALPR equipment or posts advocating property damage — conduct that is a legitimate subject of criminal investigation.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "404media-fusion-centers-anti-flock"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Other material described in the reporting concerned lawful political organizing, including public meetings, educational events, and campaigns to end ALPR contracts through ordinary civic process.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "404media-fusion-centers-anti-flock"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [
    {
     "text": "The widely shared framing that a social platform handed private account data to police is NOT supported by this reporting. What the records describe is monitoring of publicly visible activity. Unless separate evidence establishes platform cooperation, that stronger claim should not be made — and Unsurveilled will not make it.",
     "standing": "analysis",
     "sourceIds": []
    },
    {
     "text": "The DeFlock organization and unaffiliated accounts using similar branding are not the same thing. Where source documents distinguish them, that distinction must be preserved rather than collapsed into a single actor.",
     "standing": "analysis",
     "sourceIds": []
    }
   ],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "The original fusion-center bulletins themselves, obtained and archived rather than described secondhand",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "The full recipient distribution lists for each intelligence product",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Whether any named individual was placed in a database, watchlist, or ongoing file as a result",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "What predicate, if any, each fusion center recorded for monitoring lawful organizing as distinct from investigating damage",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Whether any of the monitored events resulted in a police response, contact, or interview of an organizer",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "404media-fusion-centers-anti-flock",
     "url": "https://www.404media.co/the-government-is-monitoring-anti-flock-tiktok-and-instagram-accounts/",
     "title": "The government is monitoring anti-Flock TikTok and Instagram accounts",
     "publisher": "404 Media",
     "sourceType": "national-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": null,
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "boguslaw-government-spy-hubs",
     "url": "https://danboguslaw.substack.com/p/exclusive-government-spy-hubs-are",
     "title": "Exclusive: Government spy hubs are monitoring anti-surveillance activists",
     "publisher": "Dan Boguslaw",
     "sourceType": "national-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": null,
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [
    {
     "id": "x-lead-fusion-centers",
     "url": "https://x.com/i/status/2087908558914392164",
     "title": "Viral post claiming government surveillance centers monitor anti-Flock accounts",
     "publisher": "X (post)",
     "sourceType": "social-lead",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": null,
     "isDiscoveryLead": true
    }
   ],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  },
  {
   "id": "norfolk-alpr-appeal-fourth-circuit",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/norfolk-alpr-appeal-fourth-circuit/",
   "title": "The Norfolk plate-reader case is at the Fourth Circuit, and the whole question is scale",
   "dek": "A district judge held that Norfolk's camera grid does not track the whole of a person's movements. Two residents whose cars were captured 475 and 325 times in four months have appealed.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": "2026-06-20",
   "storyType": "lawsuit",
   "importance": 4,
   "scope": "state",
   "state": "Virginia",
   "stateAb": "VA",
   "jurisdictionIds": [],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [
    "flock-safety"
   ],
   "tags": [
    "virginia",
    "courts",
    "fourth-amendment",
    "litigation"
   ],
   "summary": "Schmidt v. City of Norfolk is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as No. 26-1227. Norfolk residents Lee Schmidt and Crystal Arrington, represented by the Institute for Justice, sued in October 2024 over the city's Flock camera network. On January 27, 2026 the district court granted summary judgment for the city, reasoning that the plaintiffs had not shown the system capable of tracking the whole of a person's movements and noting the number of camera clusters relative to the city's area. Reporting records that the plaintiffs' vehicles were captured 475 and 325 times respectively over four months in 2025. The appeal has been briefed, with amicus briefs filed in April 2026 by the ACLU together with the ACLU of Virginia and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and separately by the Cato Institute and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.",
   "whyItMatters": "Nobody in this case argues that photographing one license plate on one public street is a search. The dispute is entirely about how many cameras, held for how long, searchable how far back, before a collection of individually unremarkable observations becomes something the Fourth Amendment recognises. The district court's answer was essentially arithmetic — a finite number of camera clusters across a city's area cannot capture the whole of anyone's movements, and if investigators need other methods to build a picture then the cameras are not doing the tracking. The plaintiffs' answer is that 475 captures of one car in four months is a picture, whoever assembled it. That is a genuine and unresolved question and this site is not going to pretend it has an obvious answer, because it does not; the appellate courts have not settled it and reasonable judges have gone different ways on adjacent facts. What we will say is that the question is now being asked in a materially different legal landscape than when the district court answered it. The Supreme Court's June 2026 location-data decision reasoned about retrospective and indiscriminate collection in terms that at minimum invite the argument. Whether the Fourth Circuit finds that reasoning transferable is the thing to watch, and it will shape what every city in five states can be told about its cameras.",
   "tier": "court-documented",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "Lee Schmidt and Crystal Arrington sued the City of Norfolk in October 2024 over its Flock camera network, represented by the Institute for Justice.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "ij-schmidt-v-norfolk-case",
      "courthousenews-norfolk-alpr-constitutional"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "On January 27, 2026 the district court granted summary judgment for the City of Norfolk.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "courthousenews-norfolk-alpr-constitutional",
      "whro-norfolk-flock-ruling"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had not shown the ALPR system capable of tracking the whole of a person's movements, and noted the number of camera clusters relative to the area of greater Norfolk.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "courthousenews-norfolk-alpr-constitutional"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Reporting on the district-court record states that the plaintiffs' vehicles were captured 475 and 325 times respectively over four months in 2025.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "whro-norfolk-flock-ruling"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The case is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as No. 26-1227.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "epic-amicus-schmidt-v-norfolk"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Amicus briefs were filed in April 2026 by the ACLU with the ACLU of Virginia and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and separately by the Cato Institute and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "epic-amicus-schmidt-v-norfolk",
      "aclu-get-the-flock-out"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [
    {
     "text": "Whether the reasoning of the Supreme Court's June 2026 location-data decision extends to ALPR networks is contested and unresolved. Civil liberties organisations argue that its treatment of retrospective and indiscriminate collection reaches networked plate readers; Flock and others argue that courts have consistently distinguished ALPR from comprehensive cellphone tracking and that the decision does not address ALPR at all. Both are positions in a live dispute. Neither is a holding.",
     "standing": "disputed",
     "sourceIds": [
      "ij-lpr-after-scotus"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Accounts of the number of cameras in Norfolk's network differ across reporting on this case. We do not state a figure, because the exact count is part of the factual record the appeal turns on and we have not obtained the district court's opinion.",
     "standing": "disputed",
     "sourceIds": [
      "courthousenews-norfolk-alpr-constitutional",
      "whro-norfolk-flock-ruling"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Unsurveilled takes no position on how the Fourth Circuit should rule and makes no prediction about the outcome. Our interest is that the factual record — how many cameras, how long retained, how far back searchable — is accurately reported, because those are the facts every city's argument about its own network rests on.",
     "standing": "analysis",
     "sourceIds": []
    }
   ],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "Has oral argument been scheduled in No. 26-1227?",
     "resolveVia": "court-record"
    },
    {
     "question": "How many ALPR cameras did Norfolk operate during the period at issue, per the district court record?",
     "resolveVia": "court-record"
    },
    {
     "question": "What retention period applied to Norfolk's data during the period at issue?",
     "resolveVia": "court-record"
    },
    {
     "question": "Does the district court's memorandum opinion address retention and searchability separately from camera count?",
     "resolveVia": "court-record"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "courthousenews-norfolk-alpr-constitutional",
     "url": "https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-holds-norfolks-license-plate-reader-use-constitutional/",
     "title": "Judge holds Norfolk license plate reader use constitutional",
     "publisher": "Courthouse News Service",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-01-27",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "whro-norfolk-flock-ruling",
     "url": "https://www.whro.org/business-growth/2026-02-11/a-federal-judge-ruled-norfolks-flock-surveillance-cameras-dont-invade-peoples-privacy-yet",
     "title": "A federal judge ruled Norfolk Flock surveillance cameras do not invade people privacy — yet",
     "publisher": "WHRO",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-02-11",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "epic-amicus-schmidt-v-norfolk",
     "url": "https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/EPIC-Amicus-Schmidt-v.-Norfolk.pdf",
     "title": "Brief of amicus curiae EPIC, Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, No. 26-1227",
     "publisher": "Electronic Privacy Information Center",
     "sourceType": "court-filing",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "primary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-04-01",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "ij-schmidt-v-norfolk-case",
     "url": "https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/",
     "title": "Judge rules lawsuit challenging Norfolk use of Flock cameras can proceed",
     "publisher": "Institute for Justice",
     "sourceType": "ngo-research",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": null,
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "ij-lpr-after-scotus",
     "url": "https://ij.org/event/the-future-for-license-plate-readers-after-the-supreme-courts-big-4th-amendment-decision/",
     "title": "The future for license plate readers after the Supreme Court's big Fourth Amendment decision",
     "publisher": "Institute for Justice",
     "sourceType": "ngo-research",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": null,
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  },
  {
   "id": "minnesota-communities-leave-flock",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/minnesota-communities-leave-flock/",
   "title": "Duluth and Sherburne County drop Flock — and Duluth keeps sixty license plate readers",
   "dek": "Minnesota's largest Flock cancellation to date is also the clearest reminder that ending a vendor contract and ending automated plate reading are not the same decision.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": "2026-08-12",
   "storyType": "cancellation",
   "importance": 4,
   "scope": "state",
   "state": "Minnesota",
   "stateAb": "MN",
   "jurisdictionIds": [],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [
    "flock-safety"
   ],
   "tags": [
    "minnesota",
    "cancellation",
    "vendor-change",
    "wins"
   ],
   "summary": "The Duluth Police Department notified Flock Safety on August 3, 2026 that it would not renew its contract, which expires September 7, 2026, ending a one-year trial of nine stationary cameras funded by a $30,000 grant from Minnesota's Auto Theft Prevention Program. Six of the nine cameras had been stolen or damaged since June. Duluth is the largest Minnesota community to end a Flock contract. It continues to operate roughly sixty vehicle-mounted license plate readers deployed since 2011, and has indicated it may consider stationary readers from other vendors. Separately, the Sherburne County Sheriff's Office removed its Flock cameras, with all of them down by the morning of August 12, 2026, ending a grant-funded trial that would have required county money to continue.",
   "whyItMatters": "Take the win, then read the second paragraph. Duluth ended a contract with the vendor whose name is on every one of these fights, and that is real — it is the largest such decision in Minnesota so far, and organisers there earned it. But Duluth has not stopped reading license plates. It runs about sixty mobile readers on patrol cars and has said it may look at other stationary vendors. Austin, Texas is the standing example of why that distinction is the whole ballgame: it cancelled Flock in 2025 and kept running ALPR through a different supplier, which is why Austin does not qualify against the Verified Unsurveilled standard. The standard is written against capabilities rather than brand names for exactly this reason. There is also an uncomfortable fact in the Duluth record that we are not going to leave out: six of its nine cameras had been stolen or damaged since June, and the chief's stated concern was creating new crimes to investigate rather than solving old ones. Vandalism is not a civic-action strategy and this site does not treat it as one. It is, however, part of why this particular deployment ended, and a story that omitted it would be flattering rather than accurate.",
   "tier": "news-reported",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "The Duluth Police Department notified Flock Safety on August 3, 2026 that it would not renew its contract, which expires September 7, 2026.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "duluth-news-tribune-flock-contract-end"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The Duluth deployment was nine stationary cameras, funded by a $30,000 grant from Minnesota's Auto Theft Prevention Program.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "duluth-news-tribune-flock-contract-end"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Six of Duluth's nine Flock cameras had been stolen or damaged since June 2026.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "duluth-news-tribune-flock-contract-end"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Duluth Police Chief Mike Ceynowa said the goal had been to solve violent crimes and auto thefts without creating a situation where the department then had other crimes to investigate.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "duluth-news-tribune-flock-contract-end"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The Duluth Police Department continues to operate approximately sixty vehicle-mounted license plate readers, deployed since 2011, and has indicated it may consider stationary readers from other vendors.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "duluth-news-tribune-flock-contract-end"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The Sherburne County Sheriff's Office removed its Flock cameras, with all of them down by the morning of August 12, 2026, ending a grant-funded trial that would have required county funds to continue.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "willmar-sherburne-county-flock-discontinued",
      "startribune-sherburne-duluth-flock-retreat"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Duluth is the largest Minnesota community to end a Flock contract to date.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "startribune-sherburne-duluth-flock-retreat"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [
    {
     "text": "Reporting has described more than a dozen Minnesota communities as having moved away from Flock. Unsurveilled has not independently verified a statewide count and does not publish one. Our own Decision Record holds only what we have confirmed, which is fewer.",
     "standing": "analysis",
     "sourceIds": []
    },
    {
     "text": "Ending this contract does not end automated plate reading in Duluth. The department's roughly sixty vehicle-mounted readers are a different deployment model — mobile rather than fixed, and generally producing a less complete picture of a given road — but they are license plate readers and they have been in service since 2011.",
     "standing": "analysis",
     "sourceIds": []
    }
   ],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "What is the retention period for data from Duluth's sixty vehicle-mounted readers, and who can search it?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Will Duluth procure stationary readers from another vendor, and would that go before the council?",
     "resolveVia": "council-agenda"
    },
    {
     "question": "What happens to the Flock data Duluth already collected when the contract expires on September 7?",
     "resolveVia": "vendor-disclosure"
    },
    {
     "question": "Was Sherburne County's decision recorded in a board vote, or made administratively by the sheriff?",
     "resolveVia": "council-agenda"
    },
    {
     "question": "How many Minnesota jurisdictions currently hold an active Flock contract?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "duluth-news-tribune-flock-contract-end",
     "url": "https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/local/duluth-police-explain-decision-to-end-flock-contract",
     "title": "Duluth police explain decision to end Flock contract",
     "publisher": "Duluth News Tribune",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-13",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "startribune-sherburne-duluth-flock-retreat",
     "url": "https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-sheriff-taking-down-flock-cameras-despite-defending-the-technology/601877050",
     "title": "Duluth becomes Minnesota largest community to pull plug on Flock cameras",
     "publisher": "Minnesota Star Tribune",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-12",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "willmar-sherburne-county-flock-discontinued",
     "url": "https://www.willmarradio.com/news/sherburne-county-to-discontinue-flock-camera-use/article_8c8f3c93-faef-4353-8cf1-514d799138cd.html",
     "title": "Sherburne County to discontinue Flock camera use",
     "publisher": "Willmar Radio",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-12",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  },
  {
   "id": "pinal-county-declines-flock-renewal",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/pinal-county-declines-flock-renewal/",
   "title": "Pinal County sheriff declines to renew Flock contract, citing the Fourth Amendment",
   "dek": "Roughly 45 cameras, about half of them in San Tan Valley — a town that incorporated five weeks earlier and now gets to decide its own surveillance policy before a contract exists to defend.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": "2026-08-05",
   "storyType": "cancellation",
   "importance": 4,
   "scope": "local",
   "state": "Arizona",
   "stateAb": "AZ",
   "jurisdictionIds": [
    "pinal-county-az",
    "san-tan-valley-az"
   ],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [
    "flock-safety"
   ],
   "tags": [
    "arizona",
    "fourth-amendment",
    "wins",
    "san-tan-valley"
   ],
   "summary": "In early August 2026 Pinal County Sheriff Ross Teeple announced that his office would not renew its contract with Flock Safety when the agreement expires at the end of September 2026. Reporting placed the affected deployment at roughly 45 cameras, about 22 of them inside San Tan Valley. The stated reason was constitutional rather than budgetary.",
   "whyItMatters": "A sheriff declining a surveillance tool on Fourth Amendment grounds — rather than on cost, performance, or a procurement dispute — is unusual, and it is an argument that travels well to neighbouring jurisdictions in a way that a budget complaint never does. The timing compounds it. San Tan Valley became Arizona's 92nd municipality on July 1, 2026, five weeks before this announcement. Until incorporation, surveillance decisions affecting the community were made at the county level, where residents had no council of their own to petition. Now a brand-new town council takes office at exactly the moment the county-run camera network covering its streets is being wound down. A town that has not yet adopted a system faces a genuinely different question from one trying to remove an entrenched one: it can decide its policy before a contract, a budget line, and a department workflow exist to defend.",
   "tier": "news-reported",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "Pinal County Sheriff Ross Teeple announced that the office will not renew its Flock Safety contract when it expires at the end of September 2026.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "abc15-pinal-county-nonrenewal"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The stated reason for the non-renewal was Fourth Amendment concerns.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "abc15-pinal-county-nonrenewal"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "San Tan Valley incorporated as a town on July 1, 2026, becoming Arizona's 92nd municipality, after voters approved Proposition 495 in August 2025.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": []
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "The Flock service agreement itself and its exact expiration date",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "The precise camera count and the location of each unit, particularly the San Tan Valley subset",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Whether the Sheriff's Office intends to procure a replacement ALPR system from another vendor",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "The data-sharing configuration, and which outside agencies received Pinal County data",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Whether data already shared with partner agencies survives the contract's expiry",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "How San Tan Valley's new town government intends to handle surveillance technology now that it is incorporated",
     "resolveVia": "council-agenda"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "abc15-pinal-county-nonrenewal",
     "url": "https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/",
     "title": "Coverage of the Pinal County Sheriff's Flock contract non-renewal",
     "publisher": "ABC15 Arizona",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-05",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [
    "pinal-county-az-2026-08-05"
   ],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  },
  {
   "id": "renton-covers-its-flock-cameras",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/renton-covers-its-flock-cameras/",
   "title": "Renton votes to physically cover its plate readers rather than trust that they are off",
   "dek": "The cameras had already been switched off for three months. The council covered them anyway — which tells you what a switch is worth once a city has stopped believing the dashboard.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": "2026-08-03",
   "storyType": "restriction",
   "importance": 3,
   "scope": "local",
   "state": "Washington",
   "stateAb": "WA",
   "jurisdictionIds": [
    "renton-wa"
   ],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [
    "flock-safety"
   ],
   "tags": [
    "washington",
    "restriction",
    "trust",
    "sharing-defaults"
   ],
   "summary": "On August 3, 2026 the Renton City Council voted to physically cover the city's Flock automated license plate reader cameras, with Councilmember James Alberson opposed. The cameras had been switched off since May 4, 2026, and had first been turned off on March 30, 2026 as the city assessed compliance with Washington's new ALPR statute. The council separately directed the administration not to renew the Flock contract rather than cancel it mid-term, a distinction Councilmember Kim-Khánh Văn raised in connection with possible cancellation fees. The council also approved holding a public town hall.",
   "whyItMatters": "Covering a camera that is already off is not a technical measure. It is a statement about verification, and it is the most quietly damning thing a council can do to a surveillance vendor. Renton had a vendor dashboard showing the cameras disabled and a police department saying so, and a majority of the council decided that a physical, visible, unfalsifiable piece of fabric was worth more than either. Councilmember Alberson, who opposed the motion, put the objection precisely and it deserves to be quoted rather than dismissed: covering the cameras is not an exhibition of trust in the police, and it implies maybe they are not off. He is right that it says that. The question the vote answers is whether a city should have to take that on faith, and a majority said no. This is what the audit gap looks like from a council seat. Nothing in an ALPR contract gives a city an independent way to prove its own cameras are not collecting — no third-party attestation, no log the city holds itself, nothing that survives the vendor being wrong. Until that exists, a bag over the lens is the only assurance a council can actually inspect, and the fact that a mid-sized American city reached for one is a fact about the industry rather than about Renton.",
   "tier": "news-reported",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "On August 3, 2026 the Renton City Council voted to physically cover the city's Flock cameras, with Councilmember James Alberson opposed.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "seattle-weekly-renton-covers-cameras",
      "komo-renton-cover-cameras-contract-vote"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The cameras had been switched off since May 4, 2026, and were first turned off on March 30, 2026 while the city assessed compliance with Washington's new ALPR statute.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "seattle-weekly-renton-covers-cameras"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Councilmember Kim-Khánh Văn stated the intent was to keep the cameras covered until they are dismantled or the city decides to renew its Flock contract.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "seattle-weekly-renton-covers-cameras"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Councilmember Alberson, opposing, said covering the cameras is not an exhibition of trust in the police and suggests they may not be off.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "seattle-weekly-renton-covers-cameras"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The council directed the city administration not to renew the Flock contract, rather than to cancel it mid-term, with possible cancellation fees raised as a consideration.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "komo-renton-cover-cameras-contract-vote"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The council approved holding a public town hall on the subject.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "seattle-weekly-renton-covers-cameras"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [
    {
     "text": "The vote tally is not established. Outlets covering the same meeting reported different counts — one a 6–1 vote, another 4–1. Both agree the motion carried and that Councilmember Alberson was the dissent, so that is what we state. We have not obtained the council minutes, which would settle it.",
     "standing": "disputed",
     "sourceIds": [
      "seattle-weekly-renton-covers-cameras",
      "komo-renton-cover-cameras-contract-vote"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Reported camera counts for Renton's deployment vary in coverage of this decision. We do not print a figure we cannot source consistently.",
     "standing": "disputed",
     "sourceIds": []
    }
   ],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "What is the exact vote tally on the August 3 motion?",
     "resolveVia": "council-agenda"
    },
    {
     "question": "How many Flock cameras does Renton operate, and where are they sited?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "When does Renton's Flock contract expire, and what are the stated cancellation terms?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Was any data collected between March 30 and May 4, and has it been deleted?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Can Renton independently verify the cameras are not collecting, without relying on the vendor's dashboard?",
     "resolveVia": "vendor-disclosure"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "seattle-weekly-renton-covers-cameras",
     "url": "https://www.seattleweekly.com/2026/08/06/renton-city-council-votes-to-cover-flock-cameras/",
     "title": "Renton City Council votes to cover Flock cameras",
     "publisher": "Seattle Weekly",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-06",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "komo-renton-cover-cameras-contract-vote",
     "url": "https://komonews.com/news/local/renton-covers-flock-safety-cameras-vote-ending-contract-immigration-ice-federal-washington-state-governor-bob-ferguson-privacy-act-city-council-votes",
     "title": "Renton Council to vote on ending Flock Safety contract as city prepares to cover cameras",
     "publisher": "KOMO News",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-08-05",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "wa-sb6002-final-bill-report",
     "url": "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/6002%20SBR%20LAW%20OC%2026.htm",
     "title": "Final bill report, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6002",
     "publisher": "Washington State Legislature",
     "sourceType": "statute",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "primary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-03-31",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  },
  {
   "id": "twin-cities-alpr-data-searched-for-immigration",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/twin-cities-alpr-data-searched-for-immigration/",
   "title": "Around thirty agencies searched Twin Cities plate-reader data for immigration enforcement",
   "dek": "Eight Minnesota suburbs left their camera networks open. During a federal operation last winter, agencies from inside and outside the state searched that data for civil immigration purposes.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": "2026-07-20",
   "storyType": "data-sharing",
   "importance": 5,
   "scope": "state",
   "state": "Minnesota",
   "stateAb": "MN",
   "jurisdictionIds": [],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [
    "flock-safety"
   ],
   "tags": [
    "minnesota",
    "immigration",
    "data-sharing",
    "sharing-defaults"
   ],
   "summary": "A Minnesota Star Tribune investigation published on July 20, 2026 reported that roughly thirty state, county and federal agencies searched automated license plate reader data held by at least eight Twin Cities suburbs for immigration-enforcement purposes between November and March, during the federal operation known as Metro Surge. The suburbs named were Fridley, Eagan, South St. Paul, Crystal, Robbinsdale, Brooklyn Center, Hopkins and Shakopee. The Mille Lacs County Sheriff's Office was identified as one of the searching agencies. Fridley, which held the most-searched network, later told its council that immigration-related searches of its cameras fell from 107 in January 2026 to zero in February after it restricted access to Minnesota agencies and disabled immigration searches.",
   "whyItMatters": "This is what a sharing default does. Not one of these suburbs decided to help with immigration enforcement; several say the searches were a use their program was never meant to serve. They decided something far more ordinary — to leave the network open, because openness is how the product is sold and how it is configured out of the box. Everything that followed was a consequence of a checkbox nobody debated at a council meeting. The Fridley figures are worth sitting with for a moment: 494,812 searches against one small city's cameras in a single month, of which 107 were immigration-related. The immigration searches are the story that broke, but the half-million is the system working exactly as designed. Retention determines how far back someone can look. Sharing determines who is looking. A city can win a hard-fought fight over retention and still have handed the entire archive to agencies whose names never appeared on any agenda. That is why every dossier on this site carries outbound sharing as its own field, and why \"not established\" is printed in full rather than left blank.",
   "tier": "news-reported",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "The Minnesota Star Tribune reported on July 20, 2026 that around thirty state, county and federal agencies searched camera data held by at least eight Twin Cities suburbs for immigration-enforcement purposes between November and March.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "startribune-metro-surge-alpr-searches",
      "patch-twin-cities-suburbs-immigration-searches"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The suburbs identified were Fridley, Eagan, South St. Paul, Crystal, Robbinsdale, Brooklyn Center, Hopkins and Shakopee.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "patch-twin-cities-suburbs-immigration-searches"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The Mille Lacs County Sheriff's Office was identified as one of the agencies that searched Twin Cities suburban camera data for civil immigration purposes.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "patch-twin-cities-suburbs-immigration-searches",
      "startribune-metro-surge-alpr-searches"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The Fridley Police Department reported 107 immigration-related searches against its cameras in January 2026 and zero in February 2026.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "cbs-mn-fridley-flock-access"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The Fridley Police Department reported 494,812 total searches against its cameras in January 2026, falling to 22,480 in February 2026 after access was restricted to Minnesota agencies.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "cbs-mn-fridley-flock-access"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Fridley Deputy Director Patrick Faber stated that before February 2026 the city's network was open to out-of-state law-enforcement agencies and was searched heavily, and that some of that access was used for immigration-related searches, a purpose the program was never meant to serve.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "cbs-mn-fridley-flock-access"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Some local law-enforcement officials told the Star Tribune that civil immigration searches do not fit their understanding of a lawful use of license plate reader data in Minnesota.",
     "standing": "official-claim",
     "sourceIds": [
      "startribune-metro-surge-alpr-searches"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [
    {
     "text": "Whether any individual search violated Minnesota law is not established here. Reporting describes state law as permitting ALPR data to be shared in support of an active criminal investigation, and civil immigration enforcement is not a criminal investigation — but Unsurveilled has not reviewed the statute against these specific searches, and no court or state authority has ruled on them. We record what the records show and what officials said about it, and we stop there.",
     "standing": "analysis",
     "sourceIds": []
    },
    {
     "text": "The Fridley search totals are the department's own account of its audit data, presented to its council. They are the best figures publicly available and they have not been independently examined by anyone outside the department, including us.",
     "standing": "analysis",
     "sourceIds": []
    }
   ],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "How many immigration-related searches were run against the other seven suburbs, and by which agencies?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "What became of the data returned by those searches, and was any of it retained by the searching agencies?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Which Minnesota agencies still permit out-of-state or federal network access today?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Did any of the searches produce an enforcement action against an identified person?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Does Minnesota law as written permit a civil immigration search of ALPR data, and has any state authority said so?",
     "resolveVia": "court-record"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "startribune-metro-surge-alpr-searches",
     "url": "https://www.startribune.com/police-search-immigration-twin-cities-flock-license-plate-cameras-ice-dhs-metro-surge/601807825",
     "title": "Police searched Twin Cities license plate cameras for immigration enforcement during ICE surge",
     "publisher": "Minnesota Star Tribune",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-07-20",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "patch-twin-cities-suburbs-immigration-searches",
     "url": "https://patch.com/minnesota/eagan/these-twin-cities-suburbs-flock-cameras-were-checked-feds-immigration-investigations",
     "title": "Feds checked these suburbs Flock cameras for immigration cases",
     "publisher": "Patch",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-07-20",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "cbs-mn-fridley-flock-access",
     "url": "https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/fridley-police-flock-safety-camera-concerns/",
     "title": "Fridley police detail who can access Flock Safety camera data amid concerns from residents",
     "publisher": "CBS News Minnesota",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-07-28",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "fox9-fridley-council-flock-access",
     "url": "https://www.fox9.com/news/flock-camera-debate-fridley-city-council-july-28-2026",
     "title": "Flock camera debate continues in Fridley as officials explain data access changes",
     "publisher": "FOX 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul",
     "sourceType": "local-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-07-28",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  },
  {
   "id": "scotus-chatrie-location-data-warrant",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/scotus-chatrie-location-data-warrant/",
   "title": "Supreme Court holds digital location history is protected — and says nothing about license plate readers",
   "dek": "Chatrie v. United States is the most important Fourth Amendment decision in eight years. It is also not the ALPR ruling some coverage is treating it as, and the difference matters if you are about to quote it to a city council.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": "2026-06-29",
   "storyType": "court-ruling",
   "importance": 5,
   "scope": "national",
   "state": null,
   "stateAb": null,
   "jurisdictionIds": [],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr",
    "location-data"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [],
   "tags": [
    "national",
    "fourth-amendment",
    "courts",
    "warrant-required"
   ],
   "summary": "On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Chatrie v. United States, holding that individuals retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in digital location data even for short periods and even when a third party holds it, so obtaining it is a Fourth Amendment search. Justice Kagan wrote for the Court. The case arose from a geofence warrant served on Google after a 2019 credit union robbery in Virginia. The Court did not decide whether that particular warrant satisfied probable cause and particularity, remanding to the Fourth Circuit, and the opinion does not address automated license plate readers.",
   "whyItMatters": "The reasoning is what makes this consequential rather than the outcome. The Court looked at the retrospective and indiscriminate character of the collection and at what sat in the database as a whole, not merely at the narrow slice police actually pulled. Every one of those adjectives describes a networked ALPR system. That is why civil-liberties lawyers think the logic travels, and they may well be right. But \"may well be right\" is not a holding, and this is exactly the point where an advocacy organisation can destroy its own credibility in a single sentence. Courts have so far upheld warrantless fixed ALPR use with near-uniformity — a federal appellate panel held as recently as March 2026 that a roughly ten-camera system was not a search because it produced only periodic glimpses rather than the whole picture. If you stand up at a council meeting and say the Supreme Court ruled license plate readers unconstitutional, the city attorney will correct you in public and everything else you say that night will be discounted. Say what the Court actually held. It is strong enough.",
   "tier": "court-documented",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "The Supreme Court decided Chatrie v. United States on June 29, 2026, after argument on April 27, 2026. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "scotus-chatrie-opinion-2026",
      "justia-chatrie-2026"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The Court held that individuals retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in digital location data, even for short periods and even though a third party holds that data, so obtaining it is a Fourth Amendment search.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "scotus-chatrie-opinion-2026"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The Court did NOT decide whether the geofence warrant in the case satisfied the Fourth Amendment's probable cause and particularity requirements, and remanded to the Fourth Circuit.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "scotus-chatrie-opinion-2026",
      "justia-chatrie-2026"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The case arose from a geofence warrant served on Google seeking devices within a 150-metre radius of a Midlothian, Virginia credit union around the time of a May 2019 robbery.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "justia-chatrie-2026"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The opinion does not address automated license plate readers.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "scotus-chatrie-opinion-2026"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "In March 2026, in United States v. Porter, the Fifth Circuit held that police use of a roughly ten-camera license plate reader system was not a Fourth Amendment search because it provided only periodic information about movement rather than the whole picture.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "therecord-alpr-after-chatrie"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [
    {
     "text": "Whether Chatrie's reasoning extends to networked ALPR systems is contested and unresolved. Civil-liberties advocates argue the Court's focus on retrospective, indiscriminate collection and on the contents of the database as a whole applies directly. Flock Safety's position is that courts have repeatedly and uniformly treated ALPR differently from cell location data. Both are litigating positions. Neither is a holding.",
     "standing": "disputed",
     "sourceIds": [
      "therecord-alpr-after-chatrie"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Some coverage has characterised this as a decision about license plate cameras. It is not. Reading it that way will get an advocate corrected in public by a city attorney, and Unsurveilled will not repeat the framing.",
     "standing": "analysis",
     "sourceIds": []
    }
   ],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "How the Fourth Circuit resolves probable cause and particularity on remand",
     "resolveVia": "court-record"
    },
    {
     "question": "Whether any court has yet applied Chatrie's reasoning to an ALPR system, and with what result",
     "resolveVia": "court-record"
    },
    {
     "question": "Whether the Court's reasoning distinguishes systems by scale, retention, or network breadth in a way that maps onto ALPR deployments",
     "resolveVia": "court-record"
    },
    {
     "question": "Whether any state supreme court reaches the ALPR question first under a state constitution",
     "resolveVia": "court-record"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "scotus-chatrie-opinion-2026",
     "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf",
     "title": "Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (U.S. June 29, 2026)",
     "publisher": "Supreme Court of the United States",
     "sourceType": "court-opinion",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "primary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-06-29",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "justia-chatrie-2026",
     "url": "https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/609/25-112/",
     "title": "Chatrie v. United States, 609 U.S. ___ (2026)",
     "publisher": "Justia",
     "sourceType": "court-opinion",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-06-29",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "therecord-alpr-after-chatrie",
     "url": "https://therecord.media/license-plate-cameras-may-be-next-target-after-supreme-court-reins-in-location-tracking",
     "title": "License plate cameras may be next target after Supreme Court reins in location tracking",
     "publisher": "The Record (Recorded Future News)",
     "sourceType": "national-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-07-10",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "ij-lpr-after-scotus",
     "url": "https://ij.org/event/the-future-for-license-plate-readers-after-the-supreme-courts-big-4th-amendment-decision/",
     "title": "The future for license plate readers after the Supreme Court's big Fourth Amendment decision",
     "publisher": "Institute for Justice",
     "sourceType": "ngo-research",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": null,
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  },
  {
   "id": "washington-alpr-law-takes-effect",
   "url": "https://unsurveilled.org/signal/washington-alpr-law-takes-effect/",
   "title": "Washington's ALPR law is the strictest in the country, and it is already in force",
   "dek": "Twenty-one day deletion, a bar on federal and out-of-state access to publicly owned camera data, prohibited locations, and a private right to sue. It took effect the day it was signed.",
   "publishedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "updatedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z",
   "eventDate": "2026-03-31",
   "storyType": "legislation",
   "importance": 4,
   "scope": "state",
   "state": "Washington",
   "stateAb": "WA",
   "jurisdictionIds": [],
   "technologyIds": [
    "alpr"
   ],
   "vendorIds": [],
   "tags": [
    "washington",
    "legislation",
    "retention",
    "immigration",
    "model-policy"
   ],
   "summary": "Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6002 requires automated license plate reader data held by Washington public agencies to be deleted within 21 days, subject to enumerated exceptions — 12 hours for parking enforcement, four hours for commercial vehicle enforcement, 30 days for traffic studies, indefinite for tolling, and longer where a court orders it. It makes state and local agencies the legal owners of the data and limits sharing to judicial proceedings and to authorised state or local agencies and vendors. It prohibits use on the premises of or immediately surrounding schools, places of worship, courts and food banks, and near protected health care and immigration facilities. Violations are gross misdemeanours and carry a private right of action for damages and attorney fees under the Consumer Protection Act. The act contains an emergency clause and took effect on enactment in late March 2026.",
   "whyItMatters": "Every fight this site covers is a fight over four fields — how long the data is kept, who can search it, where the cameras may point, and what happens when somebody breaks the rules. Washington is the first state to legislate all four at once, and the fourth one is the one nobody else has done. A private right of action under the Consumer Protection Act means enforcement does not depend on a prosecutor deciding an ALPR violation is worth their week, or on an agency auditing itself. A resident harmed by a violation can bring the case. That is the difference between a policy and a rule. Notice, too, what the statute chooses to do about federal access: rather than negotiating sharing agreements agency by agency, it removes the option from publicly owned systems as a matter of state law — while leaving subpoenas intact, which is the correct place for the line, because a subpoena is a legal process and a network query is not. Washington has effectively answered the question the Twin Cities are still arguing about, and it answered it before the searches happened rather than after. For anyone drafting a state bill, this is the text to start from.",
   "tier": "primary-document",
   "verifiedFacts": [
    {
     "text": "Washington ALPR data held by public agencies must be deleted within 21 days, with enumerated exceptions.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wa-sb6002-final-bill-report"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The exceptions are 12 hours for parking enforcement, four hours for commercial vehicle enforcement, 30 days for traffic studies, indefinite retention for tolling, and longer retention where ordered by a court.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wa-sb6002-final-bill-report"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "State and local agencies operating ALPR systems are the legal owners of the data, and sharing is limited to judicial proceedings and to authorised state or local agencies and third-party vendors.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wa-sb6002-final-bill-report"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Use is prohibited on the premises of, or immediately surrounding, schools, places of worship, courts and food banks, and near protected health care and immigration facilities.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wa-sb6002-final-bill-report"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Violations are gross misdemeanours and carry a private right of action for damages and attorney fees under the Consumer Protection Act.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wa-sb6002-final-bill-report"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The act contains an emergency clause and took effect on enactment.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "wa-sb6002-final-bill-report"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "The law bars the federal government and agencies outside Washington from accessing data generated by publicly owned cameras in the state, while leaving federal subpoena authority intact.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "govtech-washington-alpr-law"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "Research by the University of Washington Center for Human Rights found that multiple Washington law-enforcement agencies had ALPR networks shared with federal immigration authorities during 2025, before the law.",
     "standing": "documented-fact",
     "sourceIds": [
      "uw-center-human-rights-alpr-federal-access"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "disputedClaims": [
    {
     "text": "Accounts of the signing date differ by a day between outlets. The statute took effect on enactment either way, and we treat the precise date as pending the governor's own signing record rather than picking between two secondary reports.",
     "standing": "disputed",
     "sourceIds": [
      "govtech-washington-alpr-law"
     ]
    },
    {
     "text": "A statute is not compliance. Nothing here establishes what Washington agencies are actually doing now — Renton switched its cameras off on March 30 specifically because it did not yet know whether it complied, which is a reasonable response and not evidence that anyone else did the same.",
     "standing": "analysis",
     "sourceIds": []
    }
   ],
   "unknowns": [
    {
     "question": "What is the exact date the governor signed ESSB 6002?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Which Washington agencies have documented compliance with the 21-day deletion requirement?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    },
    {
     "question": "Has any private action been brought under the Consumer Protection Act provision yet?",
     "resolveVia": "court-record"
    },
    {
     "question": "Does the law reach ALPR systems that are privately owned but queried by public agencies?",
     "resolveVia": "court-record"
    },
    {
     "question": "How is the prohibition on sensitive locations being measured and enforced in practice?",
     "resolveVia": "public-records-request"
    }
   ],
   "sources": [
    {
     "id": "wa-sb6002-final-bill-report",
     "url": "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/6002%20SBR%20LAW%20OC%2026.htm",
     "title": "Final bill report, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6002",
     "publisher": "Washington State Legislature",
     "sourceType": "statute",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "primary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-03-31",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "govtech-washington-alpr-law",
     "url": "https://www.govtech.com/policy/new-washington-law-regulates-license-plate-readers",
     "title": "New Washington law regulates license plate readers",
     "publisher": "Government Technology",
     "sourceType": "national-reporting",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2026-04-01",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    },
    {
     "id": "uw-center-human-rights-alpr-federal-access",
     "url": "https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/",
     "title": "Leaving the door wide open — Flock surveillance systems expose Washington data to immigration enforcement",
     "publisher": "University of Washington Center for Human Rights",
     "sourceType": "academic-paper",
     "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary",
     "publishedAt": "2025-10-21",
     "isDiscoveryLead": false
    }
   ],
   "discoveryLeads": [],
   "relatedDecisionIds": [],
   "relatedIncidentIds": [],
   "changeLog": [],
   "license": "CC BY 4.0"
  }
 ]
}