Surveillance Watch Benicia

← All findings

12 The network grows by vendor email with an "Accept All" buttonnew

59 agencies asked for access in five months. 56 have no acknowledgment letter on file, and 15 asked for video rather than just plates.

Eight “Action Requested: Pending Flock Camera Share Requests” notices, 2025-09-10 → 2026-01-28, are new in this production. Each opens:

Great news, your network is growing! There are multiple Flock Camera share requests pending your acceptance.”

and instructs: “Accept All or individually select using the Actions column.”

Tabulated in PR-2026-7/share-requests.csv:

  • 70 requests from 59 distinct agencies over five months
  • 21 requests (15 agencies) sought VMS scopes — VMS Go-Live, VMS Historical, VMS Download — i.e. live and recorded video, not just plate reads
  • 56 of the 59 requesters do not appear in the acknowledgment-letter roster from PR-2026-155 (88 letters, 82 distinct agencies)
  • Requesters run far beyond mutual aid: Cal Fire, California State Parks, Round Valley Indian Tribes, three community-college police departments, and agencies across the state — Barstow, Lancaster, Imperial County, Corona, Seal Beach, Desert Hot Springs, Visalia
  • Repeat askers suggest requests that went unanswered or were revoked: Dublin CA PD (ACSO) 4×, Seaside 3×, Pasadena / Barstow / Folsom / San Pasqual / San Joaquin County SO / Cerritos College 2× each

The workflow was designed this way from the start. Graham Carter explained it to Benicia PD on 2021-08-26:

“when an automated sharing request comes in those of you in the admin, the group will get an email… all you would need to do is reach out to that person, send him the paperwork, and once you get it back just approve the request. For folks outside of a 50-mile radius, what I will do is actually give them your contact information…”

Why it matters. Finding #6 established that Benicia shares by one-page self-certification with “no formal MOU.” This shows the pipeline that feeds it: the vendor solicits, batches, and presents the expansion to a city employee as a one-click approval — including for video.

Important limit on this finding: these notices list pending requests. The record does not show which Benicia approved. That is precisely the gap the next records request should close (see below).

Evidence: PR-2026-7/share-requests.csv, PR-2026-7/text/Action Requested_ Pending Flock Camera Share Requests*.txt, PR-2025-199/text/Re_ ALPR policy(10).txt

The documents behind this

Read them yourself — that is the point.

DocumentRequest
Re_ ALPR policy(10).pdf PR-2025-199
Action Requested_ Pending Flock Camera Share Requests.pdf PR-2026-7
PR-2026-7/share-requests.csv — multiple documents in this request PR-2026-7

Full write-up source: FINDINGS-2026-07-25.md in the records archive. Every quotation is transcribed from a PDF the City produced under the California Public Records Act. Redacted and image-only scans were run through OCR, so minor spacing artifacts may remain; wording is unchanged.