LEO's: are your reports public record, even after you retire?

[Monkeyleg]

Let's suppose that you, as a sworn LEO, arrested somebody back in the late 1970's or early 1980's. He was brought in the back door of the district station, and walked out the back door because he was such a big shot. No charges filed.

Would you still have written a report on your arrest? And would that report still be filed somewhere in the district station? And would that report be available via a Freedom of Information Act request?

If the answers to the above questions are "yes," then how would I go about talking to retired cops who made such arrests? I only know a couple of long-timers on the police force here, but I don't know if they'd cooperate, or if they'd even know the cops I'd want to talk to.

 

[tinygnat219]

It's time to start taking down our big-shot enemies. If it means using unsavory tactics, so be it.[/QUOTE]

Monkeyleg,

Suggest you keep this to The High Road.

Thanks!

 

[Monkeyleg]

Edited to make it High Road.

 

[Geno]

What are you getting at? If you can't post it, feel free to IM me.

Doc2005

 

[win71]

Hey thanks man

Well monkeyleg, I had a real nice comprehensive answer to your original post but since you monkeyed with it so much in your edit it made no sense. I don't think much of digging up dirt that's 25 years old to get even with somebody for something.
I can't speak for any department anywhere. Your scenario doesn't make much sense. If it did and it happened 25 years ago I would doubt seriously if there would be any documentation anywhere with the exception of somebody’s little black book.
You should leave the 007 stuff to Bond, James Bond.

 

[Frog48]

Seeing as though it would predate computerized records, you better enjoy sifting through file cabinet after file cabinet.

And we all know that arrests can be made for nearly any reason under the sun, on the most flimsy of suspicion, so finding that someone was merely arrested means absolutely nothing. An arrest means jack-squat unless there is a subsequent conviction.

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

The federal government requires than an agency who accesses any criminal information via NCIC maintain all records for 7 years before destroying them and then they must maintain a destroyed documents log for another 10 years.

Some agencies will hold onto reports for longer periods but most won't.

Your probably better asking the Sheriff of said county where the arrest was made to look at the jail docket, which is a public document. It is usually in the form of a huge book where all those booked into a jail are recorded, name, date/time of booking and release from jail and charge will be the only thing listed. Now the Sheriff cannot deny you access to this document but he can control when and how you get to see it.

 

[Surat]

Yep, seven years. We have a basement full of paperwork though. . everything is now going digital. Less food and nest material for the rats down there. Hand written reports are transcribed and in the dept database. . . searchable. . . you can do some interesting data mining with it.

 

[inkhead]

It sounds like your asking about yourself. Are you running for office and worried that someone might dig up a rap sheet on you?

 

[Autolycus]

I would hope that they are. We should have the right to know what an officer has done on duty as taxpayers.

 

[win71]

Check your State

I would hope that they are. We should have the right to know what an officer has done on duty as taxpayers

Actually being a taxpayer doesn't entitle you to much of anything.
The federal Freedom of Information Act signed by Lyndon Johnson applies to federal records only. I am assuming each state subsequently adopted their own similar act. There are several types of records that are exempt from discloser. The following was cut and pasted from the California Codes and applies to law enforcement. There are other exemptions from every agency mainly do to privacy constraints.

· Police Incident reports, rap sheets and arrest
records are exempt (Penal Code §§ 11075,
11105, 11105.1), but information in the "police
blotter" (time and circumstances of calls to police;
name and details of arrests, warrants,
charges, hearing dates, etc.) must be disclosed
unless disclosure would endanger an investigation
or the life of an investigator. Investigative
files may be withheld, even after an investigation
is over. (Gov. Code § 6254(f); Williams v. Superior
Ct., 5 Cal. 4th 337 (1993); County of L.A. v.
Superior Ct., 18 Cal. App. 4th 588 (1994). Ident ifying
data in police personnel files and misconduct
complaints are exempt, but disclosure may
be obtained using special procedures under Evidence
Code section 1043.
· Financial data submitted for licenses, certificates,
or permits, or given in confidence to agencies
that oversee insurance, securities, or banking
firms; tax, welfare, and family/adoption/
birth records are all exempt. (§§ 6254(d),(k),(l),
6276)

As you can see nobody is going to be allowed to mosey on into the records foom and start rifling through files looking at police reports.

 

[Autolycus]

I never said it did, just that I think it should be.

We need more accountability from our government, from local to federal.

 

[win71]

Touche.........Tecumseh

Fastest most accurate responce I've ever seen. But I think I would reverse the order:

from local to federal