[FishOrMan]

I think I would like to request copies of the 911 phone call tomorrow about this situation. (http://fishorman.blogspot.com/2004/05/details-details-details.html)

Can someone tell me what that requires?

Is it worth it?

Should something else be done first?

[Hawkmoon]

Step #1 is to review your state's statutes as to what records are required to be maintained by police department, and for how long. The research the statutes for any references to records which are exempt from public disclosure.

While you're in the statutes, look up your state's requirements for public disclosure, and you should find the requirements and procedures for making a formal request under FOI laws.

If you find that records and/or transcripts of 9-1-1 calls are public records, go to the police station in person and request a transcript of the call. If they refuse, then go back home and write up a written request, citing your state's FOI statute, and submit that. I suggest printing out two copies, delivering one to the PD by hand, and requesting that the dispatcher initial and date your copy to certify that it is a copy and that the PD received it on that date and at that time. If the dispatcher won't do that, take it back with you and mail it, certified, return receipt requested.

[Jim March]

Check your EMail :).

[Ben Shepherd]

Read your link. While I have no idea how this works, I'm sure Jim steered you right. Please keep us updated on how this comes out! Good luck.

[dischord]

You might be better off making a Privacy Act request.

With FOIA They'll probably withhold the information based Exemption 7.

"(b)(7) EXEMPTION 7 Investigatory Records Compiled for Law Enforcement Purposes. As amended, this exemption protects from disclosure "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes. "
http://www.rdc.noaa.gov/~foia/foiaex.html

[Jim March]

He'll be using the state-level equivelent of the FOIA, not the FOIA itself.

Any exception for "police investigator's notes" or whatever will evaporate once the incident in question is over.

He should start by going after the 911 dispatch logs, plus any police reports.

[FishOrMan]

well, made some phone calls. The local dispatch center has forms for just such FOIA requests. I will pick one up today... Thanks for the input and information. I know what they are expecting now. I think the dispatch center will be slightly more relaxed to letting the public see these records, they are a separate branch serving numerous agencies. Will find out soon!

[Hawkmoon]

I think the dispatch center will be slightly more relaxed to letting the public see these records, they are a separate branch serving numerous agencies. Will find out soon!
Don't take this as a condemnation, but you sure are naive. MVPel thought he'd have no problem getting the 9-1-1 tape or transcript of the call initiating his recent incident in NH. Didn't happen. The PD declined to release it because it was "part of an internal investigation."

As far as I know, they still haven't "completed the investigation" or released the tape.

Be prepared to encounter stone-walling at evry turn. I hope I'm wrong, but ...

[FishOrMan]

Well, not sure what others have done, but I haven't made any LOCAL gripe to officials, so they may not see it coming.... oh crap... I just gave away my position...

As for the actual form from the dispatch center, I have it in my hands. Think I will make my own though. This one doesn't have the line: If your agency response is not satisfactory, I am prepared to make an administrative appeal.
I am aware that while the law allows your agency to withhold specified categories of exempted information, you are required by law to release any segregable portions that are left after the exempted material has been deleted from the data I am seeking
It's a good law for us common folks, but, I still have to wonder how much our representatives represent the citizen's. Police, without probable cause, were PAID good money while investigating me on Saturday. The citizen, with probable cause, has to PAY good money just to investigate them. (Or course your idea of "good money," may not be $25 or $50 dollars. But, with only slightly more then that, I could pay the government for my "permit" to make all my troubles go away.) Please, don't take offense to that. We have all bowed to the government in one form or another... (Well, except the guy that keeps driving his car without a license because he claims there is no RCW that requires such). Speaking of which, what happened with the guy that refused to give the officer his ID? Wasn't he going to the Supreme Court soon?

Anyway, put your money where your mouth is Fish Boy.

Yes, I am naive. It fits in with being "young and idealistic" too. But, enough compliments already. :)

[Hawkmoon]

Yes, I am naive. It fits in with being "young and idealistic" too. But, enough compliments already.
I didn't mean it as a slam, just as a reality check so you don't get your hopes too high and get deflated with a big bang when they tell you to bug off.

Based on my surmises from your post, I'm guessing I'm a bit more than twice your age, and I've had some prior experience trying to pry documents loose from public agencies. It's difficult enough when they aren't possibly trying to cover their backsides.

The fact that the PD's version of the request convemiently omits key language from the statute should serve as a heads up. I'm cynical enough that I won't accept that such an omission was a simple "clerical error." There's obviously no way to prove it, but in my heart I am certain that the omission was intentional.

[Jim March]

Well here's some good news.

The "trend" in public records laws is generally quite good...basically, it's the media driving improvements to these laws because they use 'em all the time.

The California journalism lobby is promoting a serious improvement in our state's version. As a constitutional amendment, it had to pass the legislature (done) and then go to a popular vote coming this November, and it's almost a slam-dunk with every single media outlet behind it :).

This improvement will set up a constitutional right to public records. That means agencies that hose people will be liable for triple attorney's fees plus damages. A few will probably get bit and then the rest will straighten up...as it is, the rate of wrongful denial of data is just incredible.

California and Florida are the trendsetters in the field. Expect this sort of "teeth" to get added to other state's public records systems.

[FishOrMan]

Well, I think they heard me coming.

Listening to the scanner yesterday I heard something odd.

Something about, he sure would be glad to pull over a drunk fisherman.

I wonder if the fact that I don't drink will matter?

www.fishorman.blogspot.com

[FishOrMan]

I turned in my complaints against the city earlier today. I then walked to the courthouse and turned one in against the county deputy involved as well.

The request for public records was next located at the 911-dispatch center, which is about a mile out of town. I decided to walk, (not wanting to be caught dead driving around right now... ha, ha).

Well, the dispatch center director was in and he read my request for the 911 tape. He asked if I was a defendant in a case. I told him no.

He invited me inside of the secure building so he could look up if the 911 tape was now considered public record.

We made small talk about cell phone locators during 911 calls. He voiced his concern about voice over internet 911 calls.

Getting back to my request, he stated he believed that it was public record because there was a note with it that said the case had been closed the evening of the incident. He tried getting on the phone with the city police to find out if they had any objections to releasing it as a matter of public record. He could not get a hold of the officer in charge of the case, but came to the conclusion that the tape was public record. He said, well, I’ll let you listen to the tape first and then you can decide if you would like to pay for your own copy.

After a little searching past a horse on the roadway call and others, we reached one starting out like this:

911 Operator: 911?

Caller: Yeah, I was wondering about the laws on conceal carrying a handgun?

911 Operator: Well, you should be directing your call to this agency… blah, blah, blah.

Caller: Oh.

911 Operator: So, you should ask them this question, (911 operator going for the hang-up).

Caller: But, the reason I called was that I just had a customer in my store that had a .45 stuck in the front of his pants “cocked, locked and loaded.” He wasn’t doing anything, but I was wondering about the law.

911 Operator: (Now interested). Where was he? Do you know him? What was he wearing? Did you see where he was going? You said it was cocked? We are sending an officer out now? Do you want to be contacted?

Well, plenty of reasonable suspicion of a LEGAL activity there. The 911-call was better then I thought.

I asked if there were any other calls on this incident. The director took a closer look at his computer screen, (it was a very large flat screen), trying to find another call. He said he didn’t have one. He then noticed an entry that the case had been reopened only 30 minutes earlier at 2:25 pm today. Now he was unsure of what to do.

So, he got on the phone with the city police and started asking question. I overheard as the director said, “I see no reason to not let this phone call go out as public record. What do you think?” About 30 seconds of listening, then, “Oh, I see. Yes, then this is most certainly not available for public record.”

I was trying to hold in my laughter.

He got off the phone and said request denied because there is currently an active investigation. I cannot tell you anything more.

I held in my laughter again, stood up and got ready to leave. He asked if I wanted my request for public records back. I asked him to please make his denial of public records in writing. He said he would send me a letter. I walked home.

[Hawkmoon]

I hate to say "I told you so" but ... :cool: