Asheville Under Surveillance

Records Center

15 min read

This site documents what officials said. Public records show what they did. North Carolina’s public records law gives any person (you, no residency requirement, no reason needed) the right to inspect the records below. This page is the queue: every request pre-written, addressed to the right custodian, with what it would prove. When one gets filed or answered, I’ll mark it here.

Two things to know before your first request:

Refusals are evidence. In July 2025 a resident asked for the city’s Flock audit records, the audits officials tout as the safeguard. The city refused. That refusal is now one of the most-cited facts on this site (Their Claims vs The Record). You cannot lose: a released record answers a question, and a refusal proves the safeguard is unauditable.

“You’re wasting tax money” has it backwards. Records requests force the city to reveal the true cost and true behavior of a system sold as cheap and automated. If answering basic questions about the surveillance apparatus is expensive, that is a fact about the apparatus, one the public is entitled to price in.

How to file

A request needs no magic words. State that you are requesting public records under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, describe the records, ask for electronic copies, and ask them to identify any portion they withhold and the specific statutory basis. That last sentence matters most. Your rights, in the statute’s own words: records are “the property of the people” (G.S. 132-1(b)); any person may inspect them, and “no person… shall be required to disclose the purpose or motive for the request” (G.S. 132-6(b)); copies must come “as promptly as possible” at no more than actual reproduction cost (G.S. 132-6.2). One honest caveat: for very large requests, agencies may add a “special service charge” for “extensive” IT or clerical work (G.S. 132-6.2(b)); keep requests specific, and ask for an estimate before they run the meter.

The queue

1. The executed Axon contract: the one that “did not exist yet”

To: City of Asheville. On May 7, 2026, the city manager confirmed the Axon agreement council was about to authorize “does not exist yet.” Council voted May 12 to let her negotiate and sign it. The final signed terms have never been published.

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request electronic copies of: (1) the fully executed master agreement between the City of Asheville and Axon Enterprises authorized by City Council on May 12, 2026, including all exhibits, appendices, statements of work, quotes, and amendments; (2) all purchase orders issued to Axon from January 1, 2023 to present. If any portion is withheld, please identify it and cite the specific statutory exemption.

What it proves: whether the signed terms match the public promises: retention, data ownership, ACEIP, termination, renewal pricing. (What Axon Contracts Do). Status: not yet filed

2. The ACEIP election: one checkbox, one yes-or-no

To: City of Asheville. Axon’s standard contract enrolls every customer by default in its Customer Experience Improvement Program (city data used for vendor product development) unless the agency affirmatively revokes.

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request records sufficient to show the City’s participation status in the Axon Customer Experience Improvement Program (ACEIP), including: whether the City has revoked ACEIP Tier 1 participation; whether the City has elected ACEIP Tier 2; and all correspondence between the City/APD and Axon referencing ACEIP.

What it proves: whether Asheville’s footage and data are, right now, vendor training material by default. If nobody can answer, default terms govern, and the default is enrolled. Status: not yet filed

3. The quarterly audits they cite but won’t show

To: City of Asheville. APD says quarterly audits are the safeguard (“100% of the time, we have reasons”). When a resident asked for Flock audit records in July 2025, the city refused on September 9, 2025, citing G.S. 20-183.31(b) and the criminal-investigation exemption (G.S. 132-1.4). Here’s what those exemptions don’t reach, and the statute that cuts the other way. G.S. 20-183.31(a)(7) requires every ALPR agency’s written policy to provide for “annual or more frequent auditing and reporting of automatic license plate reader system use and effectiveness to the head of the agency.” The reports are required to exist by state law. And the confidentiality provision (G.S. 20-183.32(e)) covers captured plate data (the scans themselves), not program-level reports about use and effectiveness.

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request electronic copies of all completed audit reports, summaries, or memoranda concerning APD’s use of automatic license plate readers, the Fusus/Axon platform, or the Real-Time Intelligence Center, from January 1, 2024 to present, including the audits and reporting required by the written policy mandated under G.S. 20-183.31(a)(7), and the first-quarter 2026 LPR audit Chief Stepp described to the Policy, Finance and Infrastructure Committee on April 28, 2026. I am not requesting captured plate data as defined in G.S. 20-183.30, nor records of any specific investigation; I am requesting the program-level audit and effectiveness reports themselves, with any investigation-specific details redacted rather than the reports withheld. If any portion is withheld, please cite the specific statutory exemption and explain why redaction is insufficient.

What it proves: either the statutorily required audit reports exist and say something, or the accountability mechanism officials cite in public cannot survive a records request. Both outcomes are publishable. (Promise Tracker). Status: predecessor refused Sept 9, 2025; this re-scoped version not yet filed

4. Roney’s 29 questions, and every answer

To: City of Asheville. In March 2025, Councilmember Roney submitted 29 written questions about the RTIC to staff. The public has never seen the answers, or learned whether answers exist.

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request: (1) the list of written questions concerning real-time intelligence technology submitted by Councilmember Kim Roney to city staff in March 2025; (2) all written responses, drafts of responses, or internal correspondence discussing responses to those questions.

What it proves: whether council’s most basic due-diligence questions were ever answered before three separate votes. Status: not yet filed

To: City of Asheville. On April 28, 2026, after Roney read the Flock contract’s “irrevocable, worldwide license” clause aloud, City Attorney Branham promised, on the record, “a specific legal opinion to you on that particular provision.” (2026-04-28 Work Session)

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request records sufficient to show whether the legal opinion regarding the data-license provision of the City’s Flock Safety agreement, described by the City Attorney at the April 28, 2026 Policy, Finance and Infrastructure Committee meeting, was completed and delivered to City Council, and the date of delivery. If the opinion itself is withheld as privileged, I request confirmation of its existence and delivery date, which are not privileged facts.

What it proves: the opinion may be privileged; whether it was ever written is not. If council voted without it, that’s the story. Status: not yet filed

6. The support letters read into the record

To: City of Asheville. The May 12 agenda packet referenced support letters from officials (including names reported as Williams, Ferguson, and Jackson). The full texts (and who solicited them) matter.

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request electronic copies of all letters or written statements of support or opposition concerning the Real-Time Intelligence Center received by the City or included in the May 12, 2026 council agenda materials, and all correspondence in which city or APD staff requested, solicited, or coordinated such letters.

What it proves: whether the “community support” in the packet was organic or staff-assembled. (The Flockbook documents the vendor playbook for exactly this.) Status: not yet filed

7. The facial-recognition denial: testable

To: City of Asheville. On April 28, 2026, APD stated: “We’ve never had a contract with Clearview… we do not use facial recognition.” On the record, categorical, and checkable.

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request: (1) any contracts, trial agreements, free-trial account records, invoices, or correspondence between APD (or any APD employee using a city email address) and Clearview AI, PimEyes, Rekor, Verkada, or any vendor of face-recognition services, from 2019 to present; (2) records of any APD access to face-recognition capabilities through the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office, the SBI, or any regional task force.

What it proves: the denial, or the end of it. Other cities’ “we don’t use it” claims have died on exactly this request: officers used free trials the chief didn’t know about. (The Abuse Record). Status: not yet filed

8. HACA: which cameras, and did anyone ask the residents?

To: Housing Authority of the City of Asheville. Roughly 500 cameras in “housing communities and businesses” feed the county network. No property list or resident-consent process has ever been published.

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request: (1) records sufficient to identify which Housing Authority properties have cameras connected or made accessible to the Fusus/Connect Asheville-Buncombe platform, the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office, or APD, and the number of cameras per property; (2) any agreements or MOUs governing that access; (3) any notices provided to residents concerning camera access by law enforcement, and any records of a resident consent or comment process; (4) board minutes reflecting approval of law-enforcement camera access.

What it proves: whether the people most surveilled by this system were ever told, much less asked. Status: not yet filed

9. The schools MOU nobody voted on

To: Buncombe County Schools. ~1,500 cameras across 43+ schools joined the Sheriff’s Fusus network via a late-2021 MOU. I can find no board vote, no MOU text, no parent notification. (Buncombe County)

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request: (1) the memorandum of understanding (and any amendments) between Buncombe County Schools and the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office concerning camera access via the Fusus platform, executed on or about 2021; (2) board agenda items, minutes, or votes referencing it; (3) any notification provided to parents or guardians concerning law-enforcement access to school cameras; (4) current policy governing when and how deputies may access school camera feeds.

What it proves: whether children’s school cameras entered a police network with any governance at all, and it’s timely: three school-board seats are on the November ballot. (Election 2026). Status: not yet filed

10. The Fusus enterprise fund: surveillance as revenue

To: Buncombe County. Camera owners pay the county $60/camera/year to join Fusus. That’s an enterprise: revenue, expenses, contracts.

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request: (1) financial records showing annual revenue collected from Fusus/Connect Asheville-Buncombe camera-integration fees since 2021, and the fund or account receiving it; (2) the County’s contracts with Fusus Inc. and/or Axon for the platform, including current pricing; (3) records sufficient to show the total number of integrated cameras by category (government, school, business, residential, housing authority) by year.

What it proves: the size, growth, and financial logic of the regional network Asheville plugged into. (Follow the Money). Status: not yet filed

11. The December 2022 MOU: where it all started

To: City of Asheville and Buncombe County. Chief Stepp: APD has had Fusus access “since 2022” under an MOU signed before any council vote.

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request the memorandum of understanding between APD and the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office concerning access to the Fusus platform executed in or around December 2022, all amendments, and any records reflecting City Council or county commission review of it.

What it proves: the original no-vote foundation of everything since. Status: not yet filed

12. The statewide layer

To: NC State Bureau of Investigation (confirm custodianship first: if the SBI redirects, ask which agency operates the statewide program and refile there; the redirect itself is worth documenting). The 2025 state budget made the state’s Flock program permanent on state roads, including the highways feeding Asheville.

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request: (1) the SBI’s current contract(s) with Flock Safety; (2) records sufficient to show the locations or number of SBI-operated ALPR cameras in Buncombe, Henderson, Haywood, Madison, and Transylvania counties; (3) the SBI’s data-sharing and retention policies for the program.

What it proves: the state-operated mesh around the city, the layer no local vote can touch, which is exactly why voters should see it. (Who Gets Watched). Status: not yet filed

13. The unrecorded meeting and the resolution that vanished

To: City of Asheville. The Public Safety Committee meeting that advanced the RTIC grant (March 26, 2026) is the only 2025–26 committee meeting with no published recording. And in November 2025, callers referenced a protective resolution (addressing ICE and surveillance) that was drafted and then tabled without ever reaching a council agenda.

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request: (1) the approved minutes, any staff notes, agenda materials, and any audio or video recording of the March 26, 2026 Public Safety Committee meeting, and records sufficient to show whether the meeting was streamed or recorded and, if a recording existed, its disposition; (2) all drafts of, and correspondence concerning, the resolution addressing surveillance technology and federal immigration enforcement referenced during public comment at the November 20, 2025 Public Safety Committee meeting, including records showing who requested it be drafted and the decision not to place it on an agenda.

What it proves: why the one meeting that formally advanced the RTIC is the one gap in the archive, and who killed the protective resolution the public was told to wait for. Status: not yet filed

14. Who called whom: the origin of the earmark

To: City of Asheville. The record disagrees on how the $1.14M started. CAMS and BPR report the earmark came at APD’s request; Mountain Xpress, citing a city report, says Chuck Edwards’ office contacted APD in April 2024 about potential funding. Edwards signed the request letter May 22, 2024, while council knew nothing.

Under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request: (1) all correspondence between the City of Asheville (including APD) and the office of Rep. Chuck Edwards between January 1, 2024 and June 30, 2024 concerning Community Project Funding, a Real-Time Intelligence Center, or federal appropriations for police technology; (2) the city report or memorandum referenced in May 2026 press coverage describing an April 2024 contact between Rep. Edwards’ office and APD regarding this funding; (3) records sufficient to show which city officials were aware of the funding request before May 22, 2024.

What it proves: who initiated the money that council was later told it would be wasteful to refuse, and exactly which officials knew, and when, while the elected body did not. (Chuck Edwards). Status: not yet filed

When they say no

Expect these, and know what each refusal means:

  • “Criminal investigation records” (G.S. 132-1.4(a)). Legitimate for specific case files and criminal-intelligence records, not for program-level audit reports, contracts, financial records, or policy documents. When it’s stretched over those, the overreach itself is worth publishing. Ask them to redact rather than withhold, in writing.
  • “Captured plate data is confidential” (G.S. 20-183.32(e)). True: the scans themselves are not public records. But the same Article requires audit-and-effectiveness reporting (G.S. 20-183.31(a)(7)) and written policies and calibration records (20-183.31(a), (c)), none of which are captured plate data. An agency citing Article 3D to withhold the documents Article 3D requires it to create has made your argument for you.
  • “Law enforcement recordings” (G.S. 132-1.4A). Camera footage genuinely requires a court order in NC, which is why nothing in the queue above asks for footage. City Attorney Branham himself described this wall at the March 2025 briefing: “it actually takes an act of the court.” Remember that the next time transparency is promised: the law he cited as a safeguard is also the reason you can never check.
  • Attorney-client privilege. Real, but it covers advice, not the fact that advice exists, was delivered, or wasn’t.
  • Silence. NC law requires production “as promptly as possible” but sets no deadline; agencies sometimes simply don’t respond. A polite follow-up citing the statute, then a copy to a reporter, works better than anger. The NC Open Government Coalition’s Sunshine Center offers free help, and Sunshine Request files and publishes requests for WNC residents.

Every response (and every non-response) feeds back into this site: the Promise Tracker, Documents, and the pages above. File one, tell me, and I’ll track it here.

Related: Documents · Get Involved · Promise Tracker · Their Claims vs The Record · Speak at Council

Graph View

Backlinks