Deflock AltoonaReceived-record review

Altoona, Iowa / public records

How we got here.

A guide to the first received batch of Altoona Police Department ALPR-related records: what the invoices, agreements, policy, and network snapshot document, and the key evidence the batch does not include.

The received batch

Contracts, invoices, policy, records schedules, reports, memos, and one network snapshot.

The reviewed production contains 22 PDFs and a June 10, 2026 shared-network CSV export. It includes five Flock agreements, eight invoices, the department’s ALPR policy, a records-retention schedule, city memos, annual reports, and white papers. It does not include raw ALPR query logs, historical sharing approvals, or compliance-review reports.

8Flock invoices in the batch
$185,750Sum of listed invoice totals
1,405Network rows listing Altoona as sharing

Scope note: A configured network relationship is not proof that another agency searched Altoona data, viewed a plate record, or exported information.

Contracts and invoices

The batch documents a continuing vendor relationship and eight listed invoices.

2022-2024 agreements

Flock agreements are in the production.

The batch includes a 2022 service agreement, 2023 agreements, and a May 2024 contract packet. The documents establish a vendor relationship; the batch alone does not establish every installation, operational result, or payment approval.

Largest listed invoice

INV-43324 lists $101,850.

That is the largest invoice total identified in the received set. Payment records, purchase orders, and general-ledger entries are still needed to confirm payment and funding source.

Funding label

INV-8315 lists $27,000 for Falcon and implementation.

Its filename references asset forfeiture and DEA, but the invoice text does not independently identify that funding source. The filename is a lead, not proof of funding.

Network snapshot

The June 10 export shows configured sharing relationships, not search activity.

The CSV contains 2,873 rows. In 1,405 rows, the Networks I’m Sharing column contains Altoona IA PD. The batch includes four rows explicitly tagged federal: the FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and Indiana Dunes National Park Police.

What this shows: Altoona appears as a configured sharing network on those rows at the time of the snapshot. What it does not show: who ran a search, the reason or case number, whether a result was viewed, or whether data was exported.

Policy baseline

The ALPR policy sets documentation expectations that the received batch cannot test.

Policy 424 says ALPR searches should include a valid case number or a detailed reason when a case number is not issued. For searches on behalf of another agency, it says the requesting agency should be identified along with a case number or detailed reason. It also says ALPR-system audits should be conducted regularly.

The policy establishes what the department says should happen. The received batch does not include the query logs, outside-agency request records, audit reports, or administrator change logs needed to assess whether those controls were followed.

Council record review

Keyword searches did not identify an ALPR authorization trail in the downloaded council corpus.

The review scanned 143 City Council minutes and 104 agendas. It found no direct match for “Flock,” “ALPR,” “license plate reader,” or “plate reader.” That does not establish that the City Council never considered the program: agenda packets, staff reports, procurement files, and records outside the downloaded set may contain responsive material.

Source trail

Received records batch

The statements above are based on the first received production: contracts, invoices, Policy 424, a records-retention schedule, council materials, annual reports, white papers, and the June 10 shared-network export. The source documents are being reviewed for public release with sensitive information handled separately.

Iowa Code Chapter 22

Iowa’s public-records statute. It governs access to existing government records; it does not make a records request itself evidence of a fact.