Searches for race-bias messages (Los Angeles Police Department)
| Tracking # |
19-2749 |
| Multi Request | Searches for race-bias messages |
| Submitted | March 27, 2019 |
| Est. Completion | None |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: Brandon Smith
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I hereby request the following records:
1. Documents that show what kind of a database your agency's email is stored in (such as Microsoft Access; Oracle; Microsoft Sharepoint; SQL; or Microsoft Exchange).
2a. Documents sufficient to show any FOIA management software or email search software (not including the client one uses to read and reply to email) in use by your agency. These documents could include purchase orders, contracts for use of a service, or—if and only if neither of those are available—some departmental communication portraying the name of the system.
2b. Any vendor-provided manuals or instructions or software documentation for software used by the agency to search emails
2c. Complete copies of any rules, guidelines, instructions, or best practices in use by your agency for searching emails and texts in response to FOIA requests
3. Documents that show all of, and represent the entirety of each of, your agency’s contracts with cell/mobile service providers (sometimes called carriers). Also we request any documents that describe a deletion schedule for text messages sent to/from the devices on your agency's provider contract. For this purpose, "deletion schedule" means a number of days before messages are regularly deleted from the carrier's data repositories. Such a schedule would also specify whether that date is a rolling daily deletion after that many days, or rather periodical, where the number of days represents the period.
4a. Keyword searches of all SMS ("text") records sent to and received by all sworn officers on agency-issued mobile devices
4b. Keyword searches of all emails sent to and received by sworn officers on agency email accounts.
- For the keywords on 4a and 4b, please refer to the list at the bottom of this request. Date range is four months prior to the date of the request until the date of the request. Please provide the requesters evidence that your search was agnostic toward capital and lowercase letters throughout each searched character string.
- For each returned *email or SMS* result, please include the following metadata: unique sender identification; unique recipient identification; date and time of transmission; and document(s) sufficient to show the full name of the officer associated with the unique identifier. (An example of unique sender/recipient identification would be an email address or a phone number, depending on the type of record.)
5a. Documents that show what, if any, text-based messaging clients or platforms (you might call them software-based “systems” for messaging, or “instant messaging”) are available for use on computers in your patrol cars. Also we request documents that show what public body maintains or is responsible for each of those clients/platforms. For instance, sometimes a messaging system is maintained and offered by a state agency like highway patrol; other systems are built or contracted-for locally, by your jurisdiction itself. We request the above-described documents on any and all messaging systems deployed on a computer in a police vehicle in your jurisdiction.
If your jurisdiction maintains/provides its own software on in-car computers for "instant messaging”—and therefore is the keeper of records associated with the system, including historic message logs—I request:
5b. Documents sufficient to show what kind of a database that messages crossing the in-car messaging system are stored in. (Examples might be Microsoft Access; Oracle; SQL or similar). The file extension of the message logs will suffice.
5d. Keyword searches of databases containing messages sent and received over the in-car computers' instant messaging system. For the keywords that requester(s) would like searched, please refer to the list at the bottom of this request. Date range is four months prior to the date of the request until the date of the request. Please provide the requesters evidence that your search was agnostic toward capital and lowercase letters throughout each searched character string.
- For each returned *in-car IM* result, please include the following metadata: unique sender identification; unique recipient identification; date and time of transmission; and document(s) sufficient to show the full name of the officer associated with the unique identification. An example of unique sender/recipient identification would, in the case of a car-to-car instant message, be some kind of username corresponding to an officer, or, if and only if an officer identifier is not extant, an identifier for a particular computer or patrol car.
6. Documents that provide evidence of any search your jurisdiction that either the department itself or the public body of which it’s a part has undertaken, in the five years prior to the date of this request, for racist, race-biased, or white supremacist terminology. This would include any searches undertaken of text messages, emails, or instant messages, for example, those IMs to and from in-car computers. It need not include an internal investigation of any single officer. Rather, we seek documents that show a search of communications to/from groups of officers, ranging up to the entire department. We seek documents that show the date of the search; the rationale or reason for the search; the search terms used; the name of the public official who requested the search; the total number of officers whose communications were searched (and if a subset of a department, the reason for choosing that subset); the type of communications searched; and any summary of the result(s) of any search. If no document exists that can be construed as a summary of search results, we request the full results of any search.
Please take under advisement:
Communications that contain these terms, if in use by a law enforcement officer, are public and not personal records. Police officers interact directly with a diverse public and any expressions of potentially prejudicial or biased sentiments relate directly to an officer’s job responsibilities and performance. They are undoubtedly subject to disclosure. In the event you cite an ongoing investigation as a reason for withholding a particular record, we ask, as a part of this records request, for a document that shows the date (nothing more) of the last internal communication in the investigation.
Nearly every state, yours included, defines a public record as any record that a public body is in “control” of, not just in the “possession” of. This provides for situations where records are stored in the care of a third-party storage facility, or some kind of technology vendor that provides data storage or communications services to the public body in question. To the extent a technology vendor is in possession of the records sought herein, this request, barring justified exemption, compels the public body to seek the requested documents from its technology vendor.
Should a FOIA officer have one or more questions about the request, please contact Brandon Smith via phone (740-505-0038) or the email address this request was sent from. Mr. Smith would be happy to hear from you.
It is not Mr. Smith’s wish to overburden your office. An email or phone call is probably in order soon to discuss your office’s standard for how much estimated time—say, for review toward redaction—constitutes an unduly burdensome request. That said, we believe the list of search terms contained herein is sufficiently culled to produce only a reasonably number of responsive records.
Rarely does caselaw on what is and is not overly burdensome specify which type of employee is required for processing; the only relevant factor is estimated time by *a* staff member. In other words, if a search would be impossible or overly burdensome for a FOIA staffer, but an IT staffer can do it in ten minutes, then the law requires the public body to request an IT staffer complete the job. This is our purpose in asking for documents showing what type of database each record is stored in: the type of file determines what type of search is possible by a qualified IT staffer.
This request is being made on behalf of Brandon Smith and on behalf of ProPublica.
Search terms list:
nigger
spic
coon
monkey
white power
white genocide
1488
14/88
14 words
fourteen words
mud people
boot party
Curb job
hammerskin
hammer skin
Vinlanders
Blood & Honour
Blood & Honor
Blood and honor
Gab
mein
heil
Reich
Muslim problem
White genocide
White civil rights
Knights
Filthy jew
Aryan
Confederate flag
Dixie
Diversity is a code word
Globalist
fashy
Chimp out
Chimpout
Goy
Kek
shekels
Kike
TRS
Shills
Identitarian
Stormfront
Daily Stormer
Identity Evropa
Identity Europa
Cultural marxist
Anti-white
White identity
Jewish Question
JQ
ZOG
Klansman
White pride
WPWW
Rahowa
Ghost skin
The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.
In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 calendar days, as the statute requires.
Sincerely,
Brandon Smith
From: Brandon Smith
Greetings LAPD FOIA officers.
I have confirmation from my email systems that this got to your office on 4-1-19. Your statutory deadline for response was 10 calendar days after that. I'm willing to work with you on a timeline considering how involved this request is, but I need to know that work is continually being done on it. I intend to assert my rights on these requests to the fullest extent of the law. Thanks for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Brandon Smith
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following California Public Records Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 27, 2019. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Los Angeles Police Department
City of Los Angeles
************************************************************************
Hi there
Your first City of Los Angeles record request (request number #19-2749) has been submitted.
It is currently unpublished and is not available for the general public to view.
From: Los Angeles Police Department
City of Los Angeles
************************************************************************
Hi there
A message was sent to you regarding record request #19-2749:
Dear Requester,
Effective March 1, 2019, requesters will be charged for staff time expended to redact exempt information contained in email messages and attachments (“emails”). This cost recovery policy is implemented in accordance with California Government Code §6253.9(b)(2) and National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward, 27 Cal. App. 5th 937 (2018).s a reminder, LAPD will not produce any copies of emails until payment has been received. If you do not wish to pay for any necessary redactions of such electronic records, you may amend your CPRA request to remove the email request component (if you requested multiple items), narrow the scope of your email request (time frame, search terms, or senders/recipients) or withdraw your request. Please notify us of your decision as early as possible. Thank you for your understanding.
If you have any questions, please respond to this email.
Respectfully,
LAPD Discovery Section, CPRA Unit
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City of Los Angeles.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: Los Angeles Police Department
City of Los Angeles
************************************************************************
Hi there
A message was sent to you regarding record request #19-2749:
Dear Requester,
We have received your request.
A search of email communications for all sworn officers, would require a separate search of each individual email account of approximately 9,957 Department's sworn employees. We are unable to conduct a search based on the search criteria provided. Please narrow the scope of your request and provide specific names of the personnel whose emails you are seeking. Please respond before the due date of May 30, 2019, so we can proceed with your request.
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City of Los Angeles.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: Los Angeles Police Department
Hi there
A message was sent to you regarding record request #19-2749:
Dear Requester:
We have reviewed your California Public Records Act request.
Please be advised that, pursuant to California Government Code Section 6253(c), we have found that “unusual circumstances” exist with respect to the request due to the need to search for, collect, and review the requested records from other Department entities which are separate from the office processing the request. Therefore, our staff will require the statutory fourteen days extension of time in which to respond. A determination concerning your request will be made as soon as possible.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, simply respond to this email.
Respectfully,
LAPD Discovery Section CPRA Unit
From: Los Angeles Police Department
City of Los Angeles
************************************************************************
Hi there
A message was sent to you regarding record request #19-2749:
Dear Requester,
We have reviewed your request for the following:
“1. Documents that show what kind of a database your agency's email is stored in (such as Microsoft Access; Oracle; Microsoft Sharepoint; SQL; or Microsoft Exchange).
2a. Documents sufficient to show any FOIA management software or email search software (not including the client one uses to read and reply to email) in use by your agency. These documents could include purchase orders, contracts for use of a service, or—if and only if neither of those are available—some departmental communication portraying the name of the system.
2b. Any vendor-provided manuals or instructions or software documentation for software used by the agency to search emails
2c. Complete copies of any rules, guidelines, instructions, or best practices in use by your agency for searching emails and texts in response to FOIA requests
* Documents that show all of, and represent the entirety of each of, your agency’s contracts with cell/mobile service providers (sometimes called carriers). Also we request any documents that describe a deletion schedule for text messages sent to/from the devices on your agency's provider contract. For this purpose, "deletion schedule" means a number of days before messages are regularly deleted from the carrier's data repositories. Such a schedule would also specify whether that date is a rolling daily deletion after that many days, or rather periodical, where the number of days represents the period.
4a. Keyword searches of all SMS ("text") records sent to and received by all sworn officers on agency-issued mobile devices
4b. Keyword searches of all emails sent to and received by sworn officers on agency email accounts.
- For the keywords on 4a and 4b, please refer to the list at the bottom of this request. Date range is four months prior to the date of the request until the date of the request. Please provide the requesters evidence that your search was agnostic toward capital and lowercase letters throughout each searched character string.
- For each returned *email or SMS* result, please include the following metadata: unique sender identification; unique recipient identification; date and time of transmission; and document(s) sufficient to show the full name of the officer associated with the unique identifier. (An example of unique sender/recipient identification would be an email address or a phone number, depending on the type of record.)
5a. Documents that show what, if any, text-based messaging clients or platforms (you might call them software-based “systems” for messaging, or “instant messaging”) are available for use on computers in your patrol cars. Also we request documents that show what public body maintains or is responsible for each of those clients/platforms. For instance, sometimes a messaging system is maintained and offered by a state agency like highway patrol; other systems are built or contracted-for locally, by your jurisdiction itself. We request the above-described documents on any and all messaging systems deployed on a computer in a police vehicle in your jurisdiction.
If your jurisdiction maintains/provides its own software on in-car computers for "instant messaging”—and therefore is the keeper of records associated with the system, including historic message logs—I request:
5b. Documents sufficient to show what kind of a database that messages crossing the in-car messaging system are stored in. (Examples might be Microsoft Access; Oracle; SQL or similar). The file extension of the message logs will suffice.
5d. Keyword searches of databases containing messages sent and received over the in-car computers' instant messaging system. For the keywords that requester(s) would like searched, please refer to the list at the bottom of this request. Date range is four months prior to the date of the request until the date of the request. Please provide the requesters evidence that your search was agnostic toward capital and lowercase letters throughout each searched character string.
- For each returned *in-car IM* result, please include the following metadata: unique sender identification; unique recipient identification; date and time of transmission; and document(s) sufficient to show the full name of the officer associated with the unique identification. An example of unique sender/recipient identification would, in the case of a car-to-car instant message, be some kind of username corresponding to an officer, or, if and only if an officer identifier is not extant, an identifier for a particular computer or patrol car.
* Documents that provide evidence of any search your jurisdiction that either the department itself or the public body of which it’s a part has undertaken, in the five years prior to the date of this request, for racist, race-biased, or white supremacist terminology. This would include any searches undertaken of text messages, emails, or instant messages, for example, those IMs to and from in-car computers. It need not include an internal investigation of any single officer. Rather, we seek documents that show a search of communications to/from groups of officers, ranging up to the entire department. We seek documents that show the date of the search; the rationale or reason for the search; the search terms used; the name of the public official who requested the search; the total number of officers whose communications were searched (and if a subset of a department, the reason for choosing that subset); the type of communications searched; and any summary of the result(s) of any search. If no document exists that can be construed as a summary of search results, we request the full results of any search.”
The Department is cognizant of its responsibilities under the Act. It recognizes the statutory scheme was enacted to maximize citizen access to the workings of government. The Act does not mandate disclosure of all documents within the government’s possession. Rather, by specific exemption and reference to other statutes, the Act recognizes that there are boundaries where the public’s right to access must be balanced against such weighty considerations as the right of privacy, a right of constitutional dimension under California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1. The law also exempts from disclosure records that are privileged or confidential or otherwise exempt under either express provisions of the Act or pursuant to applicable federal or state law, per California Government Code Sections 6254(b); 6254(c); 6254(f); 6254(k); and 6255.
The Department has conducted a search for records, and responds to your request as follows:
Item #1 - The Los Angeles Police Department’s Information Technology Group (ITG) did not locate any responsive records related to the type of database Department’s Outlook emails are stored in or the type of database that Microsoft stores email data in. GroupWise emails are stored in MS SQL.
Item #2 - ITG did not locate any FOIA management software or email search in use by the Department. Fiscal Operations Division (FOD) did not locate any contracts or purchase orders. The Department of General Services may have records responsive to your request related to any contracts or purchase orders.
ITG did not locate any vendor-provided manuals or instructions or software documentation for software used by the agency to search emails. ITG did not locate any rules, guidelines, instructions, or best practices in use by the Department for searching emails and texts in response to FOIA requests.
Item#3 - ITG does not store/manage any type of database that tracks text messages. There are no contracts with the carriers because pricing and plans are governed by The Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) and the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO). LAPD does not have a deletion schedule for text messages. The carriers do not retain more than three days of text messages. Subpoena or court order is required to obtain these messages.
Item #4 - We have been awaiting your response to our prior message, as additional information is required to accurately respond to your request. As we have not received the requested information, we are closing this item.
Item #5 - LAPD uses the CAD system for messaging between dispatcher and vehicles, and Northrop Grumman mobile to mobile for messaging between vehicle to vehicle.
Information Technology Agency may have responsive records to your request, as they created the document for text based messaging. Los Angeles Police Department’s Communications Division maintains historic messages.
We are unable to conduct keyword searches of databases containing messages sent and received over the in-car computers' instant messaging system. Communications Division is able to conduct searches based on the unit number and date.
* This item on your request was submitted to the Los Angeles Police Department’s Internal Affairs Group (IAG) and they provided the following link:
http://www.lapdonline.org/office_of_constitutional_policing_and_policy. You may wish to visit this link and view the Discipline and Complaint Reports.
If you have any questions, please respond to this email.
Respectfully,
LAPD Discovery Section, CPRA Unit
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City of Los Angeles.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: Los Angeles Police Department
City of Los Angeles
************************************************************************
Hi there
A document has been released to you for record request #19-2749:
* http://www.lapdonline.org/office_of_constitutional_policing_and_policy
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City of Los Angeles.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: Los Angeles Police Department
City of Los Angeles
************************************************************************
Hi there
Record request #19-2749 has been closed. The closure reason supplied was:
Closed email portion of the request -Requested information was not provided by the requester.
No responsive records for the remaining items.
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City of Los Angeles.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>