Police Misconduct Records (SB 1421 / Becerra v Superior Court) - Immediate Disclosure Request - SF Police Commission
It is a clone of this request.
Tracking # |
P011115-022420 |
Submitted | Feb. 22, 2020 |
Est. Completion | Sept. 2, 2024 |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
From: San Francisco Police Commission
--- Please respond above this line ---
February 24, 2020 Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission (Commission) received your Immediate Disclosure request, dated February 22, 2020, on February 24, 2020.
You requested, " February 22, 2020"
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
The immediate disclosure process is for requests that are “simple, routine or otherwise readily answerable.” Please see San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.25(a). Your request is not simple or routine. The maximum deadline for responding to a request applies. The Commission is looking into your request and will provide you with a response within 10 calendar days but no later than by March 03, 2020. Please refer to California Government Code Section 6253(c).
Sincerely,
Sgt. Stacy Youngblood
Office in Charge
Police Commission Office
To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the SFPD Public Records Center. (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddHZionDPZxe8o-2F99A9Uuw20LDZfm7D4-2FK-2BCddT5rU7tgHxZvgMbJ-2FoLc5CEpfQ7wvylri_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3SygqEI77qbqGkT24WHDfhMmbxmUqZERpEGVdy1vf9xWwXKxLt5rKPQccFdAjWH1AcM-2F9avd6pVbj6LsxVNucG48-2BRnk3SaaBqh-2BSUnEzcyzndLitk51uYwG7u9kx3NrQtfsuwVJRvHQcRGA4-2FW-2B8BKwoKryC7HCftuEk5fdKO9gPejkjfQb0W8eSv59uik-2FhU06M0v24itMtDAtM6Ptz4lQt7xcrPhwavN3utNZXk9YCDEbIoM-2BbFe3k4ag3wdzyOBxhHhnqq1Bdb9FpJipm7DTulQBlxKc8w-2BgeXXGOU2gTpaXUXTmJBbORzfeMJ2ix-2F7Jw1FK9uLiTFma7SDtnMXzM-3D)
This is an auto-generated email and has originated from an unmonitored email account. Please DO NOT REPLY.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
February 24, 2020
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request/Immediate Disclosure Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear Anoymous:
The San Francisco Police Commission (Commission) received your Immediate Disclosure Request, dated February 22, 2020, on February 24, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020 Police Commission: NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com<http://MuckRock.com> FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records. Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency. Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records. Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253). Your non-exhaustive obligations: - All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27). - All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26). - You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)). - You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)). - You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)). - Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service. Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints. ****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ****** In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request: 1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i). 2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions) Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations. FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. " However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i). Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Anonymous".
The immediate disclosure process is for requests that are “simple, routine or otherwise readily answerable.” Please see San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.25(a). Your request is not simple or routine. The maximum deadline for responding to a request applies. The Department is looking into your request and will provide you with a response within 10 calendar days but no later than by March 03, 2020. Please refer to California Government Code Section 6253(c).
If you have any questions, please contact the Police Commission Office at 415-837-7070.
Sincerely,
Sergeant Stacy Youngblood
Officer in Charge
Police Commission
From: San Francisco Police Commission
--- Please respond above this line ---
To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the SFPD Public Records Center. (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddHZionDPZxe8o-2F99A9Uuw20LDZfm7D4-2FK-2BCddT5rU7tgHxZvgMbJ-2FoLc5CEpfQ7wv1lzr_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3Syl-2BxDgCi6HGp9K8gfHK1WLWR7ajPhFi2AE6op73-2BXR8OH6PYakeDseOqA2UPnbFIRn6sJ5n02ihsQtQmm51yMpdjQmt38mfmc1S-2BHKHSPH6ZO9B-2FeSok4JW3mqbLvNxGLFTO7qtnI26CQ8RMV05WsDFBsHED-2F8L5mo4Rn3zOitXKiwMT47wmGTp576RTjoElOX-2Fcp67kmm8a9bNFcmHAemiKKt3HAjRHO75c41NiEZCIsvFNP3eTlhIAMMkNLfziQuCdgN3XVgiw-2Fd-2F-2BBTJcZz3d6X8KYoz92ngQHRq3RNshCn2nrrbyci4buTDaPRHcBrotU-2Faz2FLVonAP5KgVCN4-3D)
This is an auto-generated email and has originated from an unmonitored email account. Please DO NOT REPLY.
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
RE: P011115-022420
Sgt. Youngblood,
Not sure what happened but I just got an essentially empty email from GovQA just now for P011115-022420. It may be a formatting issue.
Could you please directly email whatever I should've gotten?
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
From: San Francisco Police Commission
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Just FYI I received 2 more completely empty emails for P011115-022420 today from GovQA.
Could you please directly email whatever I should've gotten?
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Resending responsive records originally sent on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission Office is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Kevin Byrne, Gordon Moore, Christopher Schaefer and Jason Zimiga (OIS 2013-0008):
* Copy of the November 6, 2013 agenda which includes closed session item 7e - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following and Officer Involved Shooting
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.
* Return to Duty letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* Summary of Investigative Findings in OIS 2013-0008
* First Quarter 2016 FDRB Findings and Recommendations
* March 30, 2016 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional records for Officers Byrne, Moore, Schaefer and Zimiga and no additional records for OIS -2013-0008
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Resending responsive records originally sent on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission Office is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Perfecto Barbosa (OIS 2014-0003):
* Copy of April 2, 2014 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 5a - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.
* March 17, 2014 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* March 28, 2014 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
The Commission redacted portions of page 2 of the March 28, 2014 RTD letter pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(c) and (6) because disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
* Summary of Investigative Finding in case OIS 2014-0003
* June 30, 2016 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Perfecto Barbosa and no additional responsive records for OIS 2014-0003
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission
Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Thank you for the records. For any other records, please remember to justify any records withheld in writing, and also to key any redactions you make to specific justifications as well.
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Resending responsive records originally sent on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission Office is providing the following responsive records:
Officer William Reininger (OIS 2018-0004)
* Copy of June 13, 2018 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.
* June 12, 2018 RTD letter from Chief Scott to the Commission
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer William Reininger and no additional responsive records for OIS -2018-0004.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Resending responsive records originally sent on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission Office is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Nathan Chew, Roger Morse, Richard Schiff, and Jason Sawyer (OIS 2014-0004):
* Copy of April 2, 2014 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 5a - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.
* March 28, 2014 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* Summary of Investigative Findings in OIS 2014-0004
* 2nd Quarter 2015 RDRB Findings and Recommendations
* June 23, 2015 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Morse, Schiff, and Sawyer and no additional responsive records for OIS -2014-0004.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Resending responsive records originally on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission Office is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Nathan Chew and Paul Dominguez (OIS 2016-0003):
* Copy of November 2, 2016 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.
* Copy of December 7, 2016 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.
* October 24, 2016 RTD letter from Chief Chaplin to Commissioner Loftus
Each redaction on page 2 of the October 24, 2016 RTD letter was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(c) and (6) because disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Chew and Dominguez and no additional responsive records for OIS -2016-0003.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Resending responsive records originally sent on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission Office is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Roderick Suguitan (OIS 2019-0001):
* Copy of September 11, 2019 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.
* September 6, 2019 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Hirsch
The two redactions on page 1 and the one redaction on page 2 of the September 6, 2019 RTD letter were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(c) and (6) because disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2019-0001.
Officer Michael Shavers (OIS 2019-0002):
* Copy of October 2, 2019 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8a - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.
* September 20, 2019 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Hirsch
The three redactions of page 2 of the September 20, 2019 RTD letter were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(c) and (6) because disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2019-0002.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Shavers.
Officers Sterling Hayes and Christopher Flores (OIS 2019-0003):
* Copy of January 8, 2020 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.
* January 8, 2020 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Hirsch
The one redaction on page 2 and the one redaction on page 3 of the January 8, 2020 RTD letter were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(c) and (6) because disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Hayes and Flores and no additional responsive records for OIS 2019-0003.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Resending responsive records originally send on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA
Officer David Colclogh (OIS 2010-0013):
* Copy of December 8, 2010 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.
* November 30, 2010 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Mazzucco
* Summary of Investigations in OIS 2010-0013
* 2012 1st quarter FDRB findings and Recommendations
* March 20, 2012 FDRB agenda
* transcript of FDRB 1st quarter 2012 regarding OIS 2010-0013
The 4 redactions on page 10 of the transcript for FDRB 1st quarter 2012 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(B) and (6). The 2 redactions on page 15 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), and (6). The three redactions on page 16 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 17 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 19 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(B) and (6). The two redactions on page 24 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 25 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The two redactions on page 27 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 29 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A) (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 34 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(a), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 38 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B), and (6). The four redactions on page 40 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 41 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(C) and (6). The one redaction on page 43 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A) and (5)(B). The four redactions on page 46 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The five redactions on page 48 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 49 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 50 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 51 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 52 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The two redactions on page 55 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The four redactions on page 54 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 55 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 56 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 57 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The four redactions on page 58 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The four redactions on page 59 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 60 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6) The two redactions on page 61 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 62 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 63 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The first redaction on page 64 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(c) and (6). The second and third redactions on page 64 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 65 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 67 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Colclough and no additional responsive records for OIS 2010-0013.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Resending responsive records originally send on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
Regarding your request for "2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)."
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 97-98 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
We have compiled the set of responsive records for 9 Officer Involved Shooting and these 14 individual officers provided to you earlier. That responsive records took approximately 12 hours to complete. Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Thank you - please continue to comply with SFAC 67.26 and provide exact reasons for each redaction, I appreciate it.
You are citing PC 832.7(b)(6) , however I believe that is prohibited locally by SFAC 67.24(i). Do you wish to resolve this through discussion, or through petition?
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records:
Officer Gregory Pak (OID 2008-0008):
* March 17, 2009 FDRB agenda
* 1st quarter 2009 FDRB Findings and Recommendations
Officer Gregory Pak and Officer Reginald Scott (OIS 2013-0001):
* OIS 2003-0001 Summary of Investigation
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Gregory Pak, or for OID 2008-0008 or OIS 2013-0001. The Commission will continue to search to determine if there are additional responsive records for Officer Reginald Scott.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis. The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 27, 2020.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
-
mar172009
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission has the following responsive records:
Officer Patrick Griffin and Officer Michael Tursi:
OIS 2011-0003:
* Copy of the July 6, 2011 Police Commission public Agenda which includes closed session item 6c - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* July 6, 2011 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS Summary of Investigation for OIS 2011-0003
* January 14, 2014 agenda for 3th quarter 2013 FDRB
* 4th quarter 2013 FDRB findings and recommendations
The Commission has no additional records for OIS -2011-0003
Officer Patrick Griffin and Office Constantine Zachos:
OID-2006-0003
* March 29, 2006 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Patrick Griffin, for OIS 2011-0003 or OID-2006-0003. The Commission will continue working to determine if there are additional responsive records for Officer Constantine Zachos.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 27, 2020.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
-
mar29,2006
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission has the following responsive records:
Officers Kevin Knoble, Joshua Kumli, Richard Alves, John Bisordi, John Burke, Samuel Christ, Moses Gala, Mark Gamble, John Greenwood, Wendell Jones, Sylvia Morrow, Thomas Newland, Daniel Simone, and Thomas Smith. (OIS 2004-0006):
* OIS 2004-0006 investigative summary
The Commission has no additional records for Officers Kevin Knoble, Joshua Kumli, Richard Alves, John Bisordi, John Burke, Samuel Christ, Moses Gala, Mark Gamble, John Greenwood, Wendell Jones, Sylvia Morrow, Thomas Newland and, Daniel Simone, and Thomas Smith , or OIS 2004-0006
Officers James Garrity and Timothy Brophy (OID 2007-0015):
* July 30, 2008 2nd quarter 2008 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional records for Officers James Garrity, Timothy Brophy or OID 2007-0015.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 27, 2020.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
-
jul30,2008
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission has the following additional responsive records for Officer Reginald Scott:
Officer Reginald Scott (OID 2007-0012):
* March 21, 2008 1st Quarter 2008 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OID 2007-0012.
Officer Reginald Scott (OIS 2007-0005):
* June 4, 2007 2nd quarter 2007 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional records for Officer Reginald Scott or OID 2007-0005.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 27, 2020.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
March 25, 2020
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officers Timothy Ortiz and Austin Wilson (OIS 2010-0015):
* Copy of the January 12, 2011 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8a - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* January 10, 2011 RTD letter from Chief Godown to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS summary of investigation for OIS 2010-0015
* March 20, 2012 1st quarter FDRB agenda
* 1st quarter 2012 FDRB findings and recommendations
* 1st quarter 2012 FDRB transcript - redacted
All five redactions on page 10 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redaction on page 15 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first redaction on page 16 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The second and third redactions on page 16 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first and second redactions on page 17 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The third redaction on page 17 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 19 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 24 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 25 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first redaction made on page 27 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The second redaction made on page 27 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 29 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 34 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions made on page 38 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redactions made on page 40 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 43 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first redaction on page 46 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The second, third and fourth redactions on page 46 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The five redactions on page 48 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 49 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 50 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 51 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 52 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redaction on page 53 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redaction on page 54 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 55 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 56 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 57 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redactions on page 58 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redactions on page 59 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 60 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 61 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 62 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 63 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 64 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 65 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 67 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Timothy Ortiz, Officer Austin Wilson or OIS 2010-0015.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission has the following responsive records:
Noah Mallinger and Terrance Saw (OIS 2011-0001)
* Copy of the January 19, 2011 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8d - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* January 11, 2011 RTD letter from Chief Godown to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS summary of investigation for OIS 2011-0001
* March 20, 2012 1st quarter FDRB agenda
* 1st quarter 2012 FDRB findings and recommendations
* 1st quarter 2012 FDRB transcript - redacted
All five redactions on page 10 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redaction on page 15 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first redaction on page 16 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The second and third redactions on page 16 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first and second redactions on page 17 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The third redaction on page 17 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 19 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 24 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 25 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first redaction made on page 27 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The second redaction made on page 27 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 29 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 34 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions made on page 38 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redactions made on page 40 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 43 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first redaction on page 46 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The second, third and fourth redactions on page 46 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The five redactions on page 48 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 49 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 50 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 51 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 52 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redaction on page 53 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redaction on page 54 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 55 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 56 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 57 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redactions on page 58 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redactions on page 59 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 60 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 61 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 62 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 63 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 64 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 65 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 67 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Lt. Noah Mallinger, Sgt. Terrance Saw or OIS 2011-0001.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officer Mary Godfrey (OIS 2013-0003):
* Copy of the August 15, 2012 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* July 27, 2012 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS summary of investigation for OIS 2012-0003
* March 31, 2015 1st quarter FDRB agenda
* 1st quarter 2015 FDRB findings and recommendations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Mary Godfrey or OIS 2012-0003.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
April 06, 2020
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following records:
Officers Julius Dempsky, Roel Dilag and David O'Connor (OIS 2006-0002):
* April 12 ,2006 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3 - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the offices to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved offer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* April 10, 2006 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne
* OIS summary of investigation for OIS 2006-0002
* March 20, 2007 RTD agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Dempsky, Dilag and O'Connor or OIS 2006-0002.
-
mar20,2007
From: San Francisco Police Commission
April 06, 2020
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following records:
Officers Michelle Alvis and John Keesor (OIS 2006-0004):
* June 14, 2006 2006 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3 - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the offices to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved offer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* June 13, 2006 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne
* OIS 2006-0004 Investigative summary
* June 20, 2006 RTD agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Michelle Alvis and officer John Keesor, and no additional responsive records for OIS 2006-0004.
-
jun20,2006
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following records:
Officers Gerald Arquero and Jamie Hyun (OIS 2006-0005):
* July 5, 2006 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3 - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* June 30, 2006 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne
* OIS 2006-0005 investigative summary
* November 7, 2008 3rd quarter 2008 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Garald Arquero and Jamie Hyun and no additional responsive records for OIS -2006-0005.
-
nov72008
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records:
Officer Steven Hampton (OIS 2006-0007):
* June 4, 2007 FDRB agenda (the case is listed as OIS 2006-0006, but that is an error). This case is OIS - 2006-0007.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Steven Hampton or for OIS 2006-0007.
-
jun42007
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officer Jose Guardado (OIS 2006-0008):
* OIS 2006-0008 Summary of Investigation
* September 18, 2007 FDRB agenda (the case is listed as OIS 2006-0007, but that is an error). The case is OIS 2006-0008.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Jose Guardado or OIS 2006-0008
-
sept18 2007
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
Due to an administrative clerical error, the additional responsive record (attached) was not provided to you in an earlier email today regarding OIS 2006-0007 and Officer Stephen Hampton:
* OIS 2006-0007 summary of investigation
This record was filed incorrectly under 2007 OIS cases and not discovered until the staff began reviewing records for 2007. The Commission apologizes for any confusion.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officers Matthew Cole, John Haggett, Adam Street and Henry Yee (OIS 2006-0003):
* May 24, 2006 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3 - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the offices to duty following and Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* May 18, 2006 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne
* January 11, 2007, 4th quarter 2006 FDRB agenda( The agenda incorrectly lists this OIS as OIS 2006-0002; the correct number is OIS 2006-0003)
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Cole, Haggett, Street and Yee and no additional responsive records for OIS -2006-0003.
-
jan11 2007
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officer Fabian Fowler (OIS 2006-0006):
* September 13, 2006 Police Commission
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* August 31, 2006 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne
* OIS 2006-0006 summary of investigative findings
* November 7, 2008 3rd quarter 2008 FDRB (The agenda incorrectly lists this OIS as OIS 2006-0005; the correct number is OIS 2006-0006)
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Fabian Fowler and no additional responsive records for OIS 2006-0006.
-
nov72008
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officers Gregory Buhagiar and Eric Chiang (OIS 2007-0001):
* February 7, 2007 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3c - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* February 2, 2007 RTD letters from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne regarding Officer Buhagiar and Officer Chiang
* OIS 2007-0001 Investigative Summary
* July 30, 3008 2nd quarter 2008 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Chiang, and no additional records for OIS 2007-0001. The Commission will continue to search its records to determine if there are additional records for Officer Gregory Buhagiar.
-
jul30,2008
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officers Monica MacDonald and Joseph Salazar (OIS 2007-0002):
* March 21, 2007 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* March 14, 2007 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne
* OIS 2007-0002 investigative summary
* December 18, 2008, 4th quarter 2008 FDRB
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Salazar or MacDonald, and no additional records for OIS 2007-0002.
-
dec182008
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Attachments:
OIS_07-002_agenda.pdf (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddhTktxCQo3dAEL3UN6JwjbrIOEhWaSG1hipJN4KjQBAglXX-2B-2BHUcqv1GmLf8zwxotcG8Mg2t1ERlXfRyVtq56PKMkn8wjlGQroOR5yLE8QpEDZxqXVDl6p6avoduCrXFi-2FbWJMnE8f2EuIPcaPY9S4FCfRFrGoN2JFntwSZzatU8-3D5-Or_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3SyoLNBpG6exhi1dc-2F4wcNaTRXmDHym7O8xpGz03XnzjTFbzaVUnF31H0Hof3mMzSr2gZ5np5jdxdsm1E-2BKw-2BtvwUJTR8TmL1Pfp7I4rl5EJL6FFVBDsVdYLtGH6slN5yde8Fos7MJYF1i8DGrGv9NSKS3RvBSmf78TvMn3YRDqK83EoiarHucHitJdJNU0A0gFvrP7WNtLaut5boguT9AtoStVoLs-2BMQ56EY0Ne7ULUFypmUCwCThHZJybS4gWvh9EhmWk82H2-2F1a3DuekwVPhUPzmsc7bDcFXGL75eMOL4xffvpExvpBQEDqOPJUHoDQ5z-2B5Cz7smUm2muijCq73k78-3D)
OIS_07-002_RTD_letter.pdf (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddhTktxCQo3dAEL3UN6JwjbrIOEhWaSG1hipJN4KjQBAglXX-2B-2BHUcqv1GmLf8zwxotcG8Mg2t1ERlXfRyVtq56PKMkn8wjlGQroOR5yLE8QpHsPn9ZNYJlC3Drur7DkEfhZpoLSyNKEakA1g8tuGhYrp0KNIa4giUOYo0VUBD3HlY-3D-KLl_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3SyoLNBpG6exhi1dc-2F4wcNaTRXmDHym7O8xpGz03XnzjTFbzaVUnF31H0Hof3mMzSr2gZ5np5jdxdsm1E-2BKw-2BtvwUJTR8TmL1Pfp7I4rl5EJL6FFVBDsVdYLtGH6slN5yde8Fos7MJYF1i8DGrGv9NSKS3RvBSmf78TvMn3YRDqK83AWXMYmLaqal622nAm-2FVuF0SH7fRirfARcsg1QGCSl-2B-2B8FOaR-2BNNJzvFllT-2FBrGb8VRYOLA8t9s1uBdmHFBMY03Yexh6TLobSmt-2BXXeGEBfqzesSxXpY7feuniDGXQD3oN8NmdDrwUFBmqKtcwW796dOFjlHO3BgUDri9Wa5APh0-3D)
ois_2007-0002_investigative_summary.pdf (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddhTktxCQo3dAEL3UN6JwjbrIOEhWaSG1hipJN4KjQBAglXX-2B-2BHUcqv1GmLf8zwxotcG8Mg2t1ERlXfRyVtq56PKMkn8wjlGQroOR5yLE8QpEWClBTh9D0-2BqfVCSdCHR8-2F8LadBQP5BbKt5HjNi1JyIlOFMr-2FKyGHwGX-2Fn54woWRE-3D6tAR_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3SyoLNBpG6exhi1dc-2F4wcNaTRXmDHym7O8xpGz03XnzjTFbzaVUnF31H0Hof3mMzSr2gZ5np5jdxdsm1E-2BKw-2BtvwUJTR8TmL1Pfp7I4rl5EJL6FFVBDsVdYLtGH6slN5yde8Fos7MJYF1i8DGrGv9NSKS3RvBSmf78TvMn3YRDqK83qirbEeeRfT9wC8ILW0cGz3TxDkrIbaOiKq7tMEEt2CPpKG-2Bh1SvPxG7-2BHNqZih3eOv41tBbYeP0wBwDTDfv8zHEK7I3IGTF-2BcPJHKkTgV6PkvZG0oliaFLSMNpht23enXP-2BzDKHfClyrBRPNisX1kZWec7r-2F2b1Qf3s-2BouuTOTY-3D)
dec182008.wpd (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddhTktxCQo3dAEL3UN6JwjbrIOEhWaSG1hipJN4KjQBAglXX-2B-2BHUcqv1GmLf8zwxotcG8Mg2t1ERlXfRyVtq56PKMkn8wjlGQroOR5yLE8QpFdDHaXTuIK-2BAx-2FG6RtDIO5PuLp6FfuRYMdAKvV2DpTSBx-2FFlA5S-2F0AjP0iyqgWEA4-3Dmdog_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3SyoLNBpG6exhi1dc-2F4wcNaTRXmDHym7O8xpGz03XnzjTFbzaVUnF31H0Hof3mMzSr2gZ5np5jdxdsm1E-2BKw-2BtvwUJTR8TmL1Pfp7I4rl5EJL6FFVBDsVdYLtGH6slN5yde8Fos7MJYF1i8DGrGv9NSKS3RvBSmf78TvMn3YRDqK838u7NEr6Eny8GSC6OnHm0nkh98bc-2FWEXQ05tUrUEuX2rZqG0tyhfkM7sZ7y8i-2FRiGywWZod-2BWlODzMO5L1OzgKp5szRpmxwhfdTbk8n5iCp8opS-2FZCIBhkSDJ9IWdqrKsKXJsa90vdZSefx8SFm3GN3fiJNVtO7ZJtfN9HeBAmeU-3D)
--- Please respond above this line ---
April 27, 2020
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, " February 22, 2020"
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records: Officers Monica MacDonald and Joseph Salazar (OIS 2007-0002):
* March 21, 2007 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3b – Chief’s performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* March 14, 2007 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne
* OIS 2007-0002 investigative summary December 18, 2008, 4 th quarter 2008 FDRB The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Salazar or MacDonald, and no additional records for OIS 2007-0002.
-
dec182008.wpd
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officer Joshua Olson (2008-0001):
* OIS summary of investigation OIS 2008-0001
* June 16, 2009 agenda for 2nd Quarter 2009 FDRB
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Joshua Olson or for OIS 2008-0001.
-
jun16 2009
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officers Kathrine Holder and Kim Reynolds (OIS 2009-0003):
* August 27, 2008 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3a - Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* August 27, 2008 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Sparks
* OIS 2008-0003 investigation summary
* June 16, 2009 2nd quarter 2009 FDRB
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Holder and Reynolds or for OIS 2008-0003.
-
jun16 2009
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officers Corbyn Carroll, Stephen Cassinelli, Loren Chiu, Juan Gustilo, John Ishida, Nicholas Nagai, Sean O'Rourke, Colby Smets, Ari Smith-Russack, and Joshua Tupper (OIS 2018-0002):
* April 4, 2018 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9a - Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* March 14, 2018 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Turman
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2018-0002 or for Officers Tupper, Smets, Nagai, Ishida, Gusitlo, Chiu, Cassinelli and Carroll. The Commission will continue to search its records to determine if there are additional responsive records for Officer Smith-Russack.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officers Tasawan Casey Kevin Endo (OIS 2018-0003):
* April 11, 2018 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a - Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
* June 6, 2018 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9c - Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* March 28, 2018 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Turman
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2018-0003 of for Officers Casey or Endo.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous: Apologies. I forgot to include you in the original email.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Anonymous: Please see the responsive email and attachments regarding your complaint 20066.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001
From: San Francisco Police Commission
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officer Joshua Cabillo (OIS 2018-0005):
• June 20, 2018 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• June 15, 2018 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Mazzucco
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2018-0005 of for Officer Joshua Cabillo.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officer Kenneth Cha (OIS 2017-0001):
• January 18, 2017 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• January 17, 2017 RTD letter from Chief Chaplin to Commissioner Turman
Officer Kenneth Cha (OIS 2017-0003):
· June 14, 2017 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8g – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• May 10, 2017 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Turman
The one redaction on page 2 of the May 10, 2017 letter was made pursuant to PC 832.7(b)(5)(C).
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2017-0001, OIS 2017-0003 of for Officer Kenneth Cha.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
--- Please respond above this line ---
June 12, 2020 Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear Anonymous:
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, " February 22, 2020"
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
Responsive records are available via the San Francisco Public Records Center. Click on the link below to view your request. Public Records Request - P011115-022420 (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddBoz8cxbO7RMgLIH9TkIycDEu8hg2c0COMOWTL1-2FjHDY-3DYKgS_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3Syj3FqQlRlaor6Tb4mfFsNg7lz-2B3iqfRb2PTDpH51bfFZmCY16vfNj2nsdwIDuSP7NAuMlqSsxd4SOKiXPVwOC9CgMgvUo9NJtTPl3R7uiG8oXoU-2BSSI3C5JlKWAHS5cK5oG8W-2B9XRiPliTv4OXUJXSf4Q3AAD-2F2dtF-2BYWjDCK62YAmT0GFMnVz02CsOiB1fcXowWTiZKHqWvaKswP51Yvwrewo-2FazDKpFeeRBsrDWrlRR9lQLtUKluE0rjEDjhKuf6C2RUiPVTdwJgmGWuRHgs-2BA3Ilj5t-2BmTt7P5PR7bppc)
Documents released in this response include:
* OIS Transcript from Police Commission Closed Session for Sgt. Erb - 5/8/19 - No Redactions made
* OIS Transcript from Police Commission Closed Session for Sgt. Erb - 9/18/19 - Redactions (Refer to Redaction Index on the last page)
If you have any questions, please contact the Police Commission Office at 415-837-7070.
Sincerely,
Sergeant Stacy Youngblood
Officer in Charge
Police Commission
To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the SFPD Public Records Center. (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddHZionDPZxe8o-2F99A9Uuw20LDZfm7D4-2FK-2BCddT5rU7tgHxZvgMbJ-2FoLc5CEpfQ7wv3m2A_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3Syj3FqQlRlaor6Tb4mfFsNg7lz-2B3iqfRb2PTDpH51bfFZmCY16vfNj2nsdwIDuSP7NAuMlqSsxd4SOKiXPVwOC9CgMgvUo9NJtTPl3R7uiG8oXoU-2BSSI3C5JlKWAHS5cK5oG8W-2B9XRiPliTv4OXUJXSf4Q3AAD-2F2dtF-2BYWjDCK62YXbD9euu5EuFeYmYr6vZt1h5JfvTJ-2FL3XjION6D4GY24QOlpbfyhV8zJRh7Uu3-2FY2Zq6ZRfiicGhJv6g9YwQ8PTkdzn33lodnzVqYOp-2FDOuKvke3zK3umFz2lgj-2Fo9CPv)
This is an auto-generated email and has originated from an unmonitored email account. Please DO NOT REPLY.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
June 23, 2020
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officers Wiloran Ravelo and Jason Robinson (OIS 2017-0005):
• November 8, 2017 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8c – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• September 8, 2017 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Turman
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2017-0005 of for Officers Wiloran Ravelo or Jason Robinson.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officer Samuel Fung (OIS 2017-0006)
• November 8, 2017 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8d – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• November 8, 2017 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Turman
· Officer Involved Shooting Summary 17-0006
· 3rd Quarter 2019 FDRB agenda
· 3rd Quarter 2019 FDRB transcript (redactions made pursuant to attached Commission Redaction Index and noted for each redaction)
· FTFO Incident Review of OIS 17-0006
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2017-0006 or Officer Samuel Fung.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officer Dack Thompson (OIS-20017-0004)
• June 14, 2017 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8h – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
· June 21, 2017 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items for both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• May 26, 2017 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Turman
Officer Dack Thompson (OID-2008-0004)
· July 30, 3008 2nd Quarter 2008 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2017-0004, OID 2008-0004 or Officer Dack Thompson.
-
jul30,2008
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officer Robert Fung (OID-2008-0003)
• March 21, 2008 1st Quarter 2008 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OID 2008-0003 or Officer Robert Fung.
-
mar212008
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Sgt. John Tack (OIS-2007-0010):
• March 21, 2008 1st Quarter 2008 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OID 2078-0010 or Sgt. Joh Tack.
-
mar212008
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Sgt. Nicolas Pena and Lt. Michael Serujo (OIS 2015-0002):
• January 14, 2015 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 5a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• January 12, 2015 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
· Summary of Investigation of OIS 2015-0002
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2015-0002 of for Sgt. Nicolas Pena or Lt. Michael Serujo.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Sgt. Jeffrey Aloise, Officer Jeffrey Camilosa, and Officer Andres Garza (OIS 2015-0009):
• December 2, 2015 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7d – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• November 18, 2015 2015 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2015-0009 or for Sgt. Jeffrey Aloise, Officer Jeffrey Camilosa or Officer Andres Garza.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officers Walter Contreras and Zahid Khan (OIS 2009-0001):
· January 14, 2009 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• January 9, 2009 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Sparks
· OIS 2009-0001 Summary of Investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2009-0001 or for Officers Contreras and Khan.
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Supervisor of Records,
This is a first petition solely regarding entirely withheld records by the Police Commission, under PC 832.7.
Hopefully this is simple enough to resolve quickly.
--Anonymous
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Supervisor of Records,
This is a first petition solely regarding entirely withheld records by the Police Commission, under PC 832.7.
Hopefully this is simple enough to resolve quickly.
--Anonymous
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous:
I inadvertently sent the responsive records for OIS 2009-0001, Officers Contreras and Khan, without the following attachments
· 4th quarter 2009 FDRB agenda
· 4th quarter 2009 FDRB findings and recommendations
Sorry for the confusion.
Regards,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 – 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
-
dec15 2009
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Thanks for the correction
From: San Francisco Police Commission
“Dear Anonymous:
Thank you for your email to the Commission regarding the “first petition solely regarding entirely withheld records by the Police Commission under PC 832.7.” While your email is addressed to the Police Commission, the attachment is addressed to the Supervisor of Records at the City Attorney’s Office. Can you please clarify if you would like a response from the Police Commission or the Supervisor of Record at the City Attorney’s Office?”
Regards,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 – 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Lt. Renota Martinez (OID-2006-0009):
· 4th Quarter 2006 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional records for OID 2006-0009 or Lt. Renata Martinez.
-
DEC19,2006
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officer Gregg Gotelli (OID-2007-0014):
· 2nd Quarter 2008 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional records for OID 2007-0014 or Officer Gregg Gotelli.
-
jul30,2008
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Sgt. Kilshaw,
RE:
“Dear Anonymous:
Thank you for your email to the Commission regarding the “first petition solely regarding entirely withheld records by the Police Commission under PC 832.7.” While your email is addressed to the Police Commission, the attachment is addressed to the Supervisor of Records at the City Attorney’s Office. Can you please clarify if you would like a response from the Police Commission or the Supervisor of Record at the City Attorney’s Office?”
The petition has already been sent to the Supervisor of Records Herrera - I was just copying the petition to the Commission as well. (MuckRock has no normal BCC functionality - apologies for the confusion). I assume Herrera will coordinate with the Commission as they usually do on such petitions. If the Commission has its own response, however, I am happy to consider it.
--Anonymous
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Perterkent DeJesus and Officer Jessica O’Connor(OIS 2009-0002):
· May 27, 2009 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• May 22, 2009 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Sparks
* OIS 2009-0002 Summary of Investigations
* 4th Quarter 2009 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional records for OIS-2009-0002 or for Officers Peterkent DeJesus and Jessica O’Connor.
-
dec15 2009
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Julian Hermosura (OIS-2009-0004):
* September 16, 2009 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 11b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• September 14, 2009 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Sparks
* OIS 2009-0004 Summary of Investigations
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional records for OIS-2009-0004 or for Officer Hermosura .
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Roderick Suguitan:
OIS 2010-0001:
* February 3, 2010 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• January 28, 2010 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Marshall
* OIS 2010-0001 Summary of Investigations
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached. The full discussion of OIS 2010-0001 was not captured on the audio recording.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Suguitan.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer John Newman (OIS 2010-0005):
* July 14, 2010 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• July 9, 2010 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Marshall
* OIS 2010-0005 Summary of Investigations
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached. The discussion of OIS 2010-0005 was not captured on the audio recording.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2010-0005 or for Officer John Newman.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Luis DeJesus:
OIS-2001-0002:
· OIS 2001-0002 Summary of Investigation
OIS 2004-0004:
* May 5, 2010 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• April 29, 2010 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Marshall
· OIS 2010-0004 Summary of Investigation
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached. The discussion of OIS 2010-0004 was not captured on the audio recording.
OIS 2004-0010:
* October 13, 2010 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• October 7, 2010 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Marshall
· OIS 2010-0010 Summary of Investigation
* 4th Quarter 2011 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2011 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 4th Quarter 2011 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2001-0002, OIS 2010-0004 or OIS 2010-0010 or for Officer Luis DeJesus.
There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Matthew Friedman (OIS 2010-0014):
* January 5, 2011 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• December 17, 2010 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2010-00014 Summary of Investigation
* 4th Quarter 2011 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2011 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Matthew Friedman or OIS 2010-0014.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous:
In the below email I incorrectly labeled two of Officer Luis DeJesus’ OIS cases. The correct number for OIS 2004-0004 should be OIS 2010-0004. All of the attachments I sent in the original email are correct. The correct number for OIS 2004-014 should be OIS 2010-0014. All of the attachments I sent in the original email are correct.
I apologize for any confusion.
Regards.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 – 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Daniel May
OIS-2004-0003:
· OIS 2004-0003 Summary of Investigation (there is an error in the document listing it as related to OIS 2004-0002, however this document relates to OIS 2004-0003)
OIS 2009-0003:
· September 2, 2009 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• August 31, 2009 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Marshall
* 1st Quarter 2010 FDRB agenda
* 1st Quarter 2011 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2004-0003 or OIS 2009-0003 or for Officer Daniel May.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Kimberly Koltzoff (OIS 2010-0009):
* January 5, 2011 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• October 6, 2010 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Marshall
* OIS 2010-0009 Summary of Investigation
* 3rd Quarter 2011 FDRB agenda
* 3rd Quarter 2011 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 3rd Quarter 2011 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Kimberly Koltzoff or OIS 2010-0009.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Chad Campos
OIS 2010-0003:
* April 21, 2010 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• April 20, 2010 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Marshall
* OIS 2010-0003 Summary of Investigation
* 1st Quarter 2011 FDRB agenda
* 1st Quarter 2011 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 1std Quarter 2011 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
OID 2006-0001:
· 1st Quarter 2006 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Chad Campos or OIS 2010-0003 or OID 2006-0001.
-
mar29,2006
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Christina Hayes (OIS 2010-0006):
* August 4, 2010 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• August 2, 2010 2010 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Marshall
* OIS 2010-0006 Summary of Investigation
* 1st Quarter 2011 FDRB agenda
* 1st Quarter 2011 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 1std Quarter 2011 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached; the tape recording did not capture the full discussion of OIS 2010-0006).
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Christina Hayes or OIS 2010-0006.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Hi,
I received an email subject "response to #P011115-022420" yesterday but without any response or attachments.
Is this a mistake?
--Anonymous
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous:
Thank you for your email asking for clarification. Yesterday’s email was a notification that the next set of responsive records will be sent to you on or before September 28, 2020. There were no responsive records attached to that email.
Please advise if you have any additional questions.
Regards,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 – 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
-
~WRD000
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Ryan Doherty:
OIS 2010-0007:
* September 8, 2010 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• April 12, 2013 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2010-0005 Summary of Investigation
* 2nd Quarter 2011 FDRB agenda
* 2nd Quarter 2011 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 2nd Quarter 2011 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
OIS 2013-0005:
• April 24, 2013 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• September 3, 2010 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Marshall
• OIS 2010-0007 Summary of Investigation
• 3rd Quarter 2015 FDRB agenda
• 3rd Quarter 2015 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
• Redacted transcript from 3rd Quarter 2015 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Ryan Doherty or for OIS 2010-0007 or OIS 2013-0005.
There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous:
I sent you the incorrect records for Officer Ryan Doherty’s second OIS. Officer Ryan Doherty’s second OIS is OIS 2013-0007, and I have attached the correct records to this email as follows:
OIS 2013-0007:
• August 7, 2013 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• August 7, 2013 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
• OIS 2013-0007 Summary of Investigation
• 3rd Quarter 2015 FDRB agenda
• 3rd Quarter 2015 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
• Redacted transcript from 3rd Quarter 2015 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional records for Officer Ryan Doherty or for OIS 2013-0007.
The second set of records in the previous email are for Officer Ryan Daugherty, OIS 2013-0005. The Commission has no additional records for Officer Ryan Daugherty or for OIS 2013-0005.
I apologize for the confusion.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 – 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Scott Ryan and Officer Albert Lieu (OIS 2011-0002):
* June 15, 2011 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 5e – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• June 13, 2011 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2011-0002 Summary of Investigation
* 4th Quarter 2012 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2011 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 2nd Quarter 2011 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Scott Ryan. Officer Albert Lieu or for OIS 2011-0002
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Ryan Jones (OIS 2011-0005):
* September 28, 2010 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• September 23, 2011 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2011-0005 Summary of Investigation
* 4th Quarter 2013 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2013 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Ryan Jones of for OIS 2011-0005.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer William Heppler (OIS 2011-0006):
* October 12, 2011 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 5b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• October 11, 2011 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2011-0006 Summary of Investigation
* 4th Quarter 2013 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2013 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer William Heppler or for OIS 2011-0006.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Lt. Bernadette Robinson (OIS 2014-0001):
* January 22, 2014 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• January 17, 2014 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2014-0001 Summary of Investigation
* 1st Quarter 2016 FDRB agenda
* 1st quarter 2016 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Lt. Bernadette Robinson or for OIS 2014-0001.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
Sgt. Michael Serujo and Sgt. Nicolas Pena (OIS 2015-0002):
• January 14, 2015 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 5a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• January 12, 2015 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
* Summary of Investigation of OIS 2015-0002
* 3rd quarter 2017 2nd session FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2015-0002 of for Sgt. Serujo or Sgt. Nicolas Pena.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Gabriel Alcaraz (OIS 2011-0008):
* January 4, 2012 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• December 29, 2011 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2011-0008 Summary of Investigation
* 2nd Quarter 2014 FDRB agenda
* 2nd Quarter 2014 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 2nd Quarter 2014 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Gabriel Alcaraz or OIS 2011-0008.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
On September 9, 2020 2020 the Commission provided you records for Officer Chad Campos and advised you that it had no additional responsive records. Subsequent to the notification, the Commission identified the following responsive record for Officer Campos. The Commission apologizes for any confusion:
Officer Chad Campos (OID-2006-0001):
* 1st quarter 2006 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Chad Campos or for OID 2006-000.
-
mar29,2006
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Michael Kawaguchi (OID 2006-0007):
* 3rd quarter 2006 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Michael Kawaguchi or for OID 2006-0007.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Sgt. Walter Ware (OIS 2012-0002):
* June 6, 2012 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• May 18, 2012 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2012-0002 Summary of Investigation
* 3rd Quarter 2014 FDRB agenda
* 3rd Quarter 2014 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 3nd Quarter 2014 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Sgt. Walter Ware or for OIS 2012-0002.
Officer Regina Berrigan (OIS 2012-0005):
* March 6, 2013 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• February 21, 2013 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2012-0005 Summary of Investigation
* 3rd Quarter 2014 FDRB agenda (same attachment as above OIS)
* 3rd Quarter 2014 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter (same attachment as above OIS)
* Redacted transcript from 3nd Quarter 2014 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached. (same attachment as above OIS)
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Regina Berrigan or for OIS 2012-0005.
Sgt. Toney Chaplin (OIS 2012-0006):
* October 10, 2012 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 5a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• September 27, 2012 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2012-0006 Summary of Investigation
* 3rd Quarter 2014 FDRB agenda (same attachment as above OIS)
* 3rd Quarter 2014 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter (same attachment as above OIS)
* Redacted transcript from 3nd Quarter 2014 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached. (same attachment as above OIS)
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Sgt. Toney Chaplin or for OIS 2012-0006.
Officer Thomas Mikel (OIS 2011-0007):
* January 4, 2014 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• December 21, 2011 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2011-0007 Summary of Investigation
* 3rd Quarter 2014 FDRB agenda (same attachment as above OIS)
* 3rd Quarter 2014 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter (same attachment as above OIS)
* Redacted transcript from 3nd Quarter 2014 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached. (same attachment as above OIS)
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Thomas Minkel or for OIS 2011-0007.
There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Richard Hastings and Officer Matthew Lopez: (OIS 2011-0004):
* August 3, 2011 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• July 22, 2011 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2011-0004 Summary of Investigation
* 1st Quarter 2013 FDRB agenda
* 1st Quarter 2013 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Richard Hastings, Officer Matthew Lopez or for OIS 2011-0004.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Nathan Johnson’s Officer Involved Shooting:
· 6 sets of Commission meeting minutes regarding Officer Nathan Johnson’s Officer Involved Shooting; redactions made pursuant to Commission’s Redaction Index attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Nathan Johnson.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Barry Wood (OIS 2015-0005)
* August 5, 2015 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6c– Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• August 3, 2015 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
* OIS 2015-0005 Summary of Investigation
* 4th Quarter 2015 FDRB agenda
* 4th quarter 2015 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript for 4th Quarter 2015 FDRB, specific redactions on each page of the transcript are references in the Police Commission Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Barry Wood of for OIS 2015-0005.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
On March 5, 2020 the Commission provided you with all responsive records it had for Officer Perfecto Barbosa and OIS 2014-0003. The Commission subsequently received a transcript for the 3rd quarter 2016 FDRB meeting discussing OIS 2014-0003. The Commission is providing the redacted transcript for 3rd quarter 2016 FDRB meeting. Specific redactions on each page are referenced in the Police Commission Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Perfecto Barbosa or for OIS 2014-0003.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records:
Officer Domenico Discenza (OID 2007-0003):
* 1st Quarter 2007 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Domenico Discenza or for OID 2007-0003.
-
mar20,2007
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records:
Officer Dennis Cravalho (OID 2007-0006):
* 1st Quarter 2007 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OID 2007-0006. The Commission will continue to search its records to determine if there are additional responsive records for Officer Dennis Cravalho.
-
sept18 2007
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records:
Lt. Michael Caplan (OID 2008-0011):
* 1st Quarter 2009 FDRB agenda
* 1st Quarter 2009 FDRB Findings
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Lt. Michael Caplan or for OID 2008-0011.
-
mar172009
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
On March 5, 2020 the Commission provided you responsive records for Officer Michael Shavers and notified you that the Commission had no additional responsive records for Officer Shavers. Subsequent to that notification, the Commission determined that an incident involving Officer Shavers would now be categorized as an Officer Involved Shooting under SB 1421. The Commission is providing you the following additional responsive records:
Officer Michael Shavers (OID 2007-0009):
* 4th Quarter 2007 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OID 2007-0009 or for Officer Michael Shavers.
-
jan11 2008
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Alberto Esparza (OIS 2009-0005):
* October 21, 2009 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• October 13, 2009 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Marshall
* OIS 2009-0005 Summary of Investigation
* 2nd Quarter 2010 FDRB agenda
* 2nd Quarter 2010 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Alberto Esparza for OIS 20009-0005.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Good Morning:
You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Compliance and Amendments Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.
Date: December 22, 2020
Location: Remote meeting; participant information to be included on the Agenda
Time: 4:30 p.m.
Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.
Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.
Complaints:
1. File No. 19124: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Chief William Scott and Lt. R. Andrew Cox and the Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to justify withholding of records and failing to maintain a Proposition G calendar.
2. File No. 19144: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Department of Police Accountability for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections, 67.21, 67.24, 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
3. File No. 20066: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Police Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b) incomplete response; 67.24(i) citation of unlawful public-interest balancing test; 67.26 nonminimal withholding; 67.27 failure to cite a specific provision of law for justification
4. File No. 20074: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b) incomplete response to public records request and 67.21(c) failure to provide written statement as to the existence, quantity, form and nature of records.
5. File No. 20110: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Sheriff Paul Miyamoto, Alison Lambert and the Sheriff's Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 by failing to respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete manner, 67.26 failing to keep withholding to a minimum and 67.27 failing to justify withholding.
Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)
For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, December 16, 2020.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Sgt. Joshua Hinds and Sgt. Ronald Liberta (OIS 2012-0001):
* May 16, 2012 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• May 16, 2012 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2012-0001 Summary of Investigation
* 4th Quarter 2014 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2014 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 4th Quarter 2014 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Sgt. Joshua Hinds, Sgt. Ronald Liberta or for OIS 2012-0001.
Officer Kohl O’Keefe (OIS 2013-0001):
* March 6, 2013 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• February 21, 2013 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2013-0001 Summary of Investigation
* 4th Quarter 2014 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2014 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 4th Quarter 2014 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Kohl O’Keefe or for OIS 2013-0001.
Sgt. Kevin Rightmire and Officer Edric Talusan (OIS 2013-0002):
* March 27, 2013 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• March 12, 2013 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2013-0002 Summary of Investigation
* 4th Quarter 2014 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2014 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 4th Quarter 2014 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Sgt. Kevin Rightmire, Officer Edric Talusan or for OIS 2012-0002.
There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Hello SOTF Parties: It has come to my attention that the subject line states that the Compliance and Amendments Committee hearing occurred on November 24, which is correct. The Notice below is for December 22, 2020 - TOMORROW! Apologies for any confusion.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Cheryl.Leger@sfgov.org<mailto:Cheryl.Leger@sfgov.org>
Tel: 415-554-7724
Fax: 415-554-5163
www.sfbos.org
[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Wayne Wong (OIS 2013-0009)
* January 22, 2014 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• January 7, 2014 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2013-0009 Summary of Investigation
* 2nd Quarter 2015 FDRB agenda, part 1 June 23, 2015
* 2nd Quarter 2015 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 2nd Quarter 2015, part 1 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Wayne Wong or for OIS 2013-0009.
Officer Aaron Cowhig (OIS 2013-0006)
* May 1, 2013 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• April 24, 2013 2013 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2013-0006 Summary of Investigation
* 2nd Quarter 2015 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* 2nd Quarter 2015 FDRB agenda, part 1, June 23, 2015
* 2nd Quarter 2015 FDRB agenda, part2, July 1, 2015
* Redacted transcript from 2nd Quarter 2015 FDRB part 2; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2013-0006. The Commission will continue to search its records to determine if there are additional responsive records for Officer Aaron Cowhig.
Officers Nathan Chew, Roger Morse, Richard Schiff, and Lt. Jason Sawyer (OIS 2013-0002):
On February 11, 2020 the Commission Office released records related to OIS 2013-00002 and Officers Chew, Morse and Schiff, and Lt. Sawyer. The following record was created after February 11, 2020 and the Commission Office is providing it to you now:
* Redacted transcript from 2nd Quarter 2015, part 1 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Chew, Morse and Schiff or for Lt. Sawyer.
There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Howard Brown (OIS 2013-0003)
* March 27, 2013 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• March 22, 2013 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2013-0003 Summary of Investigation
* 2nd Quarter 2016 FDRB agenda
* Redacted transcript from 2nd Quarter 2016; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Howard Brown or for OIS 2013-0003.
Officer Brandon Thompson (OIS 2014-0002)
* February 12, 2014 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• February 11, 2014 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2014-0002 Summary of Investigation
* 2nd Quarter 2015 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* 2nd Quarter 2016 FDRB agenda
* Redacted transcript from 2nd Quarter 2016; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2014-0002 or for Officer Brandon Thompson.
Officer Aaron Cowhig:
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Commission record of DPA 0252-16 IAD 16-0002 joint filing decision - redactions made pursuant to attached Commission redaction code
* Commission record of DPA 0252-16 IAD 16-0002 scheduling letter - redactions made pursuant to attached Commission redaction code
* Commission record of DPA opposition to Sgt. Erb's motion to exclude SME Gennaco - redactions made pursuant to attached Commission redaction code
* Commission record of Erb 1
* Commission record of Erb joint filing MLH DPA
* Commission record of ERB join prehearing statement MLH TRT final 082819 - redactions made pursuant to Commission redaction code
The Commission will continue to review its records to determine if there are additional responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb and OIS 2016-0002.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Commission record of response re Combined Joint Filing
* Commission record of Ruling on Motion DPA 0252-16 IAD 16-002, redacted per Police Commission redaction index
* Commission record of ruling on motion to exclude expert
* Commission record of scheduling letter for hearing on 091819
* Commission record of transcripts 050819, redacted per Police Commission redaction index
* Commission record of transcripts 091819, redacted per Police Commission redaction index
* Commission record of transcripts condensed 080819, redacted per Police Commission redaction index
The Commission will continue to review its records to determine if there are additional responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb and OIS 2016-0002.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Commission record of Erb Joint Request Final MLH TRT 082819
* Commission record of Erb motion exclude expert Final 32819
* Commission record of Erb Specifications DPA 0252-16 IAD 16-0002, redactions per Police Commission redaction index
* Commission record of Re Combined Joint Filing Re Justin Erb matter
The Commission will continue to review its records to determine if there are additional responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb and OIS 2016-0002.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Commission record of res 18-77 DPA 0252-16 IAD 16-002, redacted per Police Commission redaction index
* Commission record of res 19-60 DPA 0252-16 IAD 16-002, redacted per Police Commission redaction index
The Commission will continue to review its records to determine if there are additional responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb and OIS 2016-0002.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Sgt. Jeffrey Aloise, Officer Andres Garza and Officer Jeffrey Camilosa (OIS 2015-0009)
* December 2, 2015 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7d – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• November 18, 2015 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
* 3rd Quarter 2018 FDRB agenda
* Redacted transcript from 3rd Quarter 2018, specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2015-0009 or for Sgt. Aloise, Officer Garza and Officer Camilosa.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission previously provided you with responsive records for the following incidents/officers:
* OIS 2016-0003, Officer Chew and Officer Dominguez
* OIS 2017-0003, Officer Cha
* OIS 2017-0004, Officer Thompson
Subsequent to providing you with all the records it had relating to those incidents/officers, the Commission received additional records and we are providing them to you now. The records relate to all of the above listed incidents and named officers:
* 3rd Quarter 2018 FDRB agenda
* 3rd Quarter FDRB transcript, redactions made in accordance with the attached Police Commission Redaction Index Code.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2016-0003/Officers Chew and Dominguez, OIS 2017-0002/Officer Cha, or OIS 2017-0004/Officer Thompson
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer David Goff (OIS 2014-0006):
* October 22, 2014 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b - Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* October 15, 2014 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
* OIS 2014-0006 OIS summary of investigations
* 3rd Quarter 2017 FDRB agenda, session 1
* Redacted transcript from 3rd Quarter 2017 FDRB - session 1, specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2014-0006 or Officer David Goff.
Officer Sean Padilla (OIS 2015-0001):
* January 14, 2015 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 5a - Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* January 12, 2015 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
* OIS 2015-0001 OIS summary of investigations
* 3rd Quarter 2017 FDRB agenda, session 1
* Redacted transcript from 3rd Quarter 2017 FDRB - session 1, specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2015-0001 or for Officer Sean Padilla.
Officer Eric Reboli and Craig Tiffe (OIS 2015-0003):
* March 11, 2015 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8c - Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* March 5, 2015 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
* OIS 2014-0006 OIS summary of investigations
* 3rd Quarter 2017 FDRB agenda, session 1
* Redacted transcript from 3rd Quarter 2017 FDRB - session 1, specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2015-0003 or Officers Craig Tiffe or Officer Eric Reboli.
There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer George Perez (OIS 2004-0009):
* OIS 2004-0009 OIS summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2014-0006 or Officer George Perez.
Officer Patrick Zapponi (OIS 2004-0010):
* OIS 2004- 0010 OIS summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2004-0010 or for Officer Patrick Zapponi.
Officers Brian Schaffer (OIS 2005-0002):
* OIS 2005-0002 OIS summary of investigations
Officer Brian Schaffer and Officer James Trail (OIS 2002-0005):
* OIS 2002-0005 OIS Summary of Investigation
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2005-0002 or OIS 2002-0005 or for Officer Brian Schaffer
Officer James Trail (OIS 2004-0004):
* OIS 2004-0004 OIS Summary of Investigation
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2004-0004 or for Officer James Trail
Officer Matthew Goodin, Officer Andrew Meehan and Officer Gerald Newbeck (OIS 2005-0003)
* OIS 2005-0003 Summary of Investigation
The Commission has no additional records for OIS 2005-0003 or for Officers Andrew Meehan, Matthew Goodin or Gerald Newbeck
Officer Noel DeLeon (OIS 2005-0004)
* OIS 2005-0004 Summary of Invesitgation
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2005-0004 or for Officer DeLeon.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Kurt Maccaulay, James Johnson, Omar Alvarenga, Christopher Cotter, Gordon Wong, and Ryan McEachern (OIS 2014-0005):
* October 1, 2014 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 5a - Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* October 1, 2014 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
* OIS 2014-0005 summary of investigations
* 4th Quarter 2017 FDRB agenda
* Redacted transcript from 4rd Quarter 2017 FDRB - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached.
* 4th Quarter 2017 FDRB findings
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2014-0005 or for Officers Maccaulay, Johnson, Alvarenga, Wong and McEachern. The Commission will continue to review its records to determine if additional responsive records exist for Officer Christopher Cotter.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Good Afternoon:
You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in the following complaints scheduled before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.
Date: April 7, 2021
Location: Remote Meeting
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.
Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.
Complaints:
File No. 20066: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Police Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b) incomplete response; 67.24(i) citation of unlawful public-interest balancing test; 67.26 nonminimal withholding; 67.27 failure to cite a specific provision of law for justification.
Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)
For a document to be considered, it must be received at least four (4) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure).
For inclusion in the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, April 1, 2021.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Eduard Ochoa (OIS 2014-0007):
* December 1, 2014 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8b- Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* November 17, 2014 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
* OIS 2014-0007 summary of investigations
* 1st Quarter 2018 FDRB agenda
* Redacted transcript from 1st Quarter 2018 FDRB - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached.
* 1st Quarter 2018 FDRB findings
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2014-0007 or for Officer Eduard Ochoa.
Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* June 1, 2016 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8a- Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* July 6, 2016 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b- Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* July 13, 2016 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8a- Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* May 27, 2016 RTD letter from Chief Chaplin to Commissioner Loftus
* OIS 2016-0002 summary of investigations
* 1st Quarter 2018 FDRB agenda
* Redacted transcript from 1st Quarter 2018 FDRB - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached.
* 1st Quarter 2018 FDRB findings
The Commission will continue to review its records to determine if additional responsive records exist for Sgt. Justin Erb or for OIS 2016-0002.
There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Good Afternoon:
The agenda and packet for the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force April 7, 2021 4:00 p.m. meeting is online at the following link:
https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/sotf_040721_agenda.pdf
The packet material is linked to each item listed on the agenda marked with an "attachment". Click anywhere on the title of the item to open the link to the pdf of the packet material in question.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Cheryl.Leger@sfgov.org<mailto:Cheryl.Leger@sfgov.org>
Tel: 415-554-7724
Fax: 415-554-5163
<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
On September 28, 2020 the Commission provided you records for OID 2006-0007 and Officer Michael Kawaguichi. The Commission office has determined that Officer Stephen Bucy was also involved in that incident. There are no additional documents for OID 2006-0007; I am simply attaching the same document I provide you on September 28, 2020.
The Commission has no additional records for Officer Stephen Bucy.
Sorry for the confusion.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Sgt. Damon Hart and Officer Dino Zografos (OIS 2015-0008):
* November 4, 2015 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8b- Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* October 30, 2015 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
* OIS 2015-0008 summary of investigations
* 2nd Quarter 2018 FDRB agenda, session 1
* Redacted transcript from 2nd Quarter, session 1, 2018 FDRB - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached
* 2nd Quarter 2018 FDRB findings
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2015-0008 or for Sgt. Hart or -0007 or for Sgt. Hart or Officer Zografos.
Sgt. Michael Koniaris (OIS 2015-0007):
* November 4, 2015 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8b- Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* October 22, 2015 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
* OIS 2015-0007 summary of investigations
* 2nd Quarter 2018 FDRB agenda, session 1
* Redacted transcript from 2nd Quarter, session 1, 2018 FDRB - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached.
* 2nd Quarter 2018 FDRB findings
The Commission has no additional records for Sgt. Koniaris or OIS 2015-0007.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Sgt. Thomas Maguire and Sgt. Michael Tursi (OIS 2015-0004):
* March 25, 2015 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a– Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• March 24, 2015 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
* OIS 2015-0004 summary of investigations
* Redacted transcript from 2nd Quarter, 2018 FDRB, Session 2 – specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached
* 2nd Quarter 2018 FDRB findings
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2015-0004 or for Sgt. Maguire or Sgt. Tursi.
Officers Charles August, Nicholas Cuevas, Scott Phillips, Anotnio Santos, Officer Winson Seto(OIS 1015-0010):
* January 6, 2016 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7c– Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* December 9, 2015 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus
* OIS 2015-0010 summary of investigations
* Redacted transcript from 2nd Quarter 2018 FDRB, session 2 – specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.
* 2nd Quarter 2018 FDRB findings
The Commission has no additional records for Officers August, Cuevas, Phillips, Santos, Seto or for OIS 2015-0010.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Michael Mellone and Sgt. Nathaniel Steger (OIS 2016-0001)
* April 20, 2016 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8b- Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* OIS 2016-0001 summary of investigations
* 1st Q 2019 FDRB agenda
* Redacted transcript from 1st Quarter, 2019 FDRB, - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached
* 1st Quarter 2019 FDRB findings
* 1st and 2nd Quarter 2019 FDRB findings
The Commission will continue to search its records to determine if additional responsive record exist for OIS 2016-0001 or for Officer Mellone or Sgt. Steger.
Officers Gregory Buhagiar, Christopher Cotter, Glennon Griffin, Matthew Nazar, Steven Oesterich, Anthony Sharron and Robby Willkom (OIS 2018-0001):
* March 14, 2018 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3d- Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* February 27, 2018 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Turman
* OIS 2018-0001 summary of investigations
* 1st Quarter 2019 FDRB agenda
* Redacted transcript from 1st Quarter 2019 FDRB - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached.
* 1st Quarter 2019 FDRB findings
* 1st & 2nd Quarter 2019 FDRB findings
The Commission will continue to search its records to determine if additional responsive records exist for OIS 2018-0001 or for Officers Buhagiar, Cotter, Griffin, Nazar, Oeterich, Sharron, and Willkom.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Michael Mellone and Sgt. Nathaniel Steger (OIS 2016-0001)
* 2nd Q 2019 FDRB agenda
* 2nd Quarter 2019 FDRB findings and recommendation
* 2nd and 3rd Quarter 2019 FDRB findings (10.02.2019)
* 2nd and 3rd Quarter 2019 FDRB findings (12.11.2019)
* Redacted transcript from 2st Quarter, 2019 FDRB, - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached
The Commission will continue to search its records to determine if additional responsive record exist for OIS 2016-0001 or for Officer Mellone or Sgt. Steger.
Officer William Reininger (OIS 2018-0004):
On March 5, 2020 the Commission Office provided you records related to Officer William Reninger and OIS 2018-0004. At that time, the Commission provided you with all the records in its possession. Subsequent to your February 22, 2020 requests and the Commission's March 5, 2020 response, the Commission received the following documents and we are providing them to you now:
* 2nd Q 2019 FDRB agenda
* 2nd Quarter 2019 FDRB findings and recommendation
* 2nd and 3rd Quarter 2019 FDRB findings (10.02.2019)
* 2nd and 3rd Quarter 2019 FDRB findings (12.11.2019)
* Redacted transcript from 2st Quarter, 2019 FDRB, - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached
The Commission will continue to search its records to determine if there are additional responsive records for Officer William Reininger or OIS 2018-0004.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Michael Mellone and Sgt. Nathaniel Steger (OIS 2016-0001)
* 3rd Q 2019 FDRB agenda
* Redacted transcript from 3rd Quarter, 2019 FDRB, - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached
* Field Tactics Force Options report on OIS 2016-0001 - specific redactions on each page of the report are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached
The Commission has no additional records for OIS 2016-0001 or for Officer Mellone or Sgt. Steger.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Samuel Fung (OIS 2017-0006))
* 3rd Q 2019 FDRB agenda
* Redacted transcript from 3rd Quarter, 2019 FDRB, - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached
* Field Tactics Force Options report on OIS 2017-0006 - specific redactions on each page of the report are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached
The Commission has no additional records for OIS 2017-0006 or for Officer Samuel Fung.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer William Reininger (OIS 2018-0004)
* 3rd Q 2019 FDRB agenda
* Redacted transcript from 3rd Quarter, 2019 FDRB, - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached
* Field Tactics Force Options report on OIS 2018-0004 - specific redactions on each page of the report are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached
The Commission has no additional records for OIS 2018-0004 or for Officer Reininger.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Gregory Buhagiar, Christopher Cotter, Glennon Griffin, Matthew Nazar, Steven Oesterich, Anthony Sharron, and Robby Willkom (OIS 2018-0001)
* 3rd Q 2019 FDRB agenda
* Redacted transcript from 3rd Quarter, 2019 FDRB, - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached
* Field Tactics Force Options report on OIS 2016-0001 - specific redactions on each page of the report are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached
The Commission has no additional records for OIS 2018-0001 or for Officer Buhagiar, Griffin, Nazar, Sharron, Oesterich, and Willkom. The Commission will continue to review its records to determine if there are additional responsive records for Officer Christopher Cotter.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
On December 14, 2020 the Commission provided you records for the following:
Officer Kohl O'Keefe (OIS 2013-0001)
Sgt. Kevin Rightmire and Officer Edric Talusan (OIS 2013-0002)
Subsequent to December 14, 2020, the Commission determined that there were two transcripts for the 4th Quarter FDRB - part one and part two. The redacted transcript for part 1 of the 4th Quarter 2014 FRDB was provided to you on December 14, 2020. The Commission is providing you with a redacted transcript for part 2 of the 4th Quarter 2014 FDRB, with the specific redactions on each page referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached. This record is applicable to both cases and officers. The Commission apologizes for any confusion this may have caused.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Sgt. Kevin Rightmire, Officer Edric Talusan or for OIS 2013-0002, or for Officer Kohl O'Keefe or OIS 2013-0001.
Regards,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Shante Williams (OIS 2012-0004):
* August 15, 2012 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7c- Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* August 10, 2012 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS 2012-0004 summary of investigations
* Redacted transcript from 4th Q 2014 FDRB, part 2 FDRB, Session 2 - specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission's Redaction Index which is attached
* 4th Quarter 2014 FDRB findings
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2012-0004 or for Officer Williams.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Tracy Boes, Kirk Edison, Vincent Etcheber, Carl Fabbri, Martin Halloran, Martin Lalor, and David Nastari (OIS 2002-0003):
* OIS 2002-0003 summary of investigations
The attached document contains an error in the number of the Officer Involved Shooting. It erroneously states the number for this OIS is 2002-0004. The correct number in the Police Commission's records is OIS 2002-0003, which pertains to the OIS on February 27, 2002 and the above listed officers.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2002-0003 or for Officers Boes, Edison, Etcheber, Fabbri, Halloran, Lalor and Nastari.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
--- Please respond above this line ---
July 13, 2021
Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, " February 22, 2020"
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
The Commission is providing the following responsive records: Officers Tracy Boes, Kirk Edison, Vincent Etcheber, Carl Fabbri, Martin Halloran, Martin Lalor, and David Nastari (OIS 2002-0003):
OIS 2002-0003 summary of investigations The attached document contains an error in the number of the Officer Involved Shooting. It erroneously states the number for this OIS is 2002-0004. The correct number in the Police Commission’s records is OIS 2002-0003, which pertains to the OIS on February 27, 2002 and the above listed officers. The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2002-0003 or for Officers Boes, Edison, Etcheber, Fabbri, Halloran, Lalor and Nastari.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Christopher Samayoa (OIS 2017-0007):
* 1st and 2nd Quarter 2020 FDRB
* 3rd Quarter 2020 FDRB
* 4th Quarter 2020 FDRB
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2017-0007 of for Christopher Samayoa.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer John Ferrando (OIS 2003-0003):
* OIS 2003-0003 summary of investigations
The attached document uses an old numbering system for the number of the Officer Involved Shooting. It states the number for this OIS is 2003-0003. The Police Commission's record for this OIS is 2003-0003, which pertains to the OIS on November 19, 2003 and Officer John Ferrando.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2003-0003 or for Officer Ferrando.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Michael Celis (OIS 2002-0009):
* OIS 2002-0009 summary of investigations
The attached document uses an old numbering system for the number of the Officer Involved Shooting. It states the number for this OIS is MCD 2002-0010. The Police Commission's records for this OIS 2002-0009, which pertains to the OIS on October 8, 2002 and Officer Michael Celis.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2002-0009 or for Officer Celis.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Gregory Kane, James O'Malley, Timothy Paine, William Elieff, and Steven Stearns (OIS 2004-0005):
* OIS 2004-0005 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2004-0005 or for Officers Kane, Paine, Elieff, O'Malley or Stearns.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Nicholas Rainsford (OIS 2004-0001)
* OIS 2004-0001 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2004-0001 or for Officer Rainsford.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer John Bragagnolo (OIS 2004-0007)
* OIS 2004-0007 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2004-0007 or for Officer Bragagnolo.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Joseph Garbayo, Arshad Razzak, Georgia Sawyer and Thomas Walsh (OIS 2001-0001)
* OIS 2001-0001 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2001-0001 or for Officers Garbayo, G. Sawyer, Razzak, or Walsh.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Mathew Maciel (OIS 2001-0003)
* OIS 2001-0003 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2001-0003 or for Officer Maciel.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Eric Vintero (OIS 2002-0006)
* OIS 2002-0006 summary of investigations
The document has this case listed as OIS 007-0. However, the Commission's records for the OIS incident involving Officer Eric Vintero on June 14, 2002 is OIS 2002-0006.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2002-0006 or for Officer Vintero.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer David Parry (OIS 2002-0007)
* OIS 2002-0007summary of investigations
The document has this case listed as OIS 008-02. However, the Commission's records for the OIS incident involving Officer David Parry on July 7, 2002 is OIS 2002-0007.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2002-0007 or for Officer Parry.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Angela Rodriguez and Michael Wolf (OIS 2001-0004)
* OIS 2001-0004 summary of investigations
The document has this case listed as OIS-MCD 003-01. However, the Commission's records for the OIS incident involving Officers Rodriguez and Wolf on November 1, 2001 are OIS 2001-0004.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2001-0004 or for Officers Rodriguez or Wolf.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous:
So sorry. I forgot the attachment. Can you please confirm you received this email that contains the attachment?
Thank you,
Rachael
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Daniel Leydon (OIS 2001-0005)
* OIS 2001-0005 summary of investigations
The document has this case listed as OIS-MCD 001-02. However, the Commission's records for the OIS incident involving Officer Leydon on December 23, 2001 is OIS 2001-0004.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2001-0005 or for Officer Leydon.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Steven Lee (OIS 2001-0001)
* OIS 2002-0001 summary of investigations
The document has this case listed as OIS-MCD 002-02. However, the Commission's records for the OIS incident involving Officer Lee on February 2, 2002 is OIS 2002-0001.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2002-0001. The Commission will continue to search its records to determine if there are additional responsive records for Officer Steven Lee.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Hello ,
This message is to notify you that your password has changed.
This is an auto-generated email and has originated from an unmonitored email account. Please DO NOT REPLY.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Melonee Alvarez, Rommel Baldovino, Michelle Jean, Michael Murphy, Christopher Pedrini (OIS 2002-0004)
* OIS 2002-0004 summary of investigations
The document has this case listed as OIS-MCD 005-02. However, the Commission's records for the OIS incident involving the above listed officers on March 15, 2002 is OIS 2002-0004.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2002-0004 or for Officers Alvarez, Baldovino, Jean, Murphy or Pedrini.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Stan Williams (OIS 2002-0008)
* OIS 2002-0008 summary of investigations
The document has this case listed as OIS 009-02. However, the Commission's records for the OIS incident involving the above listed officer on August 9, 2002 is OIS 2002-0008.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2002-0008 or for Officer Stan Williams. Alvarez, Baldovino, Jean, Murphy or Pedrini.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Alan Callaway and Damon Keeve (OIS 1998-0003)
* OIS 1998-0003 summary of investigations
The document has this case listed as OIS-MCD 013-98. However, the Commission's records for the OIS incident involving Officer Callaway and Keeve on December 19, 1998 is OIS 1998-0003.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2002-0008 or for Officer Stan Williams. Alvarez, Baldovino, Jean, Murphy or Pedrini.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous:
In the email below I erroneously listed different officers and case number advising you that the Commission has no additional records. Regarding OIS 1998-0003 and Officer Damon Keeve and Alan Callaway, the Commission has no additional responsive records.
Sorry for the confusion.
Regards,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers David Hamilton, Edith Lewis and Stephen Murphy (OIS 2000-0002)
* OIS 2000-0002 summary of investigations
The document has this case listed as OIS-MCD 003-00. However, the Commission's records for the OIS incident involving Officers David Hamilton, Lewis and Murphy on April 13, 2000 are filed under OIS 2000-0002.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2000-0002 or for Offices Hamilton, Lewis or Murphy.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Joseph Juarez and Steven Maionchi (OIS 2000-0003)
* OIS 2000-0003 summary of investigations
The document has this case listed as OIS 002-00. However, the Commission's records for the OIS incident involving Officers Joseph Juarez and Steven Maionchi on October 17, 2000 are filed under OIS 2000-0003.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2000-0003 or for Offices Juarez and Maionchi.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Derrick Jackson (OIS 2000-0004)
* OIS 2000-0003 summary of investigations
The document has this case listed as OIS-MCD 0001-00. However, the Commission's records for the OIS incident involving Officer Derrick Jackson on October 20, 2000 are filed under OIS 2000-0004.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2000-0004 or for Officer Derrick Jackson.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Robert Moser and Keith Parker (OIS-MCD 1998-0002)
* OIS-MCD 1998-0002 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1998-0002 or for Officers Moser and Parker.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer James Spillane (OIS-MCD 1998-0001)
* OIS-MCD 1998-0001 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1998-0001 or for Officer Spillane.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Andriano Castro (OIS-MCD 1998-0003)
* OIS-MCD 1998-0003 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1998-0003. The Commission will continue to search its records to determine if there are additional responsive record for Officer Adriano Castro.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Robert Frazier, James Arnswald, Peter Schlegle (OIS-MCD 1998-0004)
* OIS-MCD 1998-0004 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1998-0004 or for Officers Frazier, Arnswald or Schlegle.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
On August 12, 2021 the Commission provided you with responsive records for Officer John Ferrando and advised you there were no additional responsive records for Officer Ferrando. Subsequent to that notification the Commission was able to determine that a document related to OIS-MCD 1998-0005 is also related to Officer John Ferrando. The Commission is providing that document to you now.
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Jason Cherniss and John Ferrando (OIS-MCD 1998-0005)
* OIS-MCD 1998-0005 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1998-0005 or for Officers Cherniss or Ferrando.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Daniel Greely (OIS-MCD 1998-0008)
* OIS-MCD 1998-0008 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1998-0008 or for Officer Daniel Greely.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Dennis Meixner, Jason Jefferson and Leonard Morrow (OIS-MCD 1998-0009)
* OIS-MCD 1998-0009 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1998-0009 or for Officers Meixner, Jefferson or Morrow.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Louis Barberini, Timothy Kiely, John Ferrando, Philip Frenkel and Michael Browne (OIS-MCD 1998-0010)
* OIS-MCD 1998-0010 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1998-0010 or for Officers Barberini, Keily, Ferrando, Frenkel or Browne.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Benito Manning, John Lewis and Brian Canedo (OIS-MCD 1998-0011)
* OIS-MCD 1998-0011 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1998-0011 or for Officers Manning, Lewis or Canedo.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Mark Cota, Dennis O'Mahony and Jesse Serna (OIS-MCD 1999-0002)
* OIS-MCD 1999-0002 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1999-0002 or for Officers Cota, O'Mahony or Serna.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
On March 16, 2020 the Commission provided you responsive records for Officer Moses Gala and advised you it had no additional responsive records. Subsequent to that notification the Commission determined that a record related to an officer-involved shooting - OIS-MCD 1999-0001 - is also related to Officer Moses Gala. The Commission is providing that document to you now.
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Moses Gala (OIS-MCD 1999-0001)
* OIS-MCD 1999-0001 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1999-0001 or for Officer Gala.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officer Frederick Schiff (OIS-MCD 1999-0003)
* OIS-MCD 1999-0003 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1999-0003 or for Officer Schiff.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Jacob Fegan and Adriano Castro (OIS-MCD 1999-0004)
* OIS-MCD 1999-0004 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1999-0004 or for Officers Fegan and Castro.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
On February 11, 2020 the Commission provided you with responsive records for Officer Jason Sawyer and advised you there were no additional responsive records for Officer Sawyer. Subsequent to that notification the Commission was able to determine that a document related to OIS-MCD 1998-0012 is also related to Officer Jason Sawyer. The Commission is providing that document to you now.
The Commission is providing the following responsive records:
Officers Ian Furminger and Jason Sawyer (OIS-MCD 1998-0012)
* OIS-MCD 1999-0004 summary of investigations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS-MCD 1998-0012 or for Officers Furminger and Sawyer.
From: San Francisco Police Commission
*MuckRock Staff Notes: At the request of this agency, and with in coordination with the requester, we have removed a document that included a home address in it. A properly redacted document has been provided by the agency.*
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception.
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
- Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
- Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
- DPA Opposition to Sgt. Erb's Motion to Exclude SME Gennanco, redactions made per attached Police Commission Redaction Index
- DPA 0252-16 IAD 16-002 combined joint filing decision, redactions made per attached Police Commission Redaction Index
- Joint Prehearing Statement MLH TRT final 082819, redactions made per attached Police Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional records for Sgt. Justin Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine whether what information, if any, required redaction.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than December 22, 2021.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous:
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* DPA Opposition to Sgt. Erb's Motion to Exclude SME Gennanco, redactions made per attached Police Commission Redaction Index
* DPA 0252-16 IAD 16-002 combined joint filing decision, redactions made per attached Police Commission Redaction Index
* Joint Prehearing Statement MLH TRT final 082819, redactions made per attached Police Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional records for Sgt. Justin Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine whether what information, if any, required redaction.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than December 22, 2021.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Department
Mr. Morisy, Mr. Natta, Mr. Kravitz, Ms. Carruth, and Ms. Murry:
On November 24, 2021 at 4:41 pm, the San Francisco Police Commission sent a set of responsive records to a Muckrock account, requests@muckrock.com. One of the documents, titled “Police Commission copy of Commission record of Erb charges” was inadvertently sent without the proper redactions and contains a peace officer’s home address. The error was discover today, and we have determined this document is currently posted on your website under the above listed account number. The posting of this information is an immediate public safety issue, and California Government Code section 6254.21 prohibits the posting of a peace officer’s home address. Under California Government Code section 6254.21, this document must immediately be taken down and removed from your website.
Please confirm via return email that the document titled, “Police Commission copy of Commission record of Erb charges” has bee removed from your website.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous:
Following up on my below email to you, can you please confirm you will not use, disseminate, distribute or post on-line the sergeant’s home address. I want to also alert you to Cal. Govt. Code section 6254.21 that prohibits the posting of peace officer’s home address.
Thank you for your cooperation,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 – 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Settlement agreement re dispo of pending charges 09182019, redactions made per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Settlement agreement re dispo of pending charges 05082019
* Commission notification letter to Erb, redactions made per attached Commission Redaction Index
* PowerPoint for Erb hearing, redactions made per attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional records for Sgt. Justin Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine what information, if any, requires redaction.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than December 22, 2021.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for the following:
OIS 2010-0015 (Officer Timothy Ortiz and Austin Wilson)
* January 12, 2011 Police Commission meeting agenda
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
* OIS 2010-0015 Return to Duty letter
* OIS 2010-0015 summary of investigation
* 1st Quarter 2012 FDRB agenda
* 1st Quarter 2012 FDRB transcript - redacted per the attached Police Commission Redaction Index
* 1st Quarter 2012 FDRB findings and recommendations
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Timothy Ortiz and Austin Wilson or for OIS 2010-0015.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than December 22, 2021.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous:
I realized I failed to attach the Police Commission's Redaction Index to my previous email regarding responsive records for Officer Austin Wilson and Timothy Ortiz (OIS 2010-0015). I have attached the documents I sent you in the previous email along with the Commission's Redaction Index. I apologize for any confusion.
Regards,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Erb scheduling documents, redacted per the attached Police Commission redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than January 5, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Deposition of witness in Erb case, redacted per the attached Police Commission redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than January 19, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous:
The Police Commission is in receipt of your Supervisor of Records petition. We address each of the issues you raise below.
Redaction of Police Officer's name
The first issue you raise is the redaction of an officer's name. You stated the following:
https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2021/12/08/Police_Commission_copy_of_Commission_notification_letter_to_Erb_Redacted.pdf<https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url?o=https%3A//cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2021/12/08/Police_Commission_copy_of_Commission_notification_letter_to_Erb_Redacted.pdf&g=Y2E0MzhiODRlZmQ2NmFlYw==&h=NGRmNzdhZDg2ZDU0YjEyNTA3MjZkNmQ1ZjMwZmExMWQyNzQ4NmYxNzgwODQ3ZjdlNTQ0ODUwMDgzNDc5YmU0Yw==&p=YXAzOnNmZHQyOmF2YW5hbjpvOjRjYjA2NjdmMWJiZGFhNjVjYTk4MTgxMGQxNzZkZmRiOnYxOmg=> , what Police Commission refers to as redaction type 1 Penal Code 832.7(b)(5)(A) is being used to withhold oddly enough Sgt. Erb's name, even though (b)(5)(A) specifically cannot exempt the names of peace officers.
I challenge all uses of redaction type 1 to withhold the names of peace officers in all of the records provided to me on this request.
We have reviewed our production of these documents. The documents labeled "Police Commission copy of record of Erb Charges_Redacted" and "Police Commission copy of Commission notification letter to Erb_redacted" provided to you on December 8, 2021 inadvertently redacted Sgt. Erb's name. We have provided you updated versions of the documents and have only redact Sgt. Erb's address, which is allowable under California Penal Code 832.7(b)(5)(A) and what we originally intended. Please refer to the attached Police Commission Redaction Index Code #1. Thank you for bringing this error to the Police Commission's attention.
CLETS and CORI Redactions
You challenge the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System "CLETS" and Local Summary Criminal History "CORI" redactions. You state:
The Police Commission has stated the following written justification and redaction key for various withholdings for SB 1421 records:
Redaction type 7 - "California Penal Code § 11105 et. seq. - CORI data (personal identifiable criminal history) and CLETS data (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems)."
Admin Code 67.26 requires that each redaction be keyed to a justification under 67.27. But this is not a lawful 67.27 justification because it is neither citing a "specific permissive exemption" nor a "specific statutory authority."
"California Penal Code § 11105 et. seq" refers to dozens of different clauses. The Police Commission must take a specific position on which of these various distinct statutory authories apply. Which clause specifically purportedly exempts this information?
Moreover, this redaction justification seems to be abused: For example, photographs of cars in the Erb incident cannot possibly be derived from CLETS or CORI. They are from the incident at hand. https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2021/12/08/Police_Commission_copy_of_PowerPoint_for_Erb_hearing_Redacted.pdf<https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url?o=https%3A//cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2021/12/08/Police_Commission_copy_of_PowerPoint_for_Erb_hearing_Redacted.pdf&g=NGRkZDUwOTc5NzI3NTM2NA==&h=MzRhZWIyZjdjY2IzODFlODNmYjk0ZTE3OGI5MTMzOGJjMTFmZWFjNjdkNWIzMzg3NGI0MzFkY2U4NTFhMjkxOA==&p=YXAzOnNmZHQyOmF2YW5hbjpvOjRjYjA2NjdmMWJiZGFhNjVjYTk4MTgxMGQxNzZkZmRiOnYxOmg=>
We agree that we should be more precise in our rationale as to why you are not entitled to receive CLETS or CORI information. We have revised our redaction code.
Next, you challenge the redaction to the "Hot Sheet. The "hot sheet" is information that was obtained from CLETS. The Police Commission is bound to comply with the State's regulations concerning individuals' criminal history. California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System Policies, Practices and Procedures and Statutes Section 1.4.2., CLETs statute. Cal. Penal Code section 11105(a)(1) states "The Department of Justice shall maintain state summary criminal history information." Cal. Penal Code section 11105(b) sets forth entities and individuals who may obtain the information. Under the and California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System Policies, Practices and Procedures and Statutes, Section 1.6.4, Confidentiality of Information from the CLETS - Only authorized law enforcement, criminal justice personnel or their lawfully authorized designees may use a CLETS terminal or have access to information derived from CLETS. Any information from the CLETS is confidential and for official use only. https://oag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/clets-ppp%2012-2019.pdf
You are not authorized under the statute to obtain the information. We are unable to provide you with the information you seek. But, the Hotsheet was properly withheld under California Penal Code section 11105(b) and the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System Policies, Practices and Procedures Section 1.6.4, Confidentiality of Information from the CLETS for all the reasons stated above. We have revised our redaction code to be more precise in our redactions. Thank you for bringing this to the Police Commission's attention.
License Plate
Lastly, you challenge the redactions to the document labeled "Police Commission copy of PowerPoint for Erb hearing_Redacted." Page #19 of the PowerPoint was properly redacted, but the justification was incorrect. The license plate on this page was redacted under California Government Code section 6254 (c) and 6254(k) and under the right of privacy under Article I. sec. 1 of the California Constitution. We have also updated our redaction code. As for the redactions on pages 15, 16, 17, 21 the license plate numbers on the photos are illegible and therefore no redactions are needed. Thank you for bringing this to the Commission's attention.
Regards,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson with exhibits (part 1)
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than February 4, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous:
I have attached the Police Commission' Redaction Index Code. It was not attached to the last email.
I apologize for the error and any confusion it may have caused
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson with exhibits (part 2), redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than February 18, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson with exhibits (part 3), redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than March 4, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson with exhibits (part 4A), redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than March 4, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson with exhibits (part 4B), redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than March 4, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous:
In the last email with responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson with exhibits (4B), I forgot to attach the Police Commission Redaction Index. I have included it in this email.
I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson with exhibits (part 4C), redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than March 18, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson with exhibits (part 4D), redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than March 18, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson with exhibits (part 4E), redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than March 18, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson with exhibits (part 4F), redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than March 18, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson Exhibit P (part of part 3 released prior), redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index and corresponding time stamp index: https://vimeo.com/677474381/d58cae4da4
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than March 18, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson Part 4G - redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index.
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than April 1, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson Part 4H - redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index.
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than April 1, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson Part 4I- redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index.
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than April 1, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson Part 4J- redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index.
The Commission has additional documents related to Sgt. Erb and OIS 2016-0002 that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than April 1, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb (OIS 2016-0002):
* Joint Prehearing Statement from Hinckley and Thompson Part 5, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index.
The Commission has provided you with all responsive records for Sgt. Justin Erb and OIS 2016-0002.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than April 15, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Paulo Morgado, Case No. IVF C09-143
* Morgado IVF C09-143, Part 1, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index.
* Morgado IVF C09-143, Part 1a, missing pages, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
* Morgado IVF C09-143, Part 2, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Officer Paulo Morgado that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than May 6, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Paulo Morgado, Case No. IVF C09-143
* Morgado IVF C09-143, Part 3, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index.
* Morgado IVF C09-143, Part 4, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Officer Paulo Morgado that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than May 20, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Kilshaw, Rachael (POL) (rachael.kilshaw@sfgov.org) has sent you a protected message.
Read the message (https://outlook.office365.com/Encryption/retrieve.ashx?recipientemailaddress=88550-29784388%40requests.muckrock.com&senderemailaddress=rachael.kilshaw%40sfgov.org&senderorganization=AwF9AAAAAnkAAAADAQAAAJPCU1mst%2blHqI29OFU%2ftThPVT1TRkdPVjEub25taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tLE9VPU1pY3Jvc29mdCBFeGNoYW5nZSBIb3N0ZWQgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9ucyxEQz1OQU1QUjA5QTAwMSxEQz1wcm9kLERDPW91dGxvb2ssREM9Y29tnQDhxkeFX02Pceux7P%2bX2UNOPUNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24sQ049U0ZHT1YxLm9ubWljcm9zb2Z0LmNvbSxDTj1Db25maWd1cmF0aW9uVW5pdHMsREM9TkFNUFIwOUEwMDEsREM9cHJvZCxEQz1vdXRsb29rLERDPWNvbQE%3d&messageid=%3cBY5PR09MB5187FAAF6CAC37EE98ED7731F8C69%40BY5PR09MB5187.namprd09.prod.outlook.com%3e&cfmRecipient=SystemMailbox%7b9a0e5c24-3f56-4678-9e9f-c3d89a4ae64d%7d%40SFGOV1.onmicrosoft.com&consumerEncryption=false&senderorgid=22d5c2cf-ce3e-443d-9a7f-dfcc0231f73f&urldecoded=1&e4e_sdata=UXZiLj2khOgCddmjeu1P47QF4Vu3d%2brHHstAcXbR592J3v1ooBnuX8mMYHceqj40mowbE%2fEBz4DUB5XMfJ8ikS%2bX2Cz5udKMCccnCvN0u0wzEYM1UnQA67GyNWAtZIeNmSiNIlVIdKfuJ6qM8Rek1fLA7%2frIuWdWsMkKX%2bqOyngZLaKYaZWbTzxe1jtQpsVZvtzAp5K%2bZWg6jsXLJOry9qpcH%2fHGJsDOPCrotKD4uJMc%2b5eyIBJj3OHtHE6QNosSDN2VSrk5m%2f%2bSqjcwrMD18E5qtL%2b%2fzdrHOHRbL1AJWSIEpOIocRwaHz6aMRfDV9j5vVQx%2f3Km%2fir%2fGWLbczsFTw%3d%3d)
Learn about messages protected by Office 365 Message Encryption. (https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?Linkid=844050)
Privacy Statement (https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/p/?linkid=857875)
Email encryption powered by Office 365. Learn More (https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?Linkid=844050)
Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
-
message_v4
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officers Jason Gallagher:
* Gallagher Case No C08-170, redacted per the attached Police Commission Redaction Index Code
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Jason Gallagher.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than May 20, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
Dear Anonymous.
My apologies. I neglected to attach the Police Commission Redaction Index in the last email.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Paulo Morgado, Case No. IVF C09-143
* Morgado IVF C09-143, Part 5, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index.
* Morgado IVF C09-143, Part 6, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Officer Paulo Morgado that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than June 3, 2022.
Sincerely,
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Paulo Morgado, Case No. IVF C09-143
* Morgado IVF C09-143, Part 7, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index.
* Morgado IVF C09-143, Part 8, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional documents related to Officer Paulo Morgado that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than June 3, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Paulo Morgado, Case No. IVF C09-143
* Morgado IVF C09-143, Part 9, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index.
* Morgado IVF C09-143, Part 10, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
* Morgado IVF C09-143, Part 11, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional items related to Officer Paulo Morgado that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than July 1, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sergeant Lawrence Kempsinski (Case No. ALW IAD 2016-0032)
* Sgt. Lawrence Kempinski ALW IAD 2016-0032 case file, redacted per the attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Sgt. Lawrence Kempinski.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than July 1, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Paulo Lozada (OIS-MCD 1999-0005)
* Summary of Investigation for OIS-MCD 1999-0005
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Paul Lozada.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than July 1, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Jason Lai (ALW IAD 2015-0248)
* ALW IAD 2015-0248 Jason Lai specification, redactions made per Police Commission redaction index
* Lai documents ALW IAD 2015-0248, redactions made per Police Commission redaction index
* Department pretrial statement ALW IAD 2015-0248, redaction made per Police Commission redaction index
* Jason Lai pretrial statement ALW IAD 2015-0248, redactions made per Police Commission redaction index
* Lai scheduling letter 02292016, redactions made per Police Commission redaction index
* Email re Jason Lai resignation
* Email re Jason Lai restrictions on future employment
* Jason Lai notification ALW IAD 2015-0248, redactions made per Police Commission redaction index
* Police Commission resolution 16-29, Jason Lai resignation, redactions made per Police Commission redaction index.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Jason Lai.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than July 1, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Joseph Reyes (IAD 2015-0338)
* Department Prehearing statement, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Letter of thanks and related documents, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Resolution 16-27 assignment, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Resolution 17-15 Reyes final dispo, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Resolution 17-30 adoption of findings, redaction per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Reyes notification, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Reyes notification letter, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Reyes appeal offer, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Reyes Finding of Facts, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Reyes 012417 transcripts, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Reyes 03012017 transcripts, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Reyes 122116 transcripts, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Reyes IAD 2015-0338 case documents, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Reyes Settlement Agreement, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Reyes Specifications IAD 2015-0338
The Commission has additional records for Officer Joseph Reyes that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than July 15, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Courtney Smith (ALW-IAD 2013-0216)
* Resolution 17-31 ALW IAD 2013-0216, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Courtney Smith 040616 notification, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Courtney Smith ALW IAD 2013-0216 specifications, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Courtney Smith ALW IAD 2013-0216 040616 transcripts, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Courtney Smith Nov 4 2015 notification, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Courtney Smith Oct 7 2015 notification, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Courtney Smith ALW IAD 2013-0216 scheduling letter, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Courtney Smith report for the Commission, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
* Courtney Smith ALW IAD 2013-0216 res 14-46 assignment, redacted per attached Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has additional records for Officer Courtney Smith that it must review to determine if redactions are needed prior to releasing them.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than July 25, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Chris Damonte (ALW IAD 2018-0212)
* Damonte ALW IAD 2018-0212 file, redacted per the attached redaction index code
The Commission will continue to search to determine if there are additional responsive records for Officer Chris Damonte.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than August 15, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Julian Ng (OIS 2000-0001)
* OIS 2000-0001 summary of investigation
The Commission has no additional records for OIS 2000-0001 or for Officer Julian Ng.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than August 15, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Joseph Reyes IVD C09-143:
* Joseph Reyes Administrative Appeal 1 of 3, redacted
The Commission has additional records for Officer Reyes which must be review to determine if redactions are needed.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than September 16, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Paulo Morgado IVD C09-143:
* 19 videos submitted to Police Commission, redacted: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.mycusthelp.com/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(2wjftelo0cegkbp4dahxydwn))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=68730&view=45
* Video Redaction notes
* Police Commission Redaction index
The Commission has no additional records for Officer Paulo Morgado.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than September 16, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
-
Police_Commission_Copy_of_Off_Paulo_Morgado_IVF_C09-143_-_VIdeo_11_-_Redacted
-
Police_Commission_Copy_of_Off_Paulo_Morgado_IVF_C09-143_-_VIdeo_5_-_Redacted
-
Police_Commission_Copy_of_Off_Paulo_Morgado_IVF_C09-143_-_VIdeo_4_-_Redacted
-
Police_Commission_Copy_of_Off_Paulo_Morgado_IVF_C09-143_-_VIdeo_8_-_Redacted
-
Police_Commission_Copy_of_Off_Paulo_Morgado_IVF_C09-143_-_VIdeo_7_-_Redacted
-
Police_Commission_Copy_of_Off_Paulo_Morgado_IVF_C09-143_-_VIdeo_3_-_Redacted
-
Police_Commission_Copy_of_Off_Paulo_Morgado_IVF_C09-143_-_VIdeo_19_-_Redacted
-
Police_Commission_Copy_of_Off_Paulo_Morgado_IVF_C09-143_-_VIdeo_9_-_Redacted
-
Police_Commission_Copy_of_Off_Paulo_Morgado_IVF_C09-143_-_VIdeo_18_-_Redacted
-
Police_Commission_Copy_of_Off_Paulo_Morgado_IVF_C09-143_-_VIdeo_2_-_Redacted
There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Joseph Reyes IAD 2015-0338:
* Joseph Reyes Administrative Appeal 2 of 3, redacted pursuant to attached redaction index
The Commission has additional records for Officer Reyes which must be review to determine if redactions are needed.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than September 16, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Joseph Reyes IAD 2015-0338:
* Joseph Reyes Administrative Appeal 3 of 3, redacted pursuant to attached redaction index
* Respondent Brief in Opposition, redacted pursuant to attached redaction index
The Commission has additional records for Officer Reyes which must be review to determine if redactions are needed.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than September 30, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
On March 8, 2021, the Police Commission provided you responsive records related to Officer James Trail and OIS 2005-0004. At that time, we advised you there were no additional records for related to Officer James Trail or OIS 2004-0004. Subsequent to March 8, 2021, the Police Commission has determined there are additional records related to Officer Trail and OIS 2004-0004. The Commission is providing you additional responsive records for Officer James Trail and OIS 2004-0004:
* J Trail OIS 2004-0004 and JCT C05-190 case file, redacted per the attached Police Commission redaction index
The Commission has no additional records for Officer James Trail or for OIS 2004-0004.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than September 30, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Officer Joseph Reyes IAD 2015-0338:
* Reyes Defense Video #2 and Reyes Defense Video #3, redacted per the attached Police Commission Redaction Index and video redaction notes: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.mycusthelp.com/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(eccv4z3zozuaolluz2znedx0))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549SQISZWXGGKKDYNKQVUGKEFNNHXURSE&rid=75939&view=45
* Reyes Defense Video #4: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.mycusthelp.com/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(eccv4z3zozuaolluz2znedx0))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549SQISZWXGGKKDYNKQVUGKEFNNHXURSE&rid=75939&view=45
* Police Commission Redaction Index
* Video redaction notes
The Police Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Joseph Reyes or case IAD 2015-0338.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than October 24, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt Sherry Hicks (IAD 2017-0283)
* Hicks IAD 2017-0293 part 1 of 3, redacted per the attached redaction index
The Police Commission has additional records for Sgt. Sherry Hicks which it must review prior to release to determine if any redactions are needed.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than November 25, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt Sherry Hicks (IAD 2017-0283)
* Hicks IAD 2017-0293 part 2 of 3, redacted per the attached redaction index
The Police Commission has additional records for Sgt. Sherry Hicks which it must review prior to release to determine if any redactions are needed.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than November 25, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the following responsive records for Sgt Sherry Hicks (IAD 2017-0283)
* Hicks IAD 2017-0293 part 3 of 3, redacted per the attached redaction index
The Police Commission has additional records for Sgt. Sherry Hicks which it must review prior to release to determine if any redactions are needed.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than November 25, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
On August 12, 2021 the Police Commission provided you responsive records related to Officer James O'Malley and OIS 2004-0005 and advised there wer no additional responsive records for wither the officer or the incident. Subsequent to March 8, 2021, the Police Commission has determined there are additional records related to Officer O'Malley and OIS 2004-0005. The Commission is providing you those additional responsive records now:
* J O'Malley OIS 2004-0005 and C06-218 case file, redacted per the attached Police Commission redaction index
The Commission has no additional records for Officer James O'Malley or for OIS 2004-0005.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than November 25, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Police Commission is providing you with the following records for Lt. Curtis Liu:
* Curtis Liu case file IAD ALW 2015-0307, redacted
* Police Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Lt. Curtis Liu or for case # IAD ALW 2015-0307
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than December 16, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Police Commission is providing you with the following records for Officer Derek Byrne:
* Derek Byrne case file IAD 2015-0084, redacted
* Police Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Derek Byrne or for IAD 2015-0084
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than December 16, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Police Commission is providing you with the following records for Officer Sean Doherty:
* Sean Doherty case file IAD 2015-0087, redacted
* Police Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Sean Doherty or for IAD 2015-0087
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than December 16, 2022.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Police Commission is providing you with the following records for Sgt. John Bragagnolo :
* John Bragagnolo case file C06-28 SL, redacted
* Police Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Sgt. John Bragagnolo or for C06-28 SL.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than January 6, 2023.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Police Commission is providing you with the following responsive records for Officer Richard Hastings:
* Officer Richard Hastings IAD 2013-0194 casefile, redacted
* Police Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Richard Hastings or for case IAD 2013-0194.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than January 27, 2023.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Police Commission is providing you with the following responsive records for Sgt Reese Burrows:
* Sgt. Reese Burrows IAD 2017-0093 casefile, redacted per attached Redaction Index
* Police Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has no additional responsive records for case file IAD 2017-0093. The Commission will continue to search to determine if additional responsive records exist for Sgt. Reese Burrows.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than February 10, 2023.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records for Officers Christopher Cotter, Officer Aaron Cowhig, Officer James George and Officer Malek Jisrawi (MCD-2014-0183-ICD).
* Police Commission November 5, 2015 agenda
* Police Commission copy of MCD 2014-0183-ICD Return to Duty letter, redacted per attached Redaction Index
The Commission has no additional records for Officers Cotter, Cowhig, George or Jisrawi or for MCD 2014-0183-ICD
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than February 24, 2023.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Police Commission is providing you with the following responsive records for Officer Gary Moriyama:
* Officer Gary Moriyama case file IVF C11-023, redacted per attached Redaction Index
* Police Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has no additional responsive records for case file IVF C11-023 or for Officer Gary Moriyama.
On January 27, 2023, the Commission provided you records related to Sgt. Reese Burrows and advised you it needed to determine if there were additional responsive records for Sgt. Reese Burrows. The Commission determined it has no additional responsive records for Sgt. Burrows related to your request.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than April 7, 2023.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
On August 12, 2021 and again on November 15, 2022 the Commission provided you records related to Officer James O'Malley and OIS 2004-0005 and notified you there were no additional records related to OIS 2004-0005 or to Officer James O'Malley. Subsequently, the Commission has located additional records for OIS 2005-0004 and additional records for officers involved in that incident.
The Police Commission is providing you with the following responsive records for Lt. Timothy Paine:
* Timothy Paine C06-219 case file, redacted per attached Redaction Index
* Police Commission Redaction Index
The Commission will continue to search to determine if there are additional records for OIS 2004-0005 or records for Officers James O'Malley, Timothy Paine, or any additional officers.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than April 7, 2023.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
On July 11, 2022 the Police Commission provided you records for Officer Courtney Smith and case ALW IAD 2013-0216 and advised it had additional records it need to review for possible redactions. The Commission is providing the following records for Officer Courtney Smith and case numbers ALW IAD 2013-0216 and ALW IAD 2014-0097:
* Courtney Smith case file documents ALW IAD 2013-0216, redacted per attached Police Commission Redaction Index
* Courtney Smith Feb 4 2015 transcript, redacted per attached Police Commission Redaction Index
* Smith Stipulated Agreement November 24, 2014, redacted per attached Police Commission Redaction Index
* Smith Stipulated Agreement Sept 29, 2015, redacted per attached Police Commission Redaction Index
* Smith amended specifications ALW IAD 2013-0216 and ALW IAD 2014-0097, redacted per attached Police Commission Redaction Index
The Commission has no additional records for Officer Courtney Smith, for ALW IAD 2013-0216 or for ALW IAD 2014-0097.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than April 7, 2023.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
On August 12, 2021 and again on November 15, 2022 the Commission provided you records related to Officer James O'Malley and OIS 2004-0005 and notified you there were no additional records related to OIS 2004-0005 or to Officer James O'Malley. Subsequently, the Commission has located additional records for OIS 2005-0004 and additional records for officers involved in that incident.
The Police Commission is providing you with the following responsive records for Officer Ferdinand Dimapasoc and Officer Owen Sweeney:
* Ferdinand Dimapasoc C06-217 case file, redacted per attached Redaction Index
* Owen Sweeny C06-220 case file, redacted per attached Redaction Index
* Police Commission Redaction Index
The Commission will continue to search to determine if there are additional records for OIS 2004-0005 or records for Officers James O'Malley, Timothy Paine, Ferdinand Dimapasoc, Owen Sweeney, or any additional officers.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than May 12, 2023.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Police Commission is providing you with a link to the following responsive records for Officers James O'Malley, Timothy Paine, Ferdinand Dimapasoc and Owen Sweeney:
* O'Malley, Paine, Dimapasoc, Sweeney case file part 1, redacted
* O'Malley, Paine, Dimapasoc, Sweeney case file part 2, redacted
* Police Commission Redaction Index
https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(z1oj3r0mh1urnljg434uxtro))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549MWUW[YKPZAHZKHVEDLJUVUNQHP[XMR&rid=44574&view=45<https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(z1oj3r0mh1urnljg434uxtro))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549MWUW%5bYKPZAHZKHVEDLJUVUNQHP%5bXMR&rid=44574&view=45>
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2004-0005 or records for Officers James O'Malley, Timothy Paine, Ferdinand Dimapasoc, Owen Sweeney.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than May 26, 2003.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following releasable records:
Officer Candice Fukunaga JWA D01-197 Dishonesty: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(dwohfdxnbgdnj1obvxs5bba5))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549WZSXGDXZJFSYEEGDSMMFXBERBQWTEW&rid=126955&view=45
Inspector Paul Penrose JWA C01-064 Dishonesty: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(q4sf3pp35rvwbarbcnflkqox))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=126970&view=45
The Commission has no additional records for JWA D01-197 or JWA C01-064.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with an update no later than October 13, 2023.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following releasable records:
Officer Peter Ma JWA C00-296: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(teyp4331xqyooddigb3xxqp3))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549AEIWRDJUCIVWDCMOPWHIWWEJJMTU[Y&rid=127135&view=45<https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(teyp4331xqyooddigb3xxqp3))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549AEIWRDJUCIVWDCMOPWHIWWEJJMTU%5bY&rid=127135&view=45>
The Commission has no additional responsive records for case #JWA C00-296 or for Officer Peter Ma.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with an update no later than October 13, 2023.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following releasable records:
Officer Laurence Barker JWA C02-128 https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(z1ge1snjliw4bslpwf4tb4gw))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=133167&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Laurence Barker or for JWA C02-128
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records related to your request for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by PC section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed, and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with an update no later than December 1, 2023.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the link to the following responsive records: Officer Matthew Gardner, case # IR910020519, use of force causing great bodily injury or death: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(ovjxrcuw3wkjzbc4liqla52j))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549AIVFNYTGXDFVRKCRMHELGCIBOAQTZN&rid=116095&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Matthew Gardner or for IR# 910030519.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than January 1, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the link to the following responsive records: Officer Renaldo Vargas case # EGF C03-302; use of force causing great bodily injury or death: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(erbeoiuunbi4ufjnm5x1tv2k))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549ZYVYGEJWIDXVKZBIRYLNLSE[LGRSEB&rid=133141&view=45<https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(erbeoiuunbi4ufjnm5x1tv2k))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549ZYVYGEJWIDXVKZBIRYLNLSE%5bLGRSEB&rid=133141&view=45>
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Reynaldo Vargas or for case # EGF C03-302.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than January 1, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the link to the following responsive records: Officer Steven Redd, case # M-JWA C03-262, sexual misconduct: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(iypvkxycfkplrxrxrynbvoxy))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549NLAXMXSIBJRFCZXXPBFILYRDIOSZPX&rid=133146&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Steven Redd or for case # M-JWA C03-262.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than January 1, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the link to the following responsive records: Officer Kenneth Canedo, case # MCD A266-03: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(4qgphe0ymlhyzca2yyzesi1n))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549CHDVDABEPZJUPTZVCCMBFOISF[ZPQM&rid=133641&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Kenneth Canedo or for case # MCD A266-03.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than January 1, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the link to the following responsive records for Officer Michael Maxwell case # JWA C04-096: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(ldeyb31folpahbizfyvqlqeq))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=136789&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Michael Maxwell or for JWA C04-096.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than January 1, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you the link to the following responsive records for Captain Patricia Jackson: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(wuttzwxsws45ed11iikpqjnf))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=136793&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Captain Patricia Jackson or for JWA C04-106.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than January 1, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following responsive records for Officer Thomas Samiere: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(3keiid503qe3r4g2lqyegij5))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=139591&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Thomas Samiere or for JWA C02-346.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than January 21, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following responsive records for Inspector James Zerga: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(ipsgcq3xeycsqqqlym4thk3h))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=1095084[IPUXXRYVMWKXEGHYTWZKOMMFCZIOXVCW&rid=139727&view=45<https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(ipsgcq3xeycsqqqlym4thk3h))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=1095084%5bIPUXXRYVMWKXEGHYTWZKOMMFCZIOXVCW&rid=139727&view=45>
The Commission has no additional responsive records for case #SCM C02-0306. The Police Commission will continue to search its records to determine if it has additional responsive records for Inspector James Zerga.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than February 2, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission previously provided you records for the shooting of a firearm of a person: OIS 2004-0006 and advised you there were no additional records for the involved officers or the OIS. Subsequently, the Commission Office located additional responsive records for OIS 2004-0006. The Commission is providing you the following link where the additional records are posted online: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(opa4owdrdrhhskraoxndxhae))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=1095075JSUYBQMRBMDHDXSDZWKNAVRCNCJLOZZNJ&rid=44823&view=45
There are no additional records for the involved officers of for OIS 2004-0006.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than February 3, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following responsive records for Officer Donnie Cartwright: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(bxmxgxyan4azsy4nlxbafxyr))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=146558&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for case # RLC C45-284 or for Officer Donnie Cartwright.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than March 27, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following responsive records for Officer Francis Hogue: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(txf5xz5or2bcwv11l2av5nns))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=146563&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for case #RLC C34-182 & C96-154 or for Officer Francisc Hogue.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than March 27, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following responsive records for Sgt. Woodrow Tennant: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(2ccs0ndtqefbemkxz1vh3gci))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=146576&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for case # JWA C45-170 or for Sgt. Woodrow Tennant.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than March 27, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following responsive records for Officer Eugene Yoshi: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(xdgfcuqxccbklwjt2ew5004q))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=146586&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for case # RLC C45-209.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than March 27, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following responsive records for Officer Philip Fee: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(lqlsxwtszraz1b5nsmsoetdr))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=147089&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for case #RLC C45-239 or for Officer Philip Fee.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than March 27, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following responsive records for Officer Chris Greenman: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(4zhyhbdirwlnnaswfazr5b4d))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=147268&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for case # JWF C00-243 or for Officer Greenman.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than June 3, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following responsive records:
* Officer Charles Wilkerson: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(rmcfr3g3y1l0j4x0c1kwk3us))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549:3243YYZVBGURSANBSXMXQIKBRLMNQ&rid=159324&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for case # JWA C34-189 or for Officer Wilkerson.
* Officer Robert Tayac: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(0lxex0igf31ywz4hxambnqrw))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549:35832WNTDZYOUWLDADIQWRLOQMSUK&rid=159188&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for JWA C96-179 or for Officer Tayac.
* Officer Sharon Bissell: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(1ziwds52bhrt3a4vpokqvloi))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=159322&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for case # JWA C23-159/C34021 or for Officer Sharon Bissell.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than September 2, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following responsive records:
* Officer Emily Fields: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(t1g4kvqvzt4ua4yqn5vohi2d))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549:40076XUVLTPQGOFMPHFLU[ZNNIAKR&rid=160992&view=45
The Commission has no additional records for case number JWA C12-051 or for Officer Fields.
* Officer Vincent Vago: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(oxv3zwkd3ogfyyfi4uf5is5u))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549:38313DRSROHIGOL[OOZCKBQTJXGZY&rid=161016&view=45
The Commission has no additional records for case number JWA C12-080 or for Officer Vago.
* Sgt. Frank McDonagh: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(tccffu1kezl41lpvv0hddwqx))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?sSessionID=2081213549:10178JXKIMNEWSPFHFYXVOGBLFQXC&rid=160997&view=45
The Commission has no additional responsive records for case number RAM C01-090 or for Sgt. McDonagh.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than September 2, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following responsive records:
* Officer Raymond West: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(q31kymjnur3ikec3m3tsqjvz))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=165160&view=45
The Commission has no additional records for Officer Raymond West or for Commission case # MEG C78-408
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than September 2, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
From: San Francisco Police Commission
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, "February 22, 2020
Police Commission:
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.
Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.
Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:
1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)
Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.
FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "
However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you a link to the following responsive records:
* Officer Gregory Randolph: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(kvd1nnvhpkgfhztbpvl2t4t5))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=165697&view=45
The Commission has no additional records for Officer Gregory Randolph or for Commission case # MEG C90-025
* Officer Henry Fikkers: https://sb1421publicarchive-sanfranciscopd.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(kvd1nnvhpkgfhztbpvl2t4t5))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=165701&view=45
The Commission has no additional records for Officer Henry Fikkers or for Commission case # MEG C90-025.
The Commission continues to search for additional responsive records for your request. You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by Penal Code section 832.7, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.
Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421 and SB 16. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.
The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.
It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 103 - 104 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.
Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than September 2, 2024.
Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158
Files
pages
There are too many files to display on the request page. See all files .