Harlingen asked the Texas AG to let it withhold its Flock camera contracts and policies. Here's what records show.
The request was simple. Show the public the contracts.
On Aug. 19, 2026, a citizen filed a request under the Texas Public Information Act asking the City of Harlingen for records about its Flock Safety license plate reader cameras: the contracts, amendments, purchase orders and invoices; the policies and training that govern how police use the cameras; how long the data is kept, who can access it and who it is shared with; and a general list or map of where the cameras are.
Nine days later, the city's outside law firm, Troiani & Sossi, PLLC of Harlingen, asked the Texas Attorney General for permission to withhold all of it.
Not some of it. All four categories. Including the contracts and invoices that show how public money is being spent.
On Nov. 2, the Attorney General's Open Records Division ruled that the city could withhold only the specific portions the office marked. Everything else, the ruling says, must be released.
WHAT THE CITY ASKED FOR
In its Aug. 28 letter to the Attorney General, the firm wrote on the city's behalf that it "withholds" contracts, amendments, purchase orders and invoices under Section 552.108 of the Texas Government Code, the exception that covers law enforcement records.
The city cited the same law enforcement exception for its policies, training materials and records on data retention, user access, audits, information sharing and hotlist criteria, and it added Section 552.139, which protects computer network security information. It also sought to withhold the camera locations.
The letter was filed on time, within the 10 business days the law allows.
The city argued, according to the Attorney General's ruling, that releasing the information "would reveal the techniques and capabilities the department relies on to detect and investigate crime and would allow persons to anticipate and circumvent them."
WHAT THE STATE DECIDED
The Attorney General agreed only in part.
Under the law enforcement exception, the ruling allowed the Harlingen Police Department to withhold specific information the office "marked and indicated." For everything else, the ruling states the department "has not established" that the exception applies.
The city's second law enforcement argument failed entirely. The ruling found the city "failed to demonstrate the applicability" of that exception to the remaining information.
The computer network security argument failed too.
The bottom line, in the ruling's own words: "The department must release the remaining information."
The ruling, OR2026-049689, was signed by Assistant Attorney General Simone L. Nisbett.
Under the Public Information Act, the city must release the information or challenge the ruling in a Travis County district court. According to the Attorney General's office, a governmental body has 30 days after a ruling is issued to take the required action.
That puts the deadline around Dec. 2.
THE FIRST DOCUMENT OUT: A SECOND SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
The first record from the request that The 956 Report has reviewed is Harlingen Police Department Special Order 26-0010, titled "Automated License Plate Readers," effective April 10, 2026. Portions are blacked out.
The request was about Flock. The policy reveals Harlingen's plate reader program is bigger than Flock.
The policy describes two systems. The first is the Flock Safety camera network, a set of stationary cameras that send real-time hotlist alerts. The second is the Law Enforcement Archival and Reporting Network, or LEARN, operated by Vigilant Solutions, described as a hosted platform where "hotlists and ALPR data are uploaded, stored, and accessed." The policy also refers to a mobile ALPR system and to hotlists being downloaded to a mobile computer throughout the day.
Here is the line that stands out:
"The Department's established retention period for LEARN data is five (5) years."
Five years.
For comparison, the same policy says Flock data is kept for 30 days and then automatically purged unless it is tied to an active criminal case.
THE POLICY CONTRADICTS ITSELF
Later in the same document, under a section titled "ALPR DATA," the policy states:
"ALPR capture data shall be purged 30 days after the date of the read unless it is evidence."
So which is it? Five years or 30 days?
The policy does not explain how the two rules fit together. It does not say whether the five-year period applies to every plate the system reads, only to hotlist hits, or only to data tied to cases. A resident reading this policy cannot tell how long Harlingen keeps a record that their car passed a camera.
Five years is a long time by any current standard. The Texas Department of Public Safety, which runs its own statewide plate reader database, has said data from outside law enforcement agencies in its database is kept for no more than one year, according to reporting by FOX 7 Austin. And Flock itself announced this year that it was cutting its default retention period from 30 days to seven, according to KBTX.
"IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS"
The policy says data from both systems, LEARN and Flock, is "uploaded to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) in compliance with state requirements."
It does not say which requirements.
Texas does not have a statewide law that expressly governs license plate readers or how long their data is kept. A September 2026 compilation from the National Conference of State Legislatures found at least 28 states with such laws, and Texas was not one of them, according to Texas Policy Research. DPS runs its plate reader database through a user agreement that participating agencies sign, according to the agreement posted on the DPS website.
That raises a fair question. If no state law requires the uploads, is the "state requirement" a contract Harlingen signed? And if so, what does it say?
It matters because of what has been reported about the DPS network. The Texas Tribune reported in September that searches of DPS's Flock network came from 3,075 agencies, 2,679 of them outside Texas. After the Tribune's questions, DPS said it would limit access to agencies with signed agreements, according to reporting carried by KERA. Nothing in the records reviewed for this story shows whether Harlingen's data was part of that network or was searched by any outside agency.
The Harlingen policy does not say which DPS system receives the city's data, or who can search it once it gets there.
THE TRANSPARENCY PORTAL
The policy makes a promise:
"HPD will work with FLOCK to create a transparency portal for community members seeking more information related to: what is detected; what is not detected; acceptable use policy; prohibited uses; access policy; what is a hotlist; data retention in days; policies; number of owned cameras; vehicles detected in the last 30 days; hotlist hits in the last 30 days; and the number of searches in the last 30 days."
The 956 Report could not locate a Harlingen Police Department page on Flock's public transparency portal site as of publication.
That same information, the number of cameras, the retention policy, the access rules, is a large part of what the city asked the Attorney General for permission to keep secret.
If HPD intended to post camera counts and usage numbers on a public website, why did the city argue those kinds of records should be withheld?
WHAT ELSE THE POLICY SAYS
The policy also states:
Residents and businesses can buy their own plate reader cameras and give Harlingen police access to them, with the Chief of Police's approval. One subsection of that section is fully blacked out.
Outside agencies can be given access to the HPD ALPR system, and each query is to be documented through an "ALPR Sharing and Preservation Request Form."
The system "is and will be audited quarterly" by its administrators.
"Reasonable suspicion or probable cause is required for any criminal investigation before using an ALPR."
Every search must be documented with a case or incident number and a reason.
Those rules generate records. Audit reports. Sharing forms. A list of approved private cameras. Whether those records will be made public is the next question.
A DOCUMENT WITH LOOSE ENDS
The released policy has two sections numbered 615.5 and two numbered 615.6. One subsection refers readers to a "Section IV (A)" that does not appear anywhere in the document. The title reads "Automated License Plate Readers (ALP's)." The signature line for Chief of Police Alfredo Alvear is blank and undated in the copy released.
These may be clerical issues. But this is the document that tells officers what they can and cannot do with a system that records where residents drive.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The ruling covers far more than the policy. Under its terms, the city must release the remaining information it submitted, outside the portions the Attorney General marked. That includes records in the categories the city tried to withhold, such as the Flock contracts, purchase orders and invoices, unless they fall within the marked portions.
As of this writing, the policy is the only record from the request that The 956 Report has reviewed.
SOURCES AND DOCUMENTS
City of Harlingen Public Records Center confirmation, Request No. P035215-081926, Aug. 19, 2026.
Troiani & Sossi, PLLC letter to the Office of the Attorney General, Open Records Division, Aug. 28, 2026.
Texas Attorney General Open Records Letter Ruling OR2026-049689 (ID# 26-048580), Nov. 2, 2026.
Harlingen Police Department Special Order 26-0010, "Automated License Plate Readers," effective April 10, 2026 (redacted release).
Texas Attorney General, "Questions Regarding Open Records Letter Rulings."
Texas Department of Public Safety, License Plate Reader (LPR) User Agreement.
Texas Tribune, Sept. 4, 2026, reporting on DPS's Flock network searches.
FOX 7 Austin, reporting on DPS ALPR retention.
KBTX, Aug. 17, 2026, reporting on Flock's retention change.
Texas Policy Research, "Texas ALPR Policy: State Models and 2027 Options," citing NCSL.
Comments