What the records show

Overclaim boundaryEstablishes the program and its functions from the city's transparency portal and ALPR policy. Exact quotations from those documents await line-by-line visual review. Current camera count and current feature configuration are not established.

Overclaim boundaryEstablishes the policy as obtained. Whether it remains in force unchanged, and whether it was adopted by the council or issued at department level, is not established.

Overclaim boundaryEstablishes that these records exist as produced to the investigation. Some contract PDFs are image scans not yet verified page-by-page. The final contract execution chronology and the complete deployment history are not established.

Overclaim boundaryBased on the meeting minutes and a direct human review of the primary recording (39:44-40:19 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S49kWR0F118), which confirms the roughly 34-second consent-agenda item with no substantive discussion and the word 'Flock' not spoken. The exact agenda item text is not independently quoted verbatim, and this recording is cited by URL/timestamp rather than archived as a standalone repository exhibit.

Overclaim boundaryEstablishes that the sixteen permits exist. Field-by-field visual review of the scanned permits is pending. Whether related electrical or building permits, or exemptions, exist is not established.

Overclaim boundaryThe 16 scanned permit forms were visually reviewed: each records the fee as waived in the city's Admin Use Only section. The forms do not establish who authorized the waiver, why it was granted, or whether any separate deposit was collected.

Overclaim boundaryEstablishes that Flock solicited a pre-vote signature with a void-if-not-approved condition. It does not establish that anyone at WDM signed before the vote.

Overclaim boundaryEstablishes what Flock's email said. Whether Flock's installation planning reflected any actual city authorization is not established.

Overclaim boundaryEstablishes the content of WDM's email. The final contract price at the time of the vote is not established.

Overclaim boundaryEstablishes only what is visible on the city-produced copy: the WDM block bears Chris Scott's name and an April 1, 2023 date, while the Flock block is blank and undated. The visible date does not establish when the WDM signature was applied, and the copy does not establish full execution or a pre-vote signing chronology.

Overclaim boundaryBased on DIAL's written correspondence. Quotation of the agency's exact language awaits verification against the original PDF.

Overclaim boundaryBased on a July 8, 2026 capture of the state contractor-registration portal. Whether the registration has since been renewed, altered, or revoked is not established.

Overclaim boundaryAn absence-of-record finding: it reflects the records gathered by this investigation, not a complete search of city or state files. Internal citation or penalty records, if any exist, have not been produced.

Overclaim boundaryCorrespondence alone cannot establish a legal conclusion. No court or Attorney General determination has resolved the question.

Overclaim boundaryBased on DIAL's written response. Quotation of its exact language awaits verification against the original PDF. Whether Flock used licensed subcontractors or qualified for an exemption is not established.

Overclaim boundaryThe letter is evidence of DIAL's position, not necessarily a binding directive. The scope of WDM's enforcement duty as the authority having jurisdiction, and any WDM response, are not established.

Overclaim boundaryAn absence-of-record finding: it reflects what public-records requests have produced to date, not a complete search of city files. WDM internal enforcement, permit, or exemption records may exist and have not been produced.

Overclaim boundaryEstablishes that the complaint was filed. The agency's formal acknowledgement is not included in the published record, and whether DIAL opened a separate Chapter 100C matter is not established.

Overclaim boundaryRaises a legal question only. No Chapter 100C violation is established, and no agency has ruled on whether the chapter applies to Flock.

Overclaim boundaryThe 2022 engineering document has not been independently obtained; its contents rest on secondary references. The city's April 8, 2026 statement is limited to what the Flock Safety application lists — it is not a direct statement about physical camera hardware. Whether OWL cameras were renamed, removed, replaced, or reclassified is not established. A secondhand account of the June 5, 2026 public-safety subcommittee meeting (the police chief reportedly confirming a Flock contract for cameras at Raccoon River Park) has not been verified against the primary meeting record and is not relied on.

Overclaim boundaryBased on the investigator's field photographs and a January 13, 2022 engineering document (sheet 1 of 12, human-reviewed), which independently labels these two positions OWL 1 and OWL 2. A formal index tying each field photograph to a mapped camera position has not been completed, and sheets 2-12 of the engineering document (other parks) have not been reviewed. Installation date, installer, contract, retention, and access policy are not established.

Overclaim boundaryAn absence-of-record finding: records requests for AXIS contracts, policies, and installer records are outstanding, and no responsive records have been produced to date.

Overclaim boundaryQuotations come from a transcript not yet checked word-for-word against the meeting audio. Whether the mayor later issued a written clarification is not established.

Overclaim boundaryAn earlier count of 39 "swap pairs" came from a derived spreadsheet and does not reproduce from the raw exports under independent re-analysis; it is not relied on and should not be cited. What the exports do show is structural: whole rows turn over between snapshots in a pattern consistent with a rolling ~30-day export window, which limits public auditability — this is not evidence that any record was altered. The technical cause, and whether it originates in the source system, the export process, or the display layer, are not established. A separately published analysis reaches the same overall pattern by a different method and flags 17 records reappearing non-sequentially across snapshots — something a rolling window alone does not fully explain; its separate per-day mutation-rate figure did not reproduce and is not relied on.

Overclaim boundaryA negative finding: the evidence shows an audit-integrity failure and does not identify any cause, actor, or mechanism — intentional tampering is not asserted. The finding depends on the analysis method being independently reproducible; the underlying retention architecture is not established.

Overclaim boundaryReported for the other cities from their published exports. Independent reproduction from those cities' raw files is pending, and whether each city's export uses the same schema and settings is not established.

Overclaim boundaryRests on a summary of the decision rather than a full quoted analysis. How the decision applies to the specific vendor-held record categories at issue in WDM has not been tested.

Overclaim boundarySome tracked statuses use "Pending" for requests that are planned but not yet filed, so status labels alone cannot support a non-production allegation. Filed dates, statutory deadlines, claimed exemptions, and privilege logs are not established.

Overclaim boundaryThe report has not yet completed the investigation's full source-verification process. It establishes only that the report lists Clearview AI among WDM police technologies — not that Clearview was or is actively used, nor its cost, users, or governing policy.

Overclaim boundaryA negative finding limited to the records obtained to date: no Clearview contract, invoice, policy, or usage log has been produced or located. It does not establish that such records do not exist.

Overclaim boundaryEstablishes that the notifications were received. Exact dates, who authorized the integrations, and the actual scope of access are not established.

Overclaim boundaryThe FAQ is a private property manager's document, not a WDM or JCTC agreement. Whether any WDM/JCTC agreement, master camera agreement, CJIS addendum, or data-custody arrangement exists is not established.

Overclaim boundaryBased on an investigator-created text transcription of selections in the City of West Des Moines Flock Public Transparency Portal, not a city-provided export. It does not establish actual data access, duration, current status, or policy basis.

Overclaim boundaryEstablishes the April 20 statement that Flock would be on the June 5 agenda. The subcommittee's actual June 5 materials and attendance are not documented here.

Overclaim boundaryThe timestamped comparison between the meeting audio and the approved minutes has not been completed. The exact wording at issue, and whether any omission is legally material, are not established.

Overclaim boundaryEstablishes that two Iowa agencies referred the complaint elsewhere without issuing a determination on the merits. It does not establish that the referrals were incorrect, coordinated, or made in bad faith — each may reflect the correct statutory jurisdiction. Whether the Iowa Ombudsman took up Matter #2026-301793, and whether any Iowa body has since reached the merits, are not established.