Surveillance Watch Benicia

← All findings

11 Officers were told to log only a case number — because the public reads the logsnew

The department removed the case-number field and barred explanatory words, citing "groups looking at our public search logs daily."

On 2025-08-29, Deputy Chief Edward Criado emailed all sworn staff, dispatchers and command:

“I have removed the case number field because it seems too confusing for some people. There now will only be the Reason field. You must only enter a Case number or Cad number as a reason. You should not enter any words or explanation, only a case or cad number. If you don’t have that, you don’t search.”

The stated motivation is explicit:

“It is in the news and there are groups looking at our public search logs daily for opportunities to claim we are not following policy and cannot be trusted with this system. I don’t want to see that happen.”

The earlier email in the same thread (2025-07-02) had listed the rejected entries — “stolen plate flock hit,” “374.3 illegal dumping veh,” “Looking for suspect vehicle,” “488 PC” — and conceded: “All of these are connected to a case number or Cad number. These are legitimate searches.”

Why it matters. The “reason” field is what the public transparency portal displays. The change converts that column from human-readable purpose statements into bare internal identifiers that no member of the public can resolve. The department’s own framing ties the change to public scrutiny rather than to investigative need.

Stated fairly: officers were already required to tie searches to a case/CAD number, and descriptive free-text was already deemed non-compliant. What changed on 2025-08-29 is that the separate case-number field was removed and explanatory words were prohibited — so the public record now carries strictly less information than before.

Related, vendor side: on 2025-12-15 Flock announced (“Strengthening Transparency in Every Search”) that a NIBRS-based offense-type dropdown would become required, while “the ‘Search Reason’ field will remain as an optional way to add additional context.”

Evidence: PR-2025-199/text/RE_ALPR FLOCK Search field update EVERYONE read and reply to me that you read this.txt, PR-2026-7/text/Strengthening Transparency in Every Search.txt

The documents behind this

Read them yourself — that is the point.

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.