Date: August 13, 2024

Aurora Police Department
15001 E. Alameda Parkway
Aurora, CO 80012

Attn: Records Department

Subject: Colorado Open Records Act Request – Police Presence, Code Enforcement Coordination, and Media Staging Area at 1568 Nome Street, Aurora, CO on August 13, 2024

Dear Records Custodian,

Under the provisions of the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), C.R.S. § 24-72-201 et seq., and relevant federal transparency laws, I hereby request access to and copies of records held by the Aurora Police Department related to the police presence at the apartment complex located at 1568 Nome Street, Aurora, CO 80010, on Tuesday, August 13, 2024, starting around 7:30 AM.

Records Requested

For the purpose of this request, the records I seek include, but are not limited to:

1. Incident Reports: All reports generated in connection with the police activity at the above location and time.
Legal Basis: Under CORA, public records include any writings made, maintained, or kept by the state or its agencies, including incident reports (C.R.S. § 24-72-202(6)(a)). In People v. Thompson, 181 Colo. 194, 509 P.2d 592 (1973), the court held that such records are presumptively open to the public.
2. Internal Memos, Emails, and Communications: All internal communications, including memos, emails, and other correspondences, related to the planning, execution, or follow-up of the police presence at this location. This specifically includes:
• Communications between the Aurora Police Department and the City of Aurora Code Enforcement Office.
• Communications between the Aurora Police Department and the City Manager’s Office.
• Communications between the Aurora Police Department and the Aurora City Council members.
Legal Basis: Emails and internal memos are public records under CORA (C.R.S. § 24-72-202(6)(a)(I)). The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of transparency in government operations in NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978).
3. Email Metadata: Detailed metadata for all emails related to the above communications, including but not limited to:
• Sender and recipient details.
• Date and time stamps.
• Subject lines.
• Attachments and their descriptions (if applicable).
Legal Basis: Metadata is considered a part of the public record under CORA (C.R.S. § 24-72-202(7)). In O’Neill v. City of Shoreline, 170 Wash. 2d 138 (2010), the court ruled that metadata associated with emails is subject to disclosure as part of the public record.
4. Body-Worn Camera Footage: All body-worn camera footage from officers present at the scene during the specified time.
Legal Basis: Body camera footage is considered a public record under C.R.S. § 24-72-303. Court decisions such as ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012), highlight the public’s interest in transparency and accountability in police actions.
5. Dispatch Audio: Recordings of all 911 calls and dispatch communications related to this incident.
Legal Basis: Dispatch audio is subject to disclosure under C.R.S. § 24-72-202(6)(a)(I). In City of Colorado Springs v. White, 967 P.2d 1042 (Colo. 1998), the Colorado Supreme Court confirmed that such records must be made available unless specifically exempt.
6. Drone Footage: Any drone footage captured during the operation at this location.
Legal Basis: Drone footage falls under the same public record criteria as other visual recordings made by law enforcement (C.R.S. § 24-72-202(6)). The New York Times Co. v. DOJ, 756 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2014), reinforces the need for transparency in government surveillance activities.
7. Documents, Memos, or Communications Regarding the Media Staging Area: Any records related to the designation or use of a staging area for the media during the operation at the above location. This includes directives related to restricting media access or removal of the media from the area.
Legal Basis: Records regarding media staging areas fall under public access under CORA (C.R.S. § 24-72-202(6)). The U.S. Supreme Court in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980), affirmed the public and media’s right to access government proceedings, which extends to law enforcement activities in public spaces.

Request for Segregable Non-Exempt Portions

Should any portion of the requested records be deemed exempt from disclosure, I request the release of any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions in accordance with C.R.S. § 24-72-204(3)(a). In Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the court established the principle that agencies must provide detailed justification for each exemption and release any segregable portions of records.

Preservation of Records

Please note your obligation under the law not to destroy any records potentially responsive to this request. The U.S. Supreme Court in Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980), emphasized that any withholding, redaction, or destruction of responsive records without proper justification constitutes a violation of FOIA and is subject to litigation.

Fee Waiver Request

Enclosed is a letter requesting a fee waiver for the processing of this request. As an independent investigative journalist associated with MuckRock.com, I believe that the information I seek is in the public interest and its disclosure contributes significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii), such information warrants a fee waiver.

If the enclosed waiver is not accepted and there are any potential charges in excess of $200 associated with fulfilling my request, please inform me in advance.

Public Availability of Communications

Please be aware: All communications related to this request, including incoming and outgoing communications, will be publicly available on MuckRock.com. Additionally, any correspondence in relation to this request will be instantly published on the platform.

As stipulated by CORA, I look forward to your response within the statutory time frame of three business days (C.R.S. § 24-72-203(3)(b)).

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter
Independent Investigative Journalist
MuckRock.com

Enclosure: Fee Waiver Request Letter

Subject: Request for Re-Evaluation of Processing Fee and Consideration to Limit Scope for Record Request #24-12435

Dear Aurora Police Department,

I am writing to address the invoice associated with Record Request #24-12435, which currently totals $2,232.61 for 39.6 hours of processing time, minus the first hour.

While I understand the necessity of charging fees to cover the costs associated with processing public records requests, I believe the amount quoted is excessively high. Under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) and the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (CCJRA), the fees imposed must be reasonable and proportionate to the task at hand.

Specifically, C.R.S. § 24-72-205(6)(a) sets a maximum fee of $33.58 per hour for research and retrieval of public records after the first free hour. The fee quoted in your invoice is nearly double this statutory limit, which raises concerns about the reasonableness of the charge.

To facilitate the fulfillment of this request in a manner consistent with the law and accessible to all citizens, I kindly request the following:

1. Re-Evaluation of the Fee: I ask that the processing fee be recalculated in accordance with the statutory limit established by C.R.S. § 24-72-205(6)(a), and that a detailed breakdown of the time and resources justifying the current fee be provided.
2. Consideration to Limit Scope: If the fee remains prohibitive, I am open to limiting the scope of the request to reduce the processing time and associated costs. Please provide guidance on how the request might be narrowed effectively while still fulfilling its primary purpose.

Transparency and fairness in this process are crucial to ensuring that public records are accessible to the public as intended by law. I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter

Subject: Request for Re-Evaluation of Processing Fee and Consideration to Limit Scope for Record Request #24-12435

Dear Aurora Police Department,

I am writing to address the invoice associated with Record Request #24-12435, which currently totals $2,232.61 for 39.6 hours of processing time, minus the first hour.

While I understand the necessity of charging fees to cover the costs associated with processing public records requests, I believe the amount quoted is excessively high. Under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) and the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (CCJRA), the fees imposed must be reasonable and proportionate to the task at hand.

Specifically, C.R.S. § 24-72-205(6)(a) sets a maximum fee of $33.58 per hour for research and retrieval of public records after the first free hour. The fee quoted in your invoice is nearly double this statutory limit, which raises concerns about the reasonableness of the charge.

To facilitate the fulfillment of this request in a manner consistent with the law and accessible to all citizens, I kindly request the following:

1. Re-Evaluation of the Fee: I ask that the processing fee be recalculated in accordance with the statutory limit established by C.R.S. § 24-72-205(6)(a), and that a detailed breakdown of the time and resources justifying the current fee be provided.
2. Consideration to Limit Scope: If the fee remains prohibitive, I am open to limiting the scope of the request to reduce the processing time and associated costs. Please provide guidance on how the request might be narrowed effectively while still fulfilling its primary purpose.

Transparency and fairness in this process are crucial to ensuring that public records are accessible to the public as intended by law. I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter

Subject: Follow-Up: Re-Evaluation Request for Excessive Processing Fee for Record Request #24-12435

Dear Aurora Police Department,

Following my previous correspondence, I’ve further analyzed the processing fee quoted for Record Request #24-12435, which totals $2,232.61.

Under Colorado law (C.R.S. § 24-72-205(6)(a)), the maximum allowable fee is $33.58 per hour after the first free hour. Given that my request involves 39.6 hours, the maximum fee should be approximately $1,328.59. This figure reflects a significant difference from the quoted fee, which is $904.02 higher than what is legally permissible.

To put this in perspective, the fee you’ve quoted is about 68.1% more than the amount allowed by law. Such a disparity raises concerns about the reasonableness of the charge and its alignment with statutory requirements.

I urge you to re-evaluate the fee in accordance with the legal limits and provide a detailed breakdown of how the quoted amount was determined. Additionally, I am open to narrowing the scope of my request if it helps reduce the processing fee to a reasonable level.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter

Subject: Request for Clarification, Fee Reassessment, and Scope Adjustment for Record Request #24-12435

Dear Aurora Police Department,

Thank you for your response regarding the fee assessment under the CCJRA for my record request #24-12435. I appreciate the clarification on the applicable statute, C.R.S. § 24-72-306(1), and the fee schedule set forth by the Aurora City Council.

However, I would like to request further clarification and a detailed breakdown of how the quoted fee of $2,232.61 was calculated. While I understand that the CCJRA allows for the assessment of reasonable fees that do not exceed actual costs, it is important that these costs are transparent and justifiable.

Specifically, I am requesting:

1. A detailed itemization of the costs included in the $2,232.61 fee, including the time and resources required for search, retrieval, and redaction.
2. An explanation of how the fee aligns with the Aurora City Council’s approved fee schedule.
3. Information on whether any portion of the fee can be waived or reduced, as allowed under C.R.S. § 24-72-306(1).

To facilitate this process and help reduce the associated costs, I am also narrowing the scope of my request as follows:

• Limit the request to footage directly related to the interaction between police officers and the individuals involved at 1568 Nome Street on August 13, 2024.
• Exclude any footage from drone cameras unless it specifically captures the primary interaction.
• Limit the time frame of the footage to a two-hour window surrounding the event, instead of the entire day.

I hope these adjustments will help bring the fee within a more reasonable range while still providing the essential information I need.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response and to working together to resolve this issue.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter

The highlighted sections in the attached Excel sheet should assist in locating the relevant footage.

Please inform me of any associated fees before proceeding with the request. If any records are exempt from disclosure, I request a written explanation of the exemption and the relevant statutory basis.

Thank you for your assistance with this request. I look forward to your prompt response.

Best regards,

Jordan Lassiter