LOGIS

LOGIS ran its standard 7-control checklist against Minn. Stat. § 13.824 (data collection/classification, destruction, sharing, log of use, biennial audit, access authorization, BCA notification). Every control came back 'no exceptions found,' based on screenshots and interviews rather than direct live-system testing. Retention was set to 30 days.

No exceptions found across all seven itemized statute controls. LOGIS reviewed the ALPR policy, agency-provided ALPR system screen prints (including 60-day retention setting), the most recent public log of use, and interviewed staff, plus checked the Legislative Reference Library for past audits.

No exceptions found across all seven itemized statute controls. LOGIS reviewed the ALPR policy, agency-provided screen prints (60-day retention confirmed), the most recent public log of use, and interviewed staff; also checked the Legislative Reference Library for past audits.

No exceptions found across all seven itemized statute controls. LOGIS reviewed the ALPR policy, agency-provided screen prints (60-day retention confirmed), the most recent public log of use, and interviewed staff; also checked the Legislative Reference Library for past audits.

No exceptions found across seven itemized statute controls. LOGIS used a control-by-control testing table (policy review, ALPR system screen prints, staff interviews), a more structured format than the two dominant firms. LOGIS states it has no direct access to the live system and reviews agency-provided screen prints.

No exceptions found across all seven itemized statute controls. LOGIS reviewed the ALPR policy, agency-provided screen prints (60-day retention confirmed), the most recent public log of use, and interviewed staff; also checked the Legislative Reference Library for past audits.

No exceptions found across all seven itemized statute controls. LOGIS reviewed the ALPR policy, agency-provided screen prints (30-day retention confirmed), the most recent public log of use, and interviewed staff; also checked the Legislative Reference Library for past audits.

Zero exceptions. Seven controls tested, "No exceptions found" against each; the conclusion reads "It demonstrates that the security, public accountability and administration of the RPD ALPR program is in compliance with MN Statute §13.824." Evidence cited is policy documentation (RPD Policy 427), staff interviews, and system screenshots showing the 60-day retention setting and the "Reason for Action" requirement. No recommendations, no observations, no mid-audit corrections, no ghost-finding language.

No exceptions found across all seven itemized statute controls. Identical control-by-control testing table format to the Coon Rapids and St. Paul LOGIS audits: policy review, agency-provided screen prints (60-day retention confirmed), and staff interviews.

LOGIS tested 7 control objectives (data collection, data destruction, sharing among agencies, log of use, biennial audit, authorization to access data, BCA notification) and found 'no exceptions found' in every area.

No findings. All seven control objectives (data collection/classification/use restrictions; destruction of data; sharing among law enforcement agencies; log of use; biennial audit; authorization to access; notification to the BCA) recorded "No exceptions found." LOGIS concluded SPPD is "in compliance with MN Statute 13.824." Public log of use was addressed under Control 4 and provided by SPPD. No ghost-finding language: the report contains no "did not," "was not," "should," or "we recommend" statements and no remediation described.

No exceptions found across all seven itemized statute controls. Standard LOGIS control-by-control testing table: reviewed ALPR Policy 333, agency-provided screen prints from the BOSS and Flock systems (retention shown as 60 days or less), the most recent public logs of use, and staff interviews; also checked the Legislative Reference Library for past audits.

No exceptions found across all seven itemized statute controls (collection/classification/use restrictions, destruction, sharing, log of use, biennial audit, access authorization, BCA notification). LOGIS reviewed Policy Directive 6.07, the City's Information Security Incident Response Plan, agency-supplied screen prints (sample plate reads, Minnesota-only data pulls, requester/case-number search requirements, 60-day retention settings, role-based access controls), the most recent public logs of use, past audits in the Legislative Reference Library and the BCA LPR listing, and interviewed the staff and officers who administer the systems. Concludes EPPD is "in compliance with Minnesota Statute §13.824."

Zero exceptions. Seven control areas tested, "No exceptions found" against each; the report concludes that "the security, public accountability and administration of the RPD ALPR program" is "in compliance with MN Statute §13.824." BOSS ALPR system; 60-day retention evidenced by a system-settings screenshot. No recommendations, no observations, no mid-audit corrections, no ghost-finding language.

No findings. All seven control objectives recorded "No exceptions found"; LOGIS concluded MPD is "in compliance with Minnesota Statute 13.824." Retention evidence was a screen print showing Vigilant and BOSS retention "set to 59 days" -- inside the 60-day statutory cap, so not a finding, but worth noting as the only hard figure in the report. Public log of use was addressed and provided for both systems; the report does not describe what the log contains. No ghost-finding language: no "did not," "was not," "should," or "as a result of this audit" statements and no remediation described.

No exceptions found across all seven itemized statute controls (collection/classification/use restrictions, destruction, sharing, log of use, biennial audit, access authorization, BCA notification). LOGIS reviewed GVPD Policy G.P.1.33, the City's Security Incident Response Plan, agency-supplied screen prints (a sample plate read, a data file limited to Minnesota, BOSS requiring requester and case number for searches, 60-day retention settings, role-based access controls), the most recent public log of use, past audits in the Legislative Reference Library and the BCA's listing of GVPD ALPR devices, and interviewed the staff and officers who administer the system. Concludes LOGIS "found the City of Golden Valley Police Department in compliance with Minnesota Statute §13.824."

LOGIS tested 7 control objectives (data collection, data destruction, sharing among agencies, log of use, biennial audit, authorization to access data, BCA notification) and found 'no exceptions found' in every area.

No findings. LOGIS reviewed nine areas and recorded the department "compliant" in each. No ghost-finding language in the narrative.

Two-page checklist-style audit of Maple Grove PD's legacy Vigilant ALPR deployment — 2 squad-car units, no stationary cameras — finding the department "in compliance with MN Statue [sic] 13.824" across every evaluated area: policy implementation, role-based access controls, 60-day retention, data classification, authorized inter-agency sharing, public reporting without plate numbers, and BCA notification. No findings, exceptions, deficiencies, or recommendations of any kind are recorded, and the narrative contains no language admitting an unrecorded gap. Department staff "demonstrated how they created these reports" from the Vigilant administrative control panel and audit trail rather than the auditor querying the system independently — the same second-hand methodology flagged on the Crystal PD 2019 LOGIS audit — so Tested Live System is left false.