2026-10-28 - Public Safety Civilian Oversight Board

00:01It was that my cat or something else?

00:06>> Yeah, you're good.

00:14>> Yep.

00:15All right.

00:16Welcome everybody. Um

00:21I guess we'll go around and do

00:22introductions. I don't have an

00:23icebreaker or

00:24>> Who do you think's going to win the WNBA

00:26game tomorrow?

00:27>> That's right. Cool.

00:28>> Dream or the Valkyries?

00:29>> Okay.

00:32>> 12:30, you can watch it on your lunch.

00:33>> I'm shamefully uninformed about sports.

00:35>> I'm just kidding. No one else is going

00:36to engage in this.

00:37>> [laughter]

00:41>> Uh we'll go around start with Captain

00:43McAlister.

00:44>> Okay. What do I do?

00:45>> Um

00:46Captain McAlister, assistant jail

00:47commander, sheriff's office.

00:49And uh I'm going to say

00:52uh the Dream will win at home and bring

00:54it home.

00:56Yeah, I think we need a

00:57Atlanta needs a win.

01:00>> Hi guys, this is my second peace cop

01:02meeting. I'm Tori.

01:04Um and where are each of the teams from?

01:07>> Atlanta Dream and then the Golden State

01:09Valkyries. We're in This will be game

01:11six out of seven tomorrow.

01:12>> I'll go for the home team.

01:14>> I'll go for the Dream.

01:17>> I'm Kevin O'Neal, board member, and most

01:19certainly Dream, of course.

01:21>> Donald Wayford, board member. They

01:23haven't looked good in a couple games,

01:25but they're going to turn it around.

01:26They're going to do it.

01:28>> We're on home turf at this point.

01:30>> That's right.

01:33>> Uh I'm Felix Bell. I'm the vice chair.

01:38I think the Atlanta Dream is going to

01:39have it in the first half, and then

01:40they're going to do that Georgia sports

01:41thing,

01:42but

01:44I'm going to root for them both.

01:47>> Uh Wayne Pratt, uh board chair, and uh

01:50I'll go ahead and root for the Dream.

01:52>> I'm Jocelyn Crumpton. I'm the secretary.

01:55Got to go with my girls.

01:57The Dream girls. I mean, female sports.

02:00>> [laughter]

02:01>> More house.

02:02>> attorney's office. I'm going to say

02:06Golden State, whatever, only because

02:09I'm sports cursed and the minute that I

02:10say that I'm for a team, that team will

02:12lose. So, this is

02:15I'm clearly in support of whatever team

02:17that I will say that I'm not rooting for

02:18them.

02:20>> Harrison Daniel, Athens-Clarke County

02:22Police. And I was going to say I didn't

02:24want to break the streak, so I was going

02:25to go with Dream, but it got broken. So,

02:27I'll be rooting for the Dream.

02:29>> Gavin Hasmer, monitor, and I will also

02:33be going with the Dream.

02:36>> Katie Johnson, management analyst, and I

02:38just like Valkyrie. I like the way that

02:40sounds.

02:41>> It's a cool name.

02:43>> I'll go with that.

02:45>> Kate Ross, management analyst, and I'll

02:47go with the Dream.

02:49>> All great answers.

02:53>> All right, real quick, let's do a review

02:55on the minutes from last month. Thank

02:58you, Josh Owen.

03:14If no one sees any discrepancies, we'll

03:15accept them as written.

03:20I don't believe we have any compliments

03:22or complaints to review. I saw the

03:24emails back and forth with the mayor

03:26about potentially anyone. That might be

03:28from today. I just logged in.

03:31No, I guess Saturday, but

03:34um it seems like a citizen

03:39wants to file a complaint and the mayor

03:41directed her to

03:43your office or our

03:44board to file the right paperwork.

03:46>> We have not received any of that.

03:49We'll let you know if we do.

03:50>> I won't dive too much into it until

03:52we're

03:53tapped in.

03:54Um okay.

03:56Uh

03:59before we do unfinished business, I'll

04:00just say uh I did the table at the

04:03sheriff's office fall festival last

04:05Friday.

04:06We had busy night. It got a little

04:10chilly at the end there. Wrapped up when

04:12the candy ran out around 8:00. So I

04:14didn't stay till 9:00, but um

04:16good interaction

04:18talked to a bunch of people who didn't

04:20know about us or were interested. Handed

04:23out some brochures. The swag went quick.

04:26Water bottles super popular.

04:29Chip clips super popular.

04:31And pens like kids like clicky pens.

04:34So that went pretty fast.

04:36Um but yeah, good interactions. Saw some

04:39good people and yeah, seems like a

04:42pretty well attended event overall.

04:44Thanks for having us.

04:45>> Yep.

04:46>> Thanks for coming.

04:47>> Yep.

04:50>> All right. Unfinished business coming to

04:52policy review.

04:55>> Uh just real quickly we've got

04:58both policy review that has been active

05:00as well as I just put on there the

05:02technology discussion. Um

05:05Policy review wise

05:07you've received I believe

05:10a couple weeks ago the audio files that

05:12were requested regarding the 911

05:14communication. So all of those should

05:16have been put in that folder based on

05:18the

05:20name of the

05:22individual.

05:23Um the videos have also been received in

05:26the same manner. We did receive that

05:28about a week or two ago from

05:31um um sheriff's department.

05:33That said, staff has been

05:35uh trying to get through them and also

05:38organize them in the same manner, but we

05:40will have that wrapped up at least by

05:42next week I would say. So we'll email

05:44y'all, let you know that those have been

05:46placed

05:47in the folder as well and

05:50um other than that, I think that's most

05:53of the outstanding if not all of the

05:55outstanding items that have been

05:56requested.

05:58I did have

06:00which I emailed y'all the summaries and

06:01conversations back and forth with the

06:04coroner.

06:05Uh keep in mind that

06:07the current corner

06:09uh

06:10has only been in office for I think a

06:12year or two. Um

06:14prior to that it was a different corner.

06:15That said,

06:17I'm not familiar with how they keep all

06:18the records. I would imagine they still

06:20have access to everything, but

06:23upon research and things like that, I

06:24summarized

06:26what the coroner had told us and um

06:30provided us with an example of one of

06:33the death certificates that they gave.

06:35So, um

06:37she have all that information now, and

06:40then I was able to contact

06:43a couple weeks ago with the

06:45safety and risk administrator for

06:47Athens-Clarke County.

06:49Um

06:51she did confirm that

06:53at to her knowledge, and she's been in

06:55the position for a number of years, the

06:57uh

06:58there hasn't been a regular

06:59communication uh

07:01when a

07:02death occurs at the jail with regard to

07:04notification to her.

07:06Um certainly would welcome that, and um

07:10there's certainly benefits to that

07:12according to her.

07:13Um

07:15rather than sort of first hearing about

07:17it if it's been reported

07:18you know, insurance provider or

07:20something like that. It was something

07:21that was not done directly. So, um

07:25yeah, with that said, she did not have

07:27any examples of

07:28uh being contacted.

07:30Uh

07:39I think that's all we got.

07:52>> All right.

07:53Are there um safety or security features

07:57in the PDF

07:59of the ALPR directive? Cuz I've been

08:02trying to open it

08:05without success, but I see I'm having no

08:07issue with it.

08:09>> Don't believe her words.

08:11>> It was just a

08:12straight-up PDF.

08:14>> Right, it definitely should be. Um I was

08:16hoping that if I got on the city Wi-Fi,

08:18it would resolve any kind of issue like

08:20that, but it looks like it still

08:21>> I will say though you should have a hard

08:23copy.

08:23>> It's only even better.

08:25Thank you.

08:26>> Yep.

08:29Yep, perfect.

08:36I know we're going to have more to

08:37review at

08:39combination meeting.

08:42Um based on what you were just saying,

08:44Mark. Some of the releases

08:46Uh

08:47one we do have the death certificate

08:48for, I know it was after release. They

08:51were released to the hospital, is that

08:53correct?

08:54>> Yeah, as of the injury.

08:56>> Yeah, that particular one in that group

08:58um

08:59in looking at

09:00No, um

09:02at first

09:04there was some confusion, I think, which

09:07poor and or between us and the coroner

09:09regarding

09:10um

09:12whether we had a record. Eventually, we

09:13had records, which is what you have in

09:15front of you. Yeah.

09:16Um so, I may have alluded to the fact

09:18that there was one that could not be

09:19confirmed. At first, that was the one

09:21that could not be confirmed.

09:23Um and yes, the other side of that was

09:27COVID discrepancies

09:29that were listed in terms of dates. Most

09:31of those, which you can see, is like a

09:32day off, you know, roughly from

09:35what was reported originally versus what

09:37is on the official record with the

09:39coroner. There was one that was about a

09:412-to-3-week

09:43um

09:44difference in my understanding and

09:45communication with the coroner is that

09:47yes, that was a hospital

09:50duration.

10:05I think else have anything about

10:08the death certificate policy review or

10:11anything else for the next meeting? and

10:13write this down.

10:14>> I just have one question. So, we're

10:16calling

10:18jumping from a wall

10:20to fracture the C5 vertebrae, which

10:24calling that an injury.

10:26>> Yeah,

10:27well, I saw that in the overall roster

10:29was listed as

10:31not in custody after release. So, I was

10:33asking if it was released to the

10:35hospital. Yeah, it sounds like they got

10:37injured in the jail.

10:39Released to the hospital and then died

10:41from there, at least.

10:45Again, that's where we're getting at the

10:46semantics on whether or not it was in

10:47custody. That's my question.

10:49>> Well, it's just interesting to call that

10:51an injury at all.

10:52>> Right.

10:53Well, that would I yeah.

10:54>> It's very technically yeah.

10:57>> Yeah.

10:57>> A gunshot wound is also an injury, you

10:59know?

11:02>> I was just curious as to how it was

11:03being classified as not in custody.

11:05>> Right, right, right, definitely.

11:07>> I assume

11:09Is that correct that

11:11he got hurt in jail?

11:12>> And if he did, [clears throat] he went

11:13to the hospital.

11:14>> And he he hurt himself or

11:16>> He didn't hurt himself.

11:17>> He was given a UJA,

11:18uh,

11:19what unsecured release.

11:21>> Right.

11:21>> So, no longer in custody.

11:23>> Right, right. That's where I was just

11:25trying to figure out the parsing of why

11:27that would categorize it as

11:29Okay.

11:30>> To to your to your to your question,

11:32sir.

11:34The injury did occur in jail.

11:36>> Yes, yes.

11:36>> Okay.

11:37Injury did occur

11:39I was taken to the hospital and yes, he

11:41was released from the custody of the

11:42jail, whereupon that he died.

11:45>> Yeah, for the court records I have,

11:47compassion release on UJAR for serious

11:49medical condition.

11:50>> Got you.

11:51>> On the court record. The medical

11:52condition being a broken spine.

11:55>> So, that looks like they hanged

11:56themselves.

11:58That's what usually happens with that

11:59fracture.

12:00>> Yeah.

12:03So, they wouldn't know.

12:04>> Did they Did they hang themselves?

12:06>> No, he he actually jumped off the wall.

12:08>> With no He just fell that way?

12:11>> He

12:11fell.

12:14Yeah, he

12:15>> I talked to her about her into the

12:16shower, actually.

12:18>> Okay.

12:21And I don't know if that's reflected in

12:22the narrative we've received from the

12:24sheriff's office.

12:26>> Yeah, I only know that cuz I was there.

12:27>> No.

12:28Then again,

12:31I mean, one of the things I've taken

12:33away from this policy review is we have

12:35very inadequate documentation here.

12:38Or if

12:39serious injuries or deaths that occur.

12:42>> Yeah, why is that an injury and not a

12:44suicide?

12:46Well, it it it can be cuz you see that's

12:49So, this

12:51It that that can be because that's a

12:53self-inflicted

12:55thing, so it's

12:56>> Suicide generally is.

12:57>> Yeah, so it could be considered that as

13:00well.

13:01But, uh I mean, I don't know why they

13:03you know, want to classify this injury

13:04as

13:06>> It's one of my pet peeves.

13:07>> But,

13:08>> Any time

13:08>> But, yeah, that's definitely what the

13:10biggest issue is.

13:11>> Uh I believe it's a description of the

13:13bodily trauma that leads to death, and

13:16not the act that precipitated it. So,

13:18it's accurate to call it an injury, it's

13:20just not a complete picture of what

13:21occurred.

13:22>> Right. Right.

13:22>> But, in this but in a document like

13:24that, they're not trying to tell the

13:25whole story. They're just trying to tell

13:26you how a person's life ended.

13:29>> That's why I was trying to

13:30tie it back to the other record that we

13:32had that talked about, you know, this

13:34one's technically not in custody.

13:35>> Well, I think that's a technicality.

13:39>> Yeah.

13:41>> Are we able to get death certificates

13:42for other

13:45people who have died in custody?

13:47>> I asked. I mean, this was the one that

13:49was

13:50given to me as an example because I

13:52think the coroner essentially just

13:54summarized all of those

13:57based on the letter wrote to me in the

13:59email.

14:01So, they need to release all the

14:03statistics to them.

14:07>> Okay, I would like

14:08I think that is pertinent to our policy

14:10review, whether we see what

14:13Clark County Sheriff is telling us

14:15versus what the coroner is telling us. I

14:17think that is important to the analysis

14:19of a policy.

14:21>> I'll ask again. Obviously, it's key to

14:23compel that.

14:30>> Can I ask when was this

14:33person taken to the hospital? I mean,

14:35I'm not familiar exactly with the

14:37combination of events. I am seeing this

14:40fracture that I gave days and

14:43went into shock and then

14:45there was acute respiratory failure. And

14:48I'm seeing that it was 4 days from when

14:50he

14:51was reported to have happened. So, were

14:53they in the hospital for 4 days? Or was

14:55one of those days How long did it take

14:57for them to get

14:58medical care? I don't know if maybe you

15:00could just be talking to us about

15:03>> Yes. So,

15:07when

15:10when this when this incident occurred,

15:13he was immediately

15:14um attended to by

15:16medical staff cuz he was actually in in

15:18the medical section of the jail at the

15:20time.

15:21And so, he was immediately attended by

15:22them.

15:24EMS was called.

15:27You know, they arrived and did their

15:32did their care for him as well and then

15:35he was transported immediately to the

15:36hospital at that time.

15:39>> Yeah.

15:41And again,

15:43what we've received about this person

15:46does not

15:48include any of

15:52that narrative. Well, like I believe

15:54that you were there and that that is

15:56what happened, but I have no

15:57documentation

15:59that that

16:00is what happened.

16:02But, I don't have an incident report of

16:04that day

16:06in here.

16:08I mean, I have an incident that happened

16:14Okay, I can give you my incident report

16:15in one

16:22I mean, essentially I have during review

16:24of report it was accidentally deleted.

16:28Which is not That's what my narrative is

16:30is that

16:35The incident report for this person

16:36we're talking about for the death

16:38certificate that we have

16:41the narrative on that incident report

16:43states

16:44during review of report it was

16:46accidentally deleted. See attached

16:48document for original report. And then I

16:49have no original report.

16:54>> Makes me think that they were on life

16:55support.

16:58But I can't

17:04>> Where like I don't I don't have any

17:05documentation that EMS was called, that

17:06EMS transported this person, that

17:10Again, the incident happened 3 days

17:13or 4 days prior to their death.

17:25Again, that would all

17:26I I I still also don't know how I want

17:28to conceptualize like how do we

17:30communicate this to the public? How do

17:31we communicate

17:35the lack of documentation on people

17:41being just like very injured in our

17:43Again, I don't I have my doubts at this

17:46point and that's what you get. I think

17:48we're still in the investigation phase

17:49at this point.

17:50>> Yeah. Yeah, pretty sure.

18:00I do think it's interesting that 15 out

18:03of the 19 separations with due no cause

18:06of death are not overdoses.

18:09>> Yeah.

18:09>> Especially since like

18:11the press conference that

18:15sheriff's department gave

18:17was to focus on that no overdoses and no

18:19hangings.

18:22But I kind of of 19 now ones. That's not

18:25overdoses. It's a

18:29That would be something that I would

18:30definitely want to put in any kind of

18:31public release just because of the power

18:35driven the public narrative has been and

18:37nobody has any information to

18:40counteract that. Like

18:42everybody's going to assume that it's

18:43true if they don't have any information

18:45to the contrary.

18:50Cuz that's definitely in line with what

18:53some other researchers have found, too.

18:55Like there are local nonprofits doing

18:57like

18:58how to navigate the broken system

19:01because

19:02people are dying with very little

19:04explanation.

19:05Or coming out and being like, "Hey mom,

19:08dad, like all these terrible things

19:10happened to me.

19:11I have no proof of it and there's

19:12nothing I can do."

19:33>> All right. I agree. We're still in the

19:35investigation portion. We got some more

19:36information pending for the next

19:38meeting.

19:39Um are there

19:41comments or questions that we need

19:44staff to look at for our next meeting?

19:49>> No.

19:49>> I appreciate Justin's continued efforts

19:51to

19:52>> to

19:53>> define exactly what information we need.

19:55>> We would not have this partially filled

19:58out

20:07>> I saw the like you said the updated

20:09ALPR. So I'm moving to the next with

20:11that little discussion. I saw the

20:12updated ALPR um

20:15formalizing the original but giving it

20:17orders in the policy.

20:23I'm sure everyone in the room is

20:24probably aware, but another um

20:27this time a sworn officer was relieved

20:30for misusing the system since just

20:33um since our last meeting.

20:35Uh

20:36but that's just another data point I'd

20:38like to bring to you.

20:40Bring to the conversation. I don't have

20:42any other specific things with with the

20:44technology review.

20:46I appreciate that there is uh like we

20:48discussed that the executive office the

20:49executive order would be converted into

20:51a policy at some point. So I appreciate

20:52the speed of that.

20:54>> Yeah, I actually have a question about

20:56particulars of the policy, if that's all

20:58right with you, please.

20:59>> Um

21:00there is

21:02Well, I I won't cite exactly where it

21:04is, but there's there's distinction

21:05between ability to access the system and

21:07then proper authorization to access the

21:09system, I'd say.

21:11Um because non-supervisory personnel are

21:13not authorized to access the system to

21:16perform searches

21:17or create hot lists, um from what I can

21:20see. But the lack of authorization

21:22doesn't That means it's it's technically

21:24possible because they have login access,

21:27but there there's no authorization for

21:29it. Is that right?

21:30>> So does Yeah, so a good question

21:33is that

21:35So

21:37authorized personnel to access the

21:39system are authorized once they're

21:42trained and then they're in a position

21:43where we deem it appropriate to let them

21:45access it. And so all those personnel

21:48can

21:49access the system.

21:51Then you have a second tier level of

21:52access, which would be the ability to

21:54conduct a search or do a

21:57uh

21:58hot listing for you or something like

21:59that, and that's reserved for the

22:01supervisors and higher. And so the

22:04system itself allows you to assign

22:06particular permissions to roles. And so

22:09for example, user one who has alert only

22:12access is given alert only the alert

22:16only role or whatever role corresponds

22:17to that, then user two who's a

22:19supervisor would get uh the permission

22:23in their role to conduct a search and so

22:25I mean

22:26basically when you log in as an alert

22:28user, you don't even have the features

22:30available to conduct a search.

22:33They're not available to you in the

22:34system. So, you don't It's not possible

22:36for you to conduct a search.

22:38>> That answers my question. So, it's

22:40technically it is not possible for you

22:43without the second tier, the higher tier

22:45of access to create to do a search or

22:47create a offense.

22:48>> Right, the system restricts it based on

22:50user role permissions.

22:51>> Okay.

22:52That That answers

22:54I had follow-up, but that makes it

22:56unnecessary. It's good to know.

22:59And there's going to be continued audits

23:02of the usage of the system. I imagine

23:04this

23:05curtailed access or tiered access is

23:08going to make that a lot simpler to

23:09parse.

23:10Um

23:11>> We'll see. Time will tell. I think

23:13there's certainly impacts of changing

23:15the way the users interact with it. So,

23:17we'll see. I don't want to be I don't

23:19want to predict how it would have made

23:20it easier, difficult, or what.

23:23It'll change the process a little bit, I

23:25think.

23:25>> Well, it seems to have eliminated sort

23:27of a

23:28a gap in the prior policy where there

23:31could be access for sort of an

23:33unexplained reason or a cursorily

23:36explained reason such as investigation

23:37or

23:38suspicion or something like that. That's

23:40no longer adequate to authorize a

23:42search.

23:43>> Right. So, what we've what we've

23:44required is more specificity.

23:47Um and you know this very well, the term

23:50either people say either reasonable

23:52articulable suspicion or articulable

23:54reasonable suspicion, but a

23:56uh a more particularized factual basis

23:59for why you're going to conduct a

24:01search, not a generalized statement uh

24:04such as like you said, investigation or

24:06suspicious.

24:07Um you're actually having to The

24:09requirement is that you're linking um

24:12whatever the legitimate purpose is,

24:14you're linking the tag or the vehicle to

24:16a specific to that incident with

24:19specific facts.

24:21Yes.

24:22Thank you.

24:28>> I'm not sure. I'm glad that

24:35all of these seems to be necessary.

24:38Certainly it is, but I'm not sure that

24:41this policy resolves my concerns with

24:43it.

24:46The system is

24:49kind of by its nature

24:51violating the rights of people.

24:54And so

24:57no matter how you slice it,

24:59it's going to be

25:03to

25:05whoever is using the computer to decide

25:07what a legitimate law enforcement

25:09purpose is.

25:16I know we all know the broken taillight

25:17metaphor where they can come up with

25:19something

25:21and make that be the offense.

25:22[clears throat] It's

25:23I'm not accusing any specific person of

25:25doing this. I'm accusing the system of

25:27being vulnerable to it.

25:29So

25:32hopefully this will make that more

25:33difficult, but Flock so far has kept

25:35honest men honest and not really do much

25:37more. So we will see.

25:40>> I should know this, but when is the

25:42contract when does the contract between

25:47Effingham County and Flock expire?

25:50Does anyone know this?

25:51>> So it's actually a little more

25:52complicated than it being a singular

25:54Flock contract. It's

25:56>> So the PD I guess is what you

25:57>> The PD is what we have purview to.

25:59>> The PD contract

26:00>> Again, so specifically the PD contract

26:01is the one that we have purview to talk

26:03about.

26:03>> Yeah, so

26:05uh

26:06so

26:08different cameras have been purchased

26:10under different

26:11programs and timelines. And so basically

26:13they run on on 24-hour term or 24-month

26:17terms of service. And so

26:19um there's not a set all

26:22the cameras in one contract for all the

26:24cameras expires on this date. There's a

26:26batch of cameras that uh were purchased

26:28at a certain date and then they run on

26:31their schedule and then another batch

26:33that would run on a different schedule.

26:34So, it's kind of a a staggered timeline.

26:37That's the way to think of it.

26:38>> Can we have a list of those timelines?

26:42>> Um yeah, certainly. Whatever the records

26:44are got that we show the purchasing and

26:47all that's available.

26:49>> Should we do that?

26:49>> I'm specifically interested in the

26:51procurement policy that

26:53led to it in the first place.

26:59>> So,

27:00on that we I think you can provide

27:01procurement policies

27:03>> I mean the procurement policy for the

27:04city and county is online right now.

27:06>> Absolutely.

27:06>> Yeah.

27:07>> I just like a step.

27:08>> I guess

27:09we talked about this in the either the

27:10last meeting or the one before about how

27:12there's a certain threshold

27:15above which the mayor and commission

27:16need to vote on approving requisitions

27:19and below that threshold that's not

27:20true. That responsibility is devolved to

27:23the different department heads based on

27:25their authority.

27:27>> Well, and I would I would say I consider

27:28>> If you're by splitting up cameras across

27:30smaller individual contracts, then each

27:33one is below that threshold but the

27:35overall cost of the program

27:37might rise. Not that threshold but

27:39because they're being renewed on a

27:40staggering basis,

27:42um it never

27:44comes up as a single line item vote.

27:46>> Sure.

27:47>> There's also differences in new programs

27:50or new initiatives and

27:52existing things that are renewed.

27:54>> Oh, absolutely. The Axon

27:56>> or not.

27:57>> Yeah, that makes sense, too.

27:59>> The Axon version of these intentionally

28:02integrate into

28:04street lights

28:06as an updated light sensor so that

28:10municipalities can bypass that

28:13policy completely.

28:16Cuz it's not a new product. It's an

28:17update and that's intentional. Like they

28:19have meetings about it.

28:22>> I think it's a good idea to get a list

28:24of

28:25the sort of enactment dates or

28:28initiation and then termination dates of

28:30whatever agreements there are. That that

28:31would actually be very helpful.

28:34>> You an update.

28:35>> Yeah, I can see that at least.

28:38>> Yeah, certainly all the um

28:41the POs and everything that's finance

28:44will have all that.

28:51>> Um

28:52I don't have anything else on this

28:54particular issue. I'll have to get with

28:55you and verify.

28:57>> Thank you.

28:58>> I had a question about um

29:01the the executive order for October 5th.

29:04>> Yep.

29:04>> Um specifically about the networking and

29:07sharing clauses.

29:08Um I was wanting to know so

29:11um

29:13points like one, two, and three discuss

29:16how

29:17um

29:18other agencies, either type of agencies

29:21in Georgia um or in other states, may be

29:23authorized under the following

29:25conditions to have access to the ACCPD's

29:28network.

29:29Um and I wanted to make sure that I

29:33understand so for whatever reason that

29:37you know, they are collaborating and

29:39sharing network data, just all of the

29:41network data like for a period of time

29:44that other agency just has access to

29:48everything that the Athens-Clarke County

29:51currently has for like the 30 days

29:54stored data and every um

29:59hit that comes up or is this

30:03narrowed to just

30:05sharing like only the information that

30:07is pertinent to the specific

30:10plate numbers or something like that.

30:14>> Yeah, that's a good question. So, um the

30:16first thing is while it's not a

30:18significant difference with the policy

30:20this actual document kind of came out,

30:22but it's no longer relevant. Uh there's

30:25the policy does supersede what's written

30:27in here. However, what the policy says

30:29is not

30:31entirely different from that executive

30:33order, but um your question is still a

30:36great question. Um

30:37so,

30:39just for clarification of how the system

30:41works is

30:43so, there's there is a

30:45state national network where you can

30:49participate in that and then there's

30:50what's called sharing. That's an

30:51entirely different thing.

30:53And so, there's kind of two levels of

30:55information that would be available

30:56based on whether

30:58uh you're looking for information

31:00through the network or you're looking at

31:01it through a direct sharing

31:04relationship. And so, the network

31:06specifically, if uh I'm participating in

31:09the national network or the state

31:11network, and I run a plate, then what I

31:15would receive back from another agency

31:18that's also participating is basically a

31:20notice or a hit saying, "Hey, you know,

31:22agency A has information about this

31:25tag."

31:26And then it would be my responsibility

31:28at that point, if I believe

31:31there's something probative about that

31:32information, for me to then contact that

31:35agency and say, "Hey, we've done this

31:36search, we're doing this investigation.

31:38Can you send us uh the actual

31:41um content of that?"

31:44And uh so, that's the first way that

31:46would work.

31:48And so, it's basically just an alert

31:49that, "Hey, someone has information you

31:51may be interested in."

31:53Uh

31:54and then it's up to them whether they

31:55want to share it. Uh the second is

31:56direct sharing relationship, and what

31:58that means is if I run the same search

32:01and we have a direct sharing

32:02relationship, when I run that search, if

32:05it's a tag that is hit on a camera in

32:07your network, then I will receive that

32:09content directly uh based on that

32:12search. So, it would be just a it's a

32:14uh PDF printout of the image of the

32:18tag and the vehicle, the date time, and

32:20then the camera information.

32:22Uh so, that's I would receive that

32:23without having to contact you directly.

32:25So, that's the distinction between the

32:27two. Does that answer your question?

32:29>> Uh yeah, I think you you just answered

32:31part of it. Something that I am left

32:33wondering is so, this there's direct

32:35sharing, are these like prolonged

32:39direct sharing so that like if someone

32:41in

32:43a different county or a different state

32:44has direct sharing with the

32:47Athens PD, then

32:50anyone from that other

32:52county who are sharing with can get

32:55information from

32:57Athens PD at any time about a plate that

33:01they want. And they maybe they have a a

33:03case number associated with it. But then

33:06that means that all of the data for

33:09whoever Athens is direct sharing with,

33:13then our data is pretty much can be

33:16accessed at any time by another county

33:18standards, which may not be the kinds of

33:22um guidelines that

33:25Athens PD has for our officers accessing

33:29data.

33:30Is that's like

33:32is that how it could work?

33:34>> So what you're saying is

33:36correct. It's um

33:38If we have a direct sharing relationship

33:40with another county, then any authorized

33:41user from that police department it

33:44would then if they ran a search, they

33:46would receive that information um

33:49if it was something that was on one of

33:51our cameras

33:52um in our storage. Um just for you I you

33:57weren't here recently when we had some

33:58conversations about it, but uh so right

34:01now what we're currently doing is

34:02sharing with only in-state agencies. Uh

34:05we don't share with any out-of-state

34:07agencies.

34:07>> Are you talking about the direct sharing

34:09or just

34:10>> sharing.

34:10>> Okay.

34:11>> Yes. Um we do participate in the state

34:13national network. Uh so that for

34:15example, if you know, we're doing a

34:17murder investigation and we run a plate

34:19that's a suspect in that murder

34:21investigation and happens to have driven

34:23up to Tennessee, we would get an alert

34:25on that if it passed a license plate

34:27reader in Tennessee. Uh so we keep the

34:29national lookup for that reason. And the

34:31state is just in-state only.

34:33Um and so but right now we're sharing

34:35only with in-state agencies. Uh nobody

34:38out-of-state. Then anything beyond that

34:40would be a case-by-case

34:42um request. So, if there's something

34:44going on and they reach out to us and

34:45once they wanted a

34:47to be able to share for some time period

34:48for an ongoing investigation, we would

34:50certainly consider that based on the

34:52request uh case-by-case.

34:55>> All right. So, then the direct sharing

34:57with agencies in the state of Georgia.

34:59So, then theoretically someone in

35:03another county could look up

35:06someone's

35:08look up a plate for a person that's a

35:10personally interested in in

35:12Athens-Clarke County's data if that

35:14person lives in or has driven through

35:16Athens will show up on that other

35:18county's

35:20information.

35:21>> If they passed a license plate reader

35:23and if it's within the 30-day window, we

35:25only retain our data for 30 days.

35:27>> All right.

35:28>> Yes, that's the way it would work.

35:31>> Got it. So, then

35:33>> [clears throat]

35:33>> will be these policies that apply to

35:36the Athens-Clarke County officers, so

35:39even if

35:40our officers they stay stay honest and

35:43by the book,

35:45all of our data is still

35:47only as secure as whatever Georgia

35:49agencies' least secure processes are

35:54because they could access us at any

35:56time.

35:57>> That's correct. And arguably Flock has

35:59that data anyway even if we turn off our

36:0430 days.

36:05>> And then could other agencies, I mean in

36:07theory

36:09you don't know what happens with to that

36:11data that other agencies may be getting

36:13from us.

36:14They could be sharing with other

36:17networks, but that's obviously not

36:19Athens' jurisdiction. We don't get to

36:21decide what other agencies do with our

36:23data.

36:25>> True, um but so they don't there's not

36:28like direct access to all of our data uh

36:32if that makes sense. Um but

36:33>> put in a certain like a certain tag or

36:36like a certain vehicle description.

36:38>> Correct. So, a specific search would

36:40potentially provide uh search results

36:43and that would be made available but

36:45it's not a I'll just open the box and

36:47see what they have in their box.

36:49>> Right, yeah. But if there was some

36:51anything of interest for any of our

36:53direct sharing partners, they could

36:55access

36:56ours.

36:59And like for that specific Do you Are

37:01there any records that the police

37:03department keeps of how Athens data,

37:06like who

37:07>> Yes.

37:07>> What things have been accessed by

37:10>> We have that. So, that's part of the

37:12feature of

37:13Flock safety system is we have a

37:17network. So, everything is logged.

37:19There's event logs for everything that

37:20happens in the system

37:22to include network

37:24logs. And so, anytime another agency

37:28queries a tag, let's say, and

37:32that query includes cameras on our

37:34network, then we get a notification that

37:37that occurred

37:39and and data points about that search.

37:42And so, we have an entire There's

37:45There's an entire data log of that.

37:48>> Got it. And so, that And then so that's

37:49for the Flock cameras. I'm going to go

37:52ahead and assume that Axon cameras

37:55operate on a similar

37:57>> They do not.

37:58>> So, that's

37:59>> different.

37:59>> Okay.

38:00>> But good question Good questions, yeah.

38:01>> Could you kind of like explain how is

38:05Yeah, how are those things different?

38:07Cuz then when we know if we get more

38:10information about the enactment of you

38:12know, certain

38:14fleets of cameras at different times, we

38:15can be aware of All right, these kinds

38:18of cameras have data sharing, these ones

38:20don't.

38:22Um so, yeah, like what's the What are

38:24the differences in in how that's kept?

38:26>> Well, so

38:28Well,

38:29So, one

38:31Flock and Axon are two entirely

38:32different companies. So, that's like

38:34Honda, Toyota,

38:36you know, Chevrolet, etc. Um however,

38:38they do provide some similar products.

38:41So, you know, you've got a Toyota Camry

38:44and then you may have a you know, a

38:45Honda Accord. And while there are

38:48differences, they're similar in what

38:49they do in their nature. Um

38:52And so their products between, let's

38:53say, Flock and Axon are not different.

38:55Or other vendors, let's say, that are

38:57companies producing security cameras, uh

39:00ALPR cameras, and things like that.

39:03Um

39:04What we're doing here in Athens

39:05specifically is we have

39:08Flock ALPR cameras.

39:11Uh so all those do is read license plate

39:14uh information when it goes past, and

39:16then it basically holds that and tells

39:18you

39:19uh the color, the body style of the

39:22vehicle, and then the license plate tag,

39:24the date and time, and the location of

39:25the

39:27the camera that read that. That's all

39:29that

39:30>> Well, it It is more than the tag. It is

39:31like there's a a qualitative vehicle

39:34description

39:35in addition to the tag.

39:36>> Correct. Yes. And so it can also

39:39um it can also pick up other things such

39:41as if there's damage on the vehicle or

39:43roof racks, stuff like that. So those

39:45are the ALPR cameras. Uh we have

39:48technology through Axon. Uh we have our

39:50body cameras, which is through Axon. So

39:53that's literally what I'm wearing right

39:54here. It's a body camera.

39:56Um so this is not an ALPR camera. It

39:58doesn't read license plates. It's

39:59different. It's a video. It records

40:01video.

40:03Um and the data is uh so it's all it's

40:07cloud stored. Um

40:08Axon stores theirs through evidence.com.

40:11That's their system.

40:13Flock stores it's in a different system.

40:15It's AWS cloud, the gov cloud.

40:18Um

40:19But they do different things.

40:21There's not a network

40:23for

40:24Axon body camera like there's a network

40:26for

40:27the Flock camera for the Flock ALPR

40:30cameras. It's

40:31different. Uh we can share that

40:34data. Um

40:36You know, so we have ways of providing

40:38that to other law enforcement,

40:39prosecutors,

40:41etc. Open records. Uh so body cameras

40:44considered open record. You know, so if

40:45you want a

40:46body camera video, you can send an open

40:48records request to us and we'll send

40:50that video to you if it's if it's

40:52subject it's not current to uh

40:54part of a current investigation or

40:55something like that. So,

40:57there's similarities, but there's also

40:59distinctions. I hope I answered your

41:01question.

41:02>> Yeah, no, thank you. That was That was

41:03very helpful and it also cleared up the

41:06um

41:07the question I had about where this data

41:08is physically stored. So, Axon has its

41:11own cloud,

41:12Flock has its own cloud. The data is not

41:15actually owned and stored on machines in

41:17the county. It's actually stored by the

41:19Flock run database.

41:21>> Well, sort of. So,

41:23the data is So, basically, we pay

41:25through contract for them to store it.

41:27However, we own the data. It's our data

41:29and that's explicit in the contract.

41:31>> It's on It's on their servers.

41:32>> So, they're on AWS cloud gov cloud

41:35servers. It's Amazon Web Services. Uh

41:37extremely secure system. Uh but yes, so

41:40it's stored on their server, but we own

41:42the data. That's correct.

41:46>> I think that's Yeah, kind of covers what

41:48I was wondering about specifically with

41:49that Axon thing. So, thank you. That was

41:51very helpful.

41:53>> That did bring up a question. I was just

41:55reviewing the Q1 and Q2 audit reports. I

41:58would

41:59like to see for the Q3 report if there

42:02can be a summary of how many

42:04outside agency queries occurred during

42:06the time period cuz that's not a piece

42:08of data that was included

42:10in the Q1 or Q2 reports. It was very

42:12focused on our own internal use and

42:15following the procedure which is

42:18understandable. Like that's the primary

42:19focus of our own internal audit, but

42:20that does bring up a point that we're

42:22only as secure as the least secure

42:25other access and just knowing, "Hey, a

42:28hundred times in the last three months

42:30an outside agency asked to see our

42:32data." would be a useful data point.

42:34>> Uh yeah, we'll certainly take that into

42:36consideration.

42:37>> Thank you.

42:39>> It's a good point.

42:43>> Something to point out as well um

42:47on page eight as well with the sharing

42:48on the bottom.

42:50Specific image requests can be requested

42:53through the ALPR. It's not just

42:56a tag hit, take a picture.

43:00Um so it may seem

43:02like these ALPRs are not cameras, but

43:04they they absolutely are.

43:06>> They use OCR technology.

43:09>> Okay, could you tell us a little bit

43:11more about which kinds of devices are

43:14taking photos? Cuz like you said that

43:16there you know there's a qualitative

43:17description, um

43:19but

43:22I guess I it was implied to me that

43:25there weren't like photos taken. And so

43:27where would What kind of devices

43:30can take specific images that can be

43:32requested?

43:34>> So the ALPRs, that's what they do.

43:36>> So they So they are capturing images.

43:38They're not just recording the data.

43:40>> Correct. That's

43:42Right. So that's the content is there's

43:44an image of the vehicle.

43:47>> But those images are also saved

43:48alongside

43:50like individual descriptors about that.

43:53Like that hit has an image file in

43:55addition to these other descriptors

43:57about it.

43:58>> Right.

43:59That's right. And that So the the image,

44:02which is more or less the contents, is

44:05that's what's stored for 30 days and

44:07then it's deleted at 30 days.

44:09Um what's retained for us for auditing

44:12purposes is

44:14the are the data logs of who conducted

44:16searches, when they did it, who put

44:18stuff in the hot lists. That stuff is

44:21retained beyond the 30 days for auditing

44:23purposes.

44:24Uh but the content So for example, um

44:28let's say uh today I decided to check

44:31the license plate, and so I went into

44:33the system and I did a search for a

44:35license plate, right?

44:37And I got [clears throat] a return that

44:39said, "Hey, this license plate passed

44:40this uh tag reader yesterday afternoon."

44:43And it provides me the image and all

44:45that.

44:46Well, 31 days later,

44:48that image no longer can be accessed in

44:50the system. It's been deleted.

44:52However, the action I took to conduct

44:54the search 31 days later is still logged

44:57showing what I did, what tag I searched

44:59for, why I did it, but whether or not it

45:01returned a hit is not even

45:04available anymore. It's no longer part

45:06of that data set.

45:08>> All right, Steve. That That makes sense.

45:10Thank you for for also clarifying

45:15>> Specific image requests are important

45:17because the

45:19camera software gets the hit wrong. So,

45:22and that if they don't have a picture to

45:24compare it to, it would be very weak

45:25evidence.

45:27Based on other counties and people doing

45:29open records requests and finding out

45:31that their license plate has hit X

45:33number of times and half the time it's a

45:35green car when they have a red car and

45:38all those kinds of things.

45:39>> So, I don't know that that's accurate at

45:41that level. I just want to say that

45:44I know there are there are cases where

45:46the system has

45:48It's not It's It's Yeah, it's

45:50misinterpreted what it's seen in the

45:52computer

45:53the camera and then what interprets the

45:54camera has misinterpreted, but I

45:56wouldn't say it's often or half the

45:58time. And that's that's just wrong. Um

46:01but it it has

46:02>> Except there have been documented cases.

46:03>> There are documented cases where that

46:05has occurred. Yes.

46:06>> Yeah, way way more than what I would

46:08imagine we would want to have happening.

46:11We don't have a number.

46:12>> I don't know. I don't have a number for

46:13you. Um but just in my experience in the

46:17system, that's not a common thing, but I

46:20know there are documented cases where

46:21that's occurred. But that's where it's

46:23also important to keep in mind that and

46:25it's written in our policy pretty

46:26clearly is

46:29anything that is technology fed

46:31information has to be filtered through

46:32human intelligence. So, you have to

46:34confirm what you're seeing. And so, if

46:36it's

46:36>> In Athens at least.

46:39>> Yes, and that is a best practice. I

46:40mean, that is a best practice for

46:42anything that we use,

46:44whether it's an ALPR camera or you get

46:47information on you know, other types of

46:50records that you subpoena or get a

46:52search warrant for. You you have to

46:54follow up. They are not in and of

46:56themselves proof of a crime or proof of

46:58guilt or anything like that. And so,

47:01um,

47:02yes, it does have to be followed up, but

47:11>> The Flock system itself advertises a 7%

47:15error rate, if I remember correctly, but

47:17LAPD,

47:19as in like

47:21the LAPD, canceled their Flock camera

47:24contract because of how often it was

47:26getting it wrong and how many big

47:30ticket crimes they have. People were

47:32getting pulled over on the side of the

47:33road at gunpoint in the middle of rush

47:35hour traffic,

47:36and it ended up being such a liability

47:38for those lawsuits that it was no longer

47:41giving the city any financial benefit.

47:44Like I I'm assuming that their risk

47:46analysis team

47:49would have been involved at some point

47:50in that or maybe the police decided for

47:52themselves. I don't know. I'm not

47:54privy to the details of that, but

47:57that error rate is the primary driver

48:00behind

48:02municipalities canceling the contract

48:04here more than, um,

48:06say a moral stance.

48:11>> So, I can't speak to LAPD or why other

48:13agencies are

48:15canceling contracts, the ones that are,

48:17but I can say that we are not having

48:21error issues here where our officers are

48:23stopping wrong cars. Um, so, don't know

48:25about LAPD and what all they do, but,

48:27uh, just here that is not occurring.

48:31Um, and uh, certainly if it was, we

48:33would deal with that appropriately, but

48:34I haven't seen any of that happening

48:36here.

48:37So, I do want to say this, too. Just

48:39another couple of things just to let

48:40y'all know.

48:41Uh, some of the information y'all y'all

48:43have asked about and are currently, I

48:45think, interested in, uh, we've turned

48:48on there's a transparency portal

48:49available specifically through the Flock

48:51system. We've turned that on and made

48:53that available. It's available to the

48:54public.

48:56And so, that's something where you can

48:58just log in and you can see

49:02data points on the system, how we use

49:04it, what we're doing with it. That's

49:06everything from, you know, alert data to

49:09how many cameras we have, our data

49:11retention policy, the vehicle

49:13detections, you know, what are the most

49:15common search types when officers are

49:17conducting searches for tags, uh what

49:20alerts are turned on, who we share with,

49:22and then a few other policy-related

49:24issues, how we use them, what the

49:26limitations are, what the prohibitions

49:28are. Uh so that's answered on there. Uh

49:31some of the

49:32uh cybersecurity elements, uh so SOC 2,

49:36ISO, some of those standards, that's all

49:38listed there as well, so you can see

49:39that. Uh and then the last thing is uh

49:42our actual policy, while it's already

49:44been on our transparency page, we also

49:46put it on this page, too. So the ALPR

49:48policy is specifically on

49:50the um

49:52Flock transparency page. Uh the other

49:54thing just to note is

49:57you know, we started this audit process

49:59back in

50:00beginning of 2026 moving forward,

50:03uh just based on current circumstances,

50:05we are now

50:07going through the process and beginning

50:09a full historic audit of

50:12uh system. Uh so moving essentially

50:14December 31st, 2025 and backwards. Uh so

50:18we've begun that process and uh

50:21so that will take some time, certainly.

50:22That's uh potentially several years

50:24worth of data and uh

50:26so I don't expect that to be done soon,

50:28but we're doing a full historic audit,

50:30as well.

50:31>> Is the goal of that to find other uh

50:35uh other uses that were not authorized?

50:38>> I don't think that's the goal, uh cuz

50:40certainly I hope that uh we don't

50:42encounter any other issues like that,

50:44but um we think it's the right thing to

50:47do because uh we want to

50:50ensure that

50:51any if there are any existing problems

50:54that we take care of and deal with them

50:55directly. We don't want them to come

50:56back.

50:58>> Where's the sorry, the transparency

51:01portal from Flock Safety and it's

51:03available where

51:04>> I can I can send y'all the link. Yeah, I

51:06can push it out through the so you can

51:08see it and then

51:10we'll certainly we're going to be

51:12putting that up on our department

51:13website and then the transparency page

51:15as well.

51:16So have a couple touch points where

51:18people can find it.

51:20>> Just a note about the transparency

51:22portal. There is

51:25several emails from Flock Safety

51:27themselves reassuring various PDs about

51:30the transparency portal that quote all

51:33fields can be edited, deleted, or added

51:36to. Any of the fields in gray indicate

51:39information that we will be pulled

51:40directly from your Flock account. The

51:42only other thing worth noting is the

51:44search audit. I have attached an

51:46example. There is nothing the public can

51:48gain from this report as it only

51:50provides the search date, camera, and

51:52search reason.

51:53However, if you find your department's

51:55users are not consistently searching off

51:57of incident or case numbers, that may be

51:59a reason to hide the search audit. It's

52:01entirely up to you, but just like to

52:02point this out. Once you approve this, I

52:04will publish the transparency portal and

52:06provide you with the link that can be

52:07added directly to your department's

52:09website.

52:10So just a heads-up. That is Libby

52:13Landers, senior customer success manager

52:16of Flock Safety reassuring that police

52:18department that

52:19no critical information can be found

52:22through a transparency portal from Flock

52:24Safety.

52:28>> Um

52:29I guess I take issue with that. I don't

52:30know who that

52:32that email's from. I don't know who that

52:33person is, but I don't know what

52:35critical information is.

52:37What I can say is

52:39certainly there are things that would

52:40not be subject to public disclosure such

52:42as

52:44information related to an active

52:46investigation

52:47and that would be concerning to to

52:49release, but um

52:52the I guess the purpose of this is to be

52:54as transparent as we can while also

52:56respecting open records laws.

52:58Um and so

53:00some of the data yes is it's

53:02automatically pulled because it

53:04automatically pulls the numbers, right?

53:07But then

53:08I personally entered a lot of this data

53:11or a lot of the information because

53:13uh it's specific to our policies and

53:15what we do here.

53:17Um and so yes, it's editable, but we

53:19have to put that information in.

53:21Um

53:21and so

53:23I

53:23>> [clears throat]

53:23>> I'm not sure what you're referring to

53:25and and who that email was toward, but

53:27I've never received any email that

53:29suggests something negative about this

53:31and trying to hide information.

53:33Uh the other thing is

53:34um there are I forgot to mention, so I'm

53:37glad you said it, but uh

53:39it does also include a download capacity

53:42where you can download um

53:44search audit. Um

53:47so you can click to see it'll it'll

53:48provide you

53:50the last 30 days of searches in a CSV

53:52file.

53:53So that's also available on it.

54:03>> All right.

54:05Anything else on ALPRs technology in

54:07general?

54:08>> I think it's

54:10>> I have um a couple other comments about

54:13like the transparency policies. Um

54:17so before I joined uh P-POD, I had put

54:20in an open records request for uh

54:24information about the ALPR system. And

54:27uh one of the most important of the

54:30pieces um of that request was about the

54:34locations of the cameras and the uh kind

54:38of data that they are collecting. Um I

54:41have uh begun receiving some of those

54:44records from the open records request,

54:46and again, it was done through me

54:47personally um as a citizen, not as part

54:50of P-POD. Um but the files that I have

54:54received through the open records

54:55request, um I wanted to offer to the

54:58board members. Um I'd be happy to email

55:01those to you guys uh to

55:05keep you in the loop, keep you updated.

55:07Information that has been redacted are

55:11camera locations and contract details.

55:15Uh so those

55:16uh I

55:18do not have for you uh but there's maybe

55:21some of that timeline information about

55:24what kind of

55:25um initiatives

55:28were implemented at certain times and

55:30some of the like receipts for those

55:33purchases and and leases um are in

55:36there. It's a lot of documents. I have

55:38not taken a close look.

55:40Um

55:41but those are those are there and

55:43hopefully we'll be able to

55:46um

55:47yeah have more discussions and with that

55:50information and again I'll continue um

55:53send them out as I receive them.

55:57>> And

55:58just briefly if I may I know you didn't

55:59ask me but I'll chime in about the the

56:01flock camera locations. I mean my

56:04understanding is that

56:06a lot of that information is available

56:07through other sources but there is a

56:10particular open records and when you

56:12receive the response with the redaction

56:14it should have cited the specific um

56:17um

56:19>> Georgia code

56:19>> Georgia code thank you. Sorry.

56:21>> Yes yeah it um it was cited. I responded

56:25to

56:27I responded to those as well. They're

56:30there's a there's chains of emails but

56:33like yes that was that was cited um

56:36for how the ACCPD seems to choose fit to

56:40exercise uh those laws.

56:43>> And and the specific just so everybody's

56:45aware you know

56:46and I'm sure you'll see the responses

56:47but you know the concern is is that

56:49these cameras are

56:51um you know vulnerable to tampering or

56:54destruction or anything along those

56:56lines and the exception is related to

56:59anything that would compromise

57:01um

57:02um security or or utility of a

57:05uh of a program like this. So I can't

57:07remember the exact language off hand,

57:09but

57:10um but there is a specific

57:13exception um

57:17provided in the Georgia code that

57:20that is

57:21it is not something that we anticipate

57:23changing in the future with regards to

57:25releasing the location of the cameras.

57:30>> First thing that I asked for when I

57:32started this investigation in

57:36first quarter of 2025 and of 2024. I'm

57:39not sure when I brought it to Pisco

57:41because

57:42precisely.

57:44Um but the first thing they did was turn

57:46down my request for camera locations

57:50citing the critical infrastructure

57:51clause saying that this could subject

57:54the cameras to terrorism.

57:56So

57:57>> That's yes, that is the one I know it

57:59ends in point 72. Yeah.

58:01>> It's

58:02>> I think I want to say 52 18 72

58:05something.

58:05>> 50-18-72A.

58:07I just can't remember the subpart.

58:09Um I think it was so yeah, I mean it's

58:11subpart 20 something I want to say but

58:13or 19.

58:14>> Yeah, one of them. I think I think I

58:15want to say it's 19 and 23 but I also

58:18don't think it's in I will I'll before

58:21forward you guys all of the

58:22communication as well with the the

58:25messages

58:26so you can get you up to speed on

58:30everything.

58:37>> So I guess I would say that you know, if

58:39there's something to that you feel or

58:42are concerned that should be released

58:43and is not, we do have a mechanism for

58:46that to be addressed. So we'll make sure

58:47that

58:48you know that and

58:50if you need assistance with that I'm

58:51more than happy to help but we also do

58:53it's not just how we see fit to enact

58:55law. We

58:55>> That that was what was that was what was

58:57told to me.

58:59And I was told that was the ACCPD's

59:01interpretation of that law.

59:02>> Well, right and and I will say I work

59:05you know

59:06closely with the police department too

59:08and you know, and I have had people

59:10bring their own concerns like directly

59:12to me because I don't have access to the

59:13police open records

59:15portal.

59:16Um, I've got access to the other sides,

59:17but not the police side. So, if, you

59:20know,

59:21if you're you feel like, you know,

59:23you're not getting wherever you feel

59:25like you need to go, you you're always

59:26free to email me, you know, and and I

59:28and I'm not just saying that cuz you're

59:29all peace god. Um, you know, the the

59:31public too often emails me about various

59:35things, so I'm happy to help as needed.

59:37>> Yeah, I I appreciate that. I was

59:39directed to go to

59:41the county attorney.

59:42>> That's me.

59:43>> Okay. You are the county attorney.

59:44>> Well, I'm not the. I am one.

59:46>> Okay.

59:47>> One of.

59:48>> Got you. I am still integrating myself

59:51into the hierarchy of things.

59:54>> Yes. Um, but yeah, thank you.

59:56>> Yeah, and you know, so in addition to

59:57being, you know, like the representative

59:59from the county attorney office for

1:00:00peace god, I am the person who's

1:00:03primarily in charge of responding to

1:00:04open records requests that require

1:00:06county attorney input. So, I'm also that

1:00:09gal, too. So.

1:00:11>> Yeah, I will

1:00:12May I include you in the

1:00:14>> Yeah, please do.

1:00:15>> last email list?

1:00:16>> Yes, absolutely.

1:00:17>> All right, that will

1:00:19I think this is Thank you.

1:00:20>> Mhm.

1:00:22>> And officer, I can also include you in

1:00:23those emails, too, to I have seen you

1:00:25attending these meetings too.

1:00:27>> I think the peace god district should

1:00:29include everyone in this.

1:00:32>> Got you.

1:00:36>> Anyone have new business before we get

1:00:38to Gavin's update?

1:00:40Or new business that you want to put on

1:00:42the agenda for next month?

1:00:45Gavin?

1:00:46>> Yeah, so just a reminder, um,

1:00:49we have our next meeting outside of the

1:00:51norm. It is Wednesday, December 2nd. So,

1:00:54that's

1:00:56not the third

1:00:58regular Wednesday of the month. We

1:01:00decided that as a board a couple of

1:01:01months ago. We're going to join

1:01:03November and December together.

1:01:06And then,

1:01:07for those of you who haven't, sort of a

1:01:09last call,

1:01:10we need you to submit your training

1:01:13in the website link that we've provided

1:01:16uh a couple times. So, uh, um

1:01:19end of the year,

1:01:20everyone um has got to have at least

1:01:22five uh hours of continued ed.

1:01:25All we're asking is that you use that

1:01:27link, submit the hours, give a little

1:01:29brief description of what it was, and

1:01:31then you can upload documentation

1:01:32directly to it.

1:01:34And uh that should be it.

1:01:36>> I've not been keeping up with those

1:01:38emails uh someone who joined a few

1:01:40minutes ago.

1:01:41>> yet.

1:01:41>> Okay.

1:01:43>> But I think to uh to your point, um

1:01:48the online training that you're required

1:01:50to do for ACCGove as a new board member,

1:01:52those are actually do count hours toward

1:01:55that minimum.

1:01:58>> I just clarify.

1:02:00Right, so

1:02:01>> Perfect.

1:02:03Uh I don't think I have anything else.

1:02:05With that, we'll start the next meeting.

1:02:09>> It's weird. It's

1:02:10>> Yeah.

1:02:11>> not the normal time.

1:02:12>> Exactly. Normal time, normal day, but

1:02:14not the normal

1:02:15day of the month.

1:02:16>> Yeah.

1:02:18>> Um okay. Do we have a motion?

1:02:22>> I'll make a motion.

1:02:23>> Okay.

1:02:24>> I'll second.

1:02:25>> All in favor?

1:02:26>> I.

1:02:29>> Thanks

```*