14 Residents were told a "Signed MOU" is required. The City's own records say there is none.new

The deck ALPR Program Presentation - 2025 edited.pptx circulated 2025-11-17 → 11-20 around the Benicia PD community meeting (the same week as the Vallejo Sun media request). Slide 8, under “policy”, states:

“Only share with agencies (Legal/law enforcement) within California. Signed MOU required.”

The record says otherwise. The sharing instrument produced under PR-2026-155 is a one-page Data Sharing Acknowledgment Letter — a self-certification signed by the receiving agency, e.g.:

“This letter is to certify that the Mountain View Police Department has requested to receive data from the Benicia Police Department’s Automated License Plate Readers Program… By signing this letter, the representatives of Mountain View Police Department agree to abide by this policy.”

There is no agreement executed by Benicia, no obligations running back to Benicia, and no enforcement or audit term. The department said so itself in 2022 (finding #6): “We don’t have a formal MOU agreement per se.”

Why it matters. This is not an internal inconsistency — it is what residents at a community meeting were told about the safeguard on 82 agencies’ access to their data. “Signed MOU required” describes a materially stronger control than a countersigned promise form.

Two further cross-checks on the same deck:

• Slide 6: “We determine who gets access to our data.” Formally true — Benicia approves. In practice the queue is assembled and pushed by the vendor behind an Accept All button, and 56 of the 59 agencies that asked between Sep 2025 and Jan 2026 have no acknowledgment letter on file (finding 12).
• Slide 9 cites policy section 470.6(d) as the audit criterion. That citation is correct for the 2025 policy, where 470.6(d) requires every inquiry to be documented “by either the associated Benicia Police case number or incident number, and/or a reason.” It does not exist in the stale version the City was publishing over Jul–Sep 2025, which stops at 470.6(c) — further corroboration of finding 10. (It also shows the policy permits a bare case number with no reason, which is what makes the post-August logs opaque — finding 11.)

Not claimed here: the “within California” half of slide 8 is consistent with this production — every one of the 59 requesting agencies is a California entity. Whether it held in practice is exactly what the outstanding Network Audit request (PR-2026-180/-181) would show, and it is the crux of the NCRIC/WSIN question.

The claim is not a one-off slip. Two different edits of the deck are in the record — one attached to the Nov 2025 PR-2025-199 emails, one produced under PR-2026-7 (they differ by ~4%: the PR-2026-7 edit adds “Used by 5,000+ Law Enforcement agencies nationwide” and spells out “including with Border Patrol/ICE,” and lacks the “only activates in response to specific calls for service” line). Both carry the “Signed MOU required” text verbatim.

Evidence: PR-2025-199/attachments-text/ALPR Program Presentation - 2025 edited.pptx.txt (slides 6, 8, 9) and PR-2026-7/attachments-text/ALPR Program Presentation - 2025 edited.txt (slide 8), carried by PR-2025-199/text/Updated ALPR presentation*.txt and ALPR Informational Power Point Presentation*.txt; PR-2026-155/text/ acknowledgment letters; PR-2025-199/attachments-text/ALPR_Policy.txt vs ALPR_policy_2025.txt