The City of Idaho Falls has denied a public records request seeking details about its contract with surveillance camera provider Flock Safety, asserting that the inquiry constitutes an improper discovery attempt tied to potential legal action.
Brian McKellar submitted his formal public records request to the city on July 13th, asking for all contracts and agreements between the Idaho Falls Police Department and Flock Safety. The city issued its denial on July 20th, just seven days later.
In the denial letter, city officials explained their reasoning by pointing to McKellar’s public comments at a July 9th City Council meeting regarding the camera system. The city stated the request “appears to be a discovery request related to potential litigation as indicated by you during the City Council meeting held on July 9, 2026.”
Legal Shield Argument
The city relied on Idaho Code 74-115(3) to justify the refusal, invoking a provision within the Idaho Public Records Act that prohibits using the statute as a tool for litigation discovery. Rather than providing the documents, city officials instructed McKellar to pursue the information through the court system if he intends to proceed with legal claims.
McKellar subsequently disputed the denial through social media, pushing back against what he characterized as an overly restrictive interpretation of his request. He clarified that while he has filed a tort claim against the city, he has not yet initiated a formal lawsuit—a distinction he argued should matter in evaluating whether his records request qualifies as improper discovery.
When contacted by local media, city officials confirmed the authenticity of the denial letter, underscoring their position that the records fall outside the scope of public disclosure under state law.
Broader Questions on Camera Program
The dispute centers on one of the more contentious issues facing Bonneville County communities in recent months. Flock Safety cameras, which use automatic license plate recognition technology, have drawn both support from law enforcement and scrutiny from privacy advocates who question their deployment and oversight.
Transparency regarding the terms, costs, and operational parameters of such surveillance contracts typically remains a point of public interest, particularly when funded through municipal budgets or police department resources. The specific nature of Idaho Falls’ arrangement with Flock Safety—including any limitations on data use, retention policies, or oversight mechanisms—has not been publicly disclosed.
McKellar’s attempt to obtain this information through the standard public records process reflects a broader trend across Idaho and the nation, where citizens increasingly seek clarity on government surveillance expenditures and agreements. The city’s decision to block the request on litigation-related grounds suggests officials anticipate potential legal challenges to the camera program itself.
What Comes Next
McKellar’s options now include appealing the denial to the city, seeking intervention from the Idaho Attorney General’s office, or pursuing discovery through formal court proceedings if his tort claim moves forward. The outcome of this dispute could set a precedent for how Idaho Falls handles similar records requests in contested policy areas.
The incident also raises questions about whether the city’s interpretation of Idaho Code 74-115(3) aligns with the statute’s intent—a matter that could ultimately require judicial clarification if McKellar chooses to challenge the denial formally. State law generally favors public access to government records unless specific exemptions clearly apply, and litigation-related restrictions typically require demonstrable connections to active court proceedings.
For now, the details of the Idaho Falls Police Department’s Flock Safety contract remain shielded from public view, pending either a change in the city’s position or a legal determination on the proper scope of Idaho’s public records law.