Civil Asset Forfeiture Records - Tempe Police Department

Jordan Lassiter filed this request with the Tempe Police Department of Tempe, AZ.
Submitted May 18, 2023
Est. Completion None
Status
Awaiting Response

From: Jordan Lassiter

Subject: Arizona Public Records Law Request: Civil Asset Forfeiture Records - Tempe Police Department

Mail

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Arizona Public Records Law, I hereby request the following records:

Tempe Police Department
120 E. 5th Street
Tempe, AZ 85281

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Arizona Public Records Law, A.R.S. §§ 39-121 to 39-122 and 39-128, I hereby request the following records:

Accounting records or statistics on seized real estate, vehicles, firearms, and funds in bank accounts resulting from seizures made by the department, as well as seizures made by federal authorities where the department receives a share of said assets or monies.
Any annual reports produced on the civil asset forfeiture program.
Documents showing the balance of any funds currently in the Civil Asset Forfeiture fund.
Records of itemized expenditure or distribution of funds from the Civil Asset Forfeiture fund.
A list of all items seized through civil asset forfeiture and retained for use by the department.
Please also include any information relating to contested seizures. This request does not include court documents for individual forfeiture cases.
This request covers records for the last 10 years.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

I would like to draw your attention to a few court cases that emphasize the importance of public access to information. In the case of NLRB v. Robbins Tire Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society. Additionally, the Arizona Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of the state's public records law for transparency and accountability in Carlson v. Pima County, 141 Ariz. 487 (1984).

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 business days.

Sincerely,

Jordan Lassiter

From: Tempe Police Department

Subject: None

Mail (Postmarked July 3, 2023)

A letter stating the requester must agree to or prepay assessed or estimated fees in order for the agency to continue processing the request.

From: Jordan Lassiter

Subject: RE: Arizona Public Records Law Request: Civil Asset Forfeiture Records - Tempe Police Department

Mail


To Whom It May Concern:

Please find enclosed a check for $5.00 to satisfy the fee associated with the attached public records request.

Thank you.

Check sent by Muckrock Staff

Pay to the order of:

City of Tempe
Jeanne Pennington
120 E 5th Street
Tempe, AZ 85281

#11156
Amount of: $5.00
  • Created — 08/31/2023
  • In Transit — 09/06/2023
  • In Local Area — 09/10/2023
  • Processed For Delivery — 09/10/2023
  • Deposited

From: Tempe Police Department

Subject: None

Mail (Postmarked Sept. 28, 2023)

A fix is required to perfect the request. Postmark: September 28, 2023

From: Tempe Police Department

Subject: Tempe Police Department Checks

Email

Good morning,

When sending payments to our Records Bureau would you please update the ATTN on all checks to say ATTN:Jeanne Pennington.

Thank you,

Kimberly Andrade
Administrative Assistant II
Tempe Police Department
Records Department
480-858-7962

From: Jordan Lassiter

Subject: RE: Arizona Public Records Law Request: Civil Asset Forfeiture Records - Tempe Police Department

Email

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to appeal the constructive denial of my Arizona Public Records Law request submitted to the Tempe Police Department on May 18, 2023. Despite multiple follow-ups and the provision of the requested fee, the records have not been provided. This appeal outlines the specific issues encountered and references relevant case law to support my request for timely and full disclosure of the requested records.

### 1. **Delay in Response**
Under Arizona Public Records Law, agencies are required to respond promptly to records requests. A.R.S. § 39-121.01(D) states that records must be provided "promptly" when requested. The significant delays in processing my request, spanning over a year, contravene this requirement.

#### Case Law:
- **Carlson v. Pima County**, 141 Ariz. 487 (1984): The Arizona Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of prompt access to public records to ensure governmental transparency and accountability. This case reiterates the mandate for timely responses to public records requests.

### 2. **Fee-Related Delays and Obstructions**
The Tempe Police Department's repeated requests for fee payments and subsequent delays in processing the payments constitute unnecessary bureaucratic red tape. After the initial payment of $5.00 was provided on August 31, 2023, and subsequently processed, there should have been no further delays or additional requirements.

#### Case Law:
- **Phoenix New Times, LLC v. Arpaio**, 217 Ariz. 533 (App. 2008): This case addresses the misuse of fee requirements to delay or obstruct access to public records. The court ruled against such practices, reinforcing that fees should not be used to hinder the prompt release of information.

### 3. **Unnecessary Bureaucratic Requests**
The request to update the ATTN on the checks for payments, after the initial payment was already processed, constitutes an unnecessary and obstructive bureaucratic hurdle. Such requirements are not stipulated in the Arizona Public Records Law and serve to delay the fulfillment of the records request.

#### Case Law:
- **Griffis v. Pinal County**, 215 Ariz. 1 (2007): The court ruled that public bodies must not impose requirements that create unnecessary barriers to access public records. The imposition of additional administrative requirements that delay access violates the spirit of the public records law.

### 4. **Constructive Denial**
The prolonged delays and additional requirements effectively constitute a constructive denial of the records request. Under A.R.S. § 39-121.01(E), if access to public records is denied, the requester must be informed of the reasons for denial, and any denial should be based on statutory exemptions, none of which have been cited in this case.

#### Case Law:
- **Lake v. City of Phoenix**, 222 Ariz. 547 (2009): This case clarifies that any denial of access to public records must be clearly justified with specific statutory exemptions. The absence of such justification in my case supports the argument of constructive denial.

### Conclusion
In light of the above points and the supporting case law, I respectfully request the immediate release of the requested records related to civil asset forfeiture by the Tempe Police Department. The undue delays and bureaucratic obstacles I have faced are inconsistent with the principles of transparency and prompt access as enshrined in Arizona Public Records Law and affirmed by Arizona courts.

I look forward to a prompt resolution of this matter. Please provide the requested records within 10 business days of this appeal. Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,

Jordan Lassiter