Document Library

Roster of 657 listed entries published by LexisNexis Risk Solutions under the page title "Public Safety Data Exchange List of Member Agencies." Captured from solutions.risk.lexisnexis.com/PublicSafetyDataExchange-TY, an Eloqua landing page reached after a form submission. Found via Google search for "Salt Lake City" + "LexisNexis". Live page content verified on 2026-08-27. Composition: 657 rows, 656 unique strings, roughly 630 to 654 distinct agencies across 45 jurisdictions including one Canadian (London, Ontario). Largest state counts are CA 125, TX 60, MN 42, FL 37, OH 36, WA 25, NC 23, and VA, NY and MD at 21 each. Archiving note: no Wayback capture exists and the save endpoint could not be reached from the research environment. The page sits behind a form gate and needs manual preservation.

Estes Park's own records-request response describing its CRISP participation: the Town does not own, administer, or control the CRISP system and cannot produce records the system does not make accessible to it as a member agency. The response explicitly flags potential sharing of CRISP-held records with third-party platforms outside the Town's custody or control.

Companion spreadsheet to the crime classification table, titled "Data Classification CFS Results", generated 8/5/2026. Four columns: CFS Type, CFS/CAD Classification, Viewable By, Created/Updated. 61 call-for-service types, every one of them classified "All Other" and set to "Law Enforcement Only". No CFS type is public and none is excluded. All 61 rows are dated 7–9 August 2017. The existence of this table is the point: it confirms that Apple Valley's LexisNexis feed carries computer-aided dispatch data — calls for service — and not only records-management crime data. The 61 call types include: child protection, criminal sexual conduct, crisis mental health, domestic/disputes in progress, domestic/disputes rpt, missing person/runaway, medical, medical/priority, welfare check, juvenile complaint, harassment, threats/stalking, and OFP/DANCO violation (Minnesota's orders for protection and domestic abuse no-contact orders).

Spreadsheet titled "Data Classification Crime Results", generated 8/5/2026, listing every one of the 2,849 offence codes in Apple Valley PD's records system and how each is handled in the LexisNexis feed. Eight columns: Crime, Event Classification, NIBRS Category, Viewable By, Random Offset, Created/Updated, Crimes Against, Group Offenses. "Viewable By" is the routing switch and carries three values. 1,785 offence codes are set to "Public and Law Enforcement", 670 to "Law Enforcement Only", and 394 to "Do Not Import". "Random Offset" is a location-fuzzing control, set to "No Offset" on 2,823 codes and "500 Foot Offset / Random Offset" on 26. Every one of the 26 is a sexual offence or a stalking offence. The Created/Updated column spans 19 April 2013 to 3 August 2026. 2,630 of the 2,849 rows carry a date earlier than the November 2023 addendum signing. This is the closest thing in the database to the field-mapping document the project has been requesting by FOIA — not a field-level schema, but the agency-side configuration that decides which categories of incident enter the LexisNexis platform and who sees them once there.

Screenshot of the "LE Data Coverage" page inside the LexisNexis Accurint Virtual Crime Center, showing Elk Grove PD's contribution status and volumes. Released in Elk Grove PD records request PD-2026-109 (downloaded 2026-09-10). PLATFORM-SIDE CONFIRMATION OF CONTRIBUTION. The page states "Contributes to Community Crime Map: Yes" and "Contributes to AVCC: Yes" for Elk Grove Police Department. EVENTS (RMS): 118,042 records uploaded. Contributed date range Jan 19, 1977 to Jul 11, 2026. Last upload Jul 12, 2026. Types Not Submitted by Agency: Attempted Homicide. CFS/CAD: 1,137,147 records uploaded. Contributed date range Jan 01, 2013 to Jul 12, 2026. Last upload Jul 12, 2026. Types Not Submitted by Agency: Accident - Fatality, Burglary of Vehicle, Fraud/Forgery, Harassment, Noise Complaint, Parking Complaint, Recovered Property. Combined total 1,255,189 records against a served population of 176,019 (approx. 7.1 records per resident). Left nav confirms AVCC module list: TraX (Device Geolocation and Analytics), Past Announcements, Archive Announcements, Snapshot Manager/Downloads, LE Person Alerts Manager, Data Download Manager, Project Manager, Report Manager, Tag Manager, LE Data Coverage, Contact Us. STRUCTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: "LE Data Coverage" is standing AVCC interface, not a bespoke report. A per-agency coverage page therefore exists for every AVCC subscriber, disclosing contribution status, record volumes, date ranges and excluded categories. This is a repeatable FOIA route that does not require prying loose the AVCC XML Addendum.

The Maplewood Police Department answered the May 11, 2026 Data Practices Act request on June 1, 2026, six days after LexisNexis advised the department that documents in the company's possession were not producible and that its intellectual property should be redacted from anything the department did hold. Maplewood stated it has no responsive records in any of the three categories requested. It does not possess an interface control document or technical implementation guide covering export of CAD or RMS data to LexisNexis. It does not possess data translation guides, field-mapping tables or schemas. It does not possess records identifying which categories of information are included in any automated transfer to LexisNexis platforms. The department noted that it contracts with the Ramsey County Emergency Communications Center for CAD and has no access to CAD-export documentation, and suggested responsive records may sit with Ramsey County ECC, LexisNexis, or another third-party vendor. Signed by Administrative Lieutenant Michael J. Dugas, who was copied on the May 19 email forwarding this request to LexisNexis.

Email from Brian Burson, Central Regional Account Manager for State and Local Government / Public Safety at LexisNexis Risk Solutions, to Lt. Michael Hoemke of the Maplewood Police Department, concerning how Maplewood should handle a records request touching LexisNexis material. Burson is the same account manager named on Maplewood's 2025 AVCC Schedule A and on the April 2026 invoice. Burson makes three assertions. First, that LexisNexis cannot advise a customer on how to comply with its own legal obligations. Second, that documents held by LexisNexis rather than by the agency are "not producible by LexisNexis since LexisNexis would not be covered under the standard public records request." Third, that where the agency holds documents LexisNexis drafted or that contain LexisNexis intellectual property, the company would want confidential material redacted, and that "would need to be determined by LexisNexis technical." The second and third assertions sit uneasily with Minnesota law. Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.05, subd. 11 subjects a private contractor performing a government function to chapter 13 as if it were a government entity, and subd. 11(b) allows public data requests to go to the contractor precisely when the data are not available from the agency. Separately, the determination of whether data qualify as trade secret information under Sec. 13.37 belongs to the government entity, not to the vendor asserting the claim. Detailed analysis is in Analyst Notes. The document's significance is not the legal argument itself but that it exists. It records a surveillance vendor communicating with a police department about the scope of that department's response to a public records request concerning the vendor. No date is visible on the email as supplied.

LexisNexis Risk Solutions invoice to the Maplewood Police Department covering April 2026. Two line items, both for service period 2026/04/01 to 2026/04/30: AVCC Annual Subscription Fee $525.00 and Accurint TraX Annual Subscription Fee $175.00. Net total $700.00, no tax. Annualizes to $8,400. The invoice matters less for the amount than for what it proves about the contract. Maplewood's signed Schedule A prices AVCC at $6,000/yr (Sec 2.1) and Accurint TraX at $2,000/yr (Sec 2.6), each 'to be invoiced in equal monthly installments,' and Sec 2.7 increases every fee in the agreement by 5.00% at the end of each Year. Applying that increase once yields $6,300 and $2,100, which is $525 and $175 per month. The invoice matches the escalator exactly, confirming both that the fees compound and that the Schedule A auto-renewed into a second term on 1/1/2026 with no new signature. Because Maplewood is a council-manager city whose City Manager signed the agreement under his own authority, the escalating cost never returns to a public vote. Invoice metadata: Invoice No. 1100300284; invoice date 4/30/2026; payment due 5/30/2026; Account No. 6712463 (matches Billgroup ACC-6712463 on the Schedule A); LN Representative Brian Burson (matches the Schedule A Account Manager); Billing Contact Gina Kuchenmeister; Sold-to Contact Michael Hoemke. Remit-to: LexisNexis Risk Data Management LLC, 28330 Network Place, Chicago, IL 60673-1283.

Customized Schedule A (Free Trial) for Accurint TraX, between LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. and "CITY OF ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT CALIFORNIA". Released in Elk Grove PD records request PD-2026-109. TERMS: 60-day free trial from account activation. All charges waived. Premium feature included: VIPER. Offer valid only if signed and received by LN on or before April 6, 2026. Billgroup #: ACC-1299031. LN Account Manager: Mark Staniak (not previously in the LN People table). Signed for LN by Haywood Talcove, CEO (LNSSI), 04/03/2026. Signed for Elk Grove by Bobby Davis, Chief of Police; also City Attorney Jonathan P. Hobbs and City Clerk Jason Lindgren. Signature timestamps run 4/3/2026 to 4/6/2026, closing on the final day of the offer window. WHAT THE PRODUCT IS: Accurint TraX is device geolocation and call detail record analysis. The AVCC left nav in the same production labels it "TraX (Device Geolocation and Analytics)". LexisNexis markets the VIPER feature as a "Virtual Pen Register Solution for ALL Law Enforcement Agencies" delivering intercepts in real time (vendor marketing, cited for product description only, not as evidence of use). PROCUREMENT SIGNIFICANCE: a $0 instrument generally falls below thresholds that trigger a council vote, so a real-time intercept capability entered the department without a public appropriation decision.

Email chain dated January 7, 2026, released by the Duluth Police Department. Alyssa Baumann, Duluth PD's senior crime and intelligence analyst, asked LexisNexis for a summary of services ahead of a city council presentation on the department's Accurint Virtual Crime Center and TraX subscriptions. Jeremy Bringle, a LexisNexis Risk Solutions strategic account manager, replied within minutes with marketing copy and four attachments, among them a Word document headed 'Minnesota Agencies Contributing Data to AVCC' listing 72 Minnesota law enforcement agencies by name. The bundle also contains the AVCC product brochure and the Accurint TraX brochure. Bringle's covering line describes the roster as the agencies whose data Duluth can see through AVCC, while the attachment itself is headed as a list of contributors. The 72 named agencies span the Twin Cities metro, central Minnesota, and two outliers in St. Louis County. Duluth PD, the recipient, is not on the list, and is separately documented as having signed the non-contributory variant of the AVCC XML Addendum.

Federal criminal complaint and supporting ICE affidavit charging Andres Jimenez-Santiago with illegal reentry (8 USC 1326) in the Southern District of Illinois. Document 1, page 2 of 3. The affidavit is a rare first-person description of the LexisNexis-to-ICE pathway written by the officer who used it. The ERO deportation officer states that on September 17, 2024 he learned of the subject's presence by searching St. Clair County, Illinois jail bookings on LexisNexis, and identifies those bookings as part of the Accurint Virtual Crime Center database used by ERO officers. The subject had been arrested by the Belleville, Illinois police department on September 16, 2024 for DUI and aggravated battery to a police officer. The officer then matched the county booking photos to federal booking photos taken before the subject's April 1, 2019 removal to Mexico at Laredo, Texas. Significance for the project: this is a sworn federal statement that a specific Illinois county's jail bookings are inside AVCC and are queried by ICE ERO, in a state whose TRUST Act bars local agencies from sharing custody information with federal immigration authorities absent a criminal warrant. No warrant is described. It documents the sanctuary bypass mechanism from the federal side rather than from a contract or FOIA return. What the document does NOT establish: how St. Clair County booking data reaches LexisNexis. It is silent on whether the county contributes directly under an AVCC XML Addendum, whether the data arrives via Appriss Insights / Justice Intelligence aggregation, or whether it is harvested from the public roster.

LexisNexis Risk Solutions Technical Setup Requirements for Accurint Crime Analysis, the Accurint Virtual Crime Center, and Lumen (Client version, dated 08-2022). The document is the engineering playbook behind PSDEX contribution. It instructs the agency to stand up a computing environment inside its own network where LexisNexis builds a custom interface named the PSDex Data Client. That client runs an automated ETL process that extracts read-only data from the agency Records Management System and Computer-Aided Dispatch, reformats it, and uploads it to LexisNexis servers over SFTP. The setup runs on a daily schedule, with a service account whose password is set never to expire so the job does not break, and LexisNexis is given VPN access into the agency network to build and maintain it. Two details stand out. First, the document states a data preference: limited copies and filtered views are not preferred, and raw access to the unfiltered RMS is preferred. The default configuration pulls the whole records system rather than a curated subset. Second, the document publishes the exact network destinations an agency firewall must allow, including PSTRANSFER, PSIMPORTER, and API.PSDEX at lexisnexisrisk.com, plus communitycrimemap.com and the Lumen environment in AWS GovCloud. Those endpoints are a fingerprint: a network that talks to them is running the contribution pipeline. This is a generic vendor document rather than an agency-specific contract, so it does not by itself establish that any particular department contributes. What it establishes is the mechanism. It is the technical counterpart to the AVCC XML Addendum: the addendum is the legal permission to contribute, and this is the plumbing that carries the data out. It also confirms that Community Crime Map is fed by the same Data Client, which supports treating CCM presence as a contribution indicator.

Expert report submitted by Nelson Luis of Eisner Advisory Group LLC (EisnerAmper), a private forensic accountant retained by a civil judgment creditor, Casa Express Corp, in a proceeding against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Case 1:21-mc-23103-BB, S.D. Fla.). The report documents a methodological asset search using LexisNexis Accurint for Law Enforcement as a primary database to identify Florida real estate holdings of seven OFAC-designated entities linked to Venezuelan businessman Raul Gorrin Belisario. Luis has no apparent law enforcement background — his credentials are forensic accounting and fraud examination. The use of Accurint for Law Enforcement here is entirely civil and commercial in nature.

2 pp, the account-opening application preceding the Master Terms. Signed by Chief Cleveland L. Spruill, Sr., 2019-08-05. Agency type ticked Local/Municipal Law Enforcement. Product Administrator and billing contact: Capt. Keith Kelley, keith.kelley@accgov.com. Records the agency's external IP and a B2B vendor reference. The administrator's home address and date of birth were withheld on the form with the notation that they would be provided verbally.

Guidance issued October 1, 2018 by the California Department of Justice, California Justice Information Services Division, under Attorney General Xavier Becerra, addressed to all chiefs of police, sheriffs and executives of California law enforcement agencies. The bulletin exists because Government Code section 7284.8(b), added by SB 54, required the Attorney General to publish by October 1, 2018 guidance, audit criteria and training recommendations aimed at ensuring that databases operated by state and local law enforcement agencies, including databases maintained for the agency by private vendors, are governed so as to limit the availability of information for immigration enforcement purposes. It sets out six database governance recommendations, one training recommendation and two audit criteria. Two of the six are directly relevant to any agency signing a LexisNexis AVCC contribution addendum: recommendation 4 on vendor contracts, and recommendation 5 on victim and witness data and retention periods.

7 pp agreement plus 3 pp Order No. 1 for the LexisNexis Desk Officer Reporting System. PARTIALLY EXECUTED: signed for LexisNexis by William S. Madison, CEO Insurance Solutions, 2017-10-03; the agency signature block is BLANK in this copy and the Order Effective Date is blank. Purchase orders 49169 and 24101573 prove the service was nonetheless live and paid, roughly 2017 through June 2023 at $1,562.50/month. Provider is LexisNexis CLAIMS Solutions Inc. (Coplogic branding), a different corporate entity from LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc., which holds the AVCC contract. Four clauses matter. Sec 8.5 requires the agency to notify LexisNexis before releasing records under the Georgia Open Records Act and gives the company ten days to obtain an exemption or protective order. Sec 8.9 has the agency agree to serve as a LexisNexis marketing reference including a published success story. Sec 3 requires LexisNexis to retain each report at least seven years and to distribute reports to Authorized Requestors and other agencies. Sec 6.3 says LexisNexis has no obligation to delete on termination and may keep distributing. Order No. 1 Sec 3.2 required the agency to give LexisNexis VPN access to its exporter and RMS applications and to hand over its database schema. Sec 7.4 bars the agency from sending SSNs.