Public Records Request made February 17, 2010

imported post

From: Edward Peruta [mailto:edperuta@amcable.tv]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 9:12 AM
To: 'Andra.Byous@sdsheriff.org'; 'auditor@sdcounty.ca.gov'
Subject: Request for Prompt Access to Public Records

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

San Diego Sheriff's Department
Attention: Mr. Faigin
9621 Ridgehaven Ct
San Diego, CA


San Diego Sheriff's Department Licensing Division
9621 Ridgehaven Ct
San Diego, CA

County of San Diego
Attn: County Auditor and/or Comptroller
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 166[/b]
San Diego, CA, 92101

Re: Request for Prompt Access to Public Records and possible copies of same

To Whom It May Concern:

The undersigned requests prompt and timely access to public records in the possession of the County of San Diego. After access and review of the public records the undersigned may request copies of documents.

PUPROSE OF THE REQUEST:

A recent letter addressed to the undersigned accompanied by a check for $50.51 in which the San Diego Sheriff’s Department acknowledges collecting CCW fee’s “erroneously” has prompted this request for review of public records.

Specifically the undersigned is looking to review public records to determine the total amount of fees which may have been “erroneously” collected by San Diego County under the provisions mandated by California Penal Code Sections 12054.

Examination of related public records which document the exact amount of fees collected and returned by CCW applicants broken down by individuals who made payments of fees to the County Sheriff’s Department as part of the initial first time application process for Concealed Carry Gun Permits will determine if the provisions as set forth in California Penal Code Section 12054 have been followed or violated by the County of San Diego.

The undersigned will attempt by reviewing public records to answer to the following questions:

1. The total amount of funds collected from initial first time applicants for Concealed Carry Permits.

2. The total amount of funds returned to initial first time applicants for Concealed Carry Permit following denials.

3. The total amount of funds collected erroneously by the San Diego Sheriff’s Department during the specific period of time stated.

4. The number of individual refunds made to initial first time applicants for Concealed Carry Permits following denials of their applications.

SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME BEING REVIEWED:

The undersigned requests any and all public records created during the period from January 1, 2006 to January 31, 2010.

TYPES OF RECORDS REQUESTED:

The undersigned is aware of the fact that the San Diego Sheriff’s Department has a well established two appointment process for accepting reviewing and rendering decisions on initial first time CCW applications.

The stated policy of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department establishes that the completed application and funds collected occurs during or immediately following the second of two scheduled interviews.

The undersigned has reason to believe that in each incident where an initial first time application for a Concealed Carry (CCW) Permit was submitted, there may or should be a paper and/or electronic public record trail documenting the process where fees are collected, recorded, deposited, transferred, sent to other Federal, State or County agencies or refunded to the denied applicant.

Public records may exist such as:

Letters received from or sent to first time CCW applicants

Sign in Logs in the License and Permit Section of the Sheriff’s Department which document interviews for CCW permits

Written or Electronic Receipts for moneys collected from CCW applicants

Fingerprint records and DOJ fee records of first time CCW applicants

Documents of deposits or Transmittal of funds collected during initial CCW applications

Correspondence to those CCW applicants denied following an initial first time CCW application

Claim and Voucher for Refund of Money forms sent to individuals who have had their first time CCW applications denied

Additionally, the undersigned requests prompt access to any and all internal memos or documents which were created, exchanged, received or distributed by employees of the County of San Diego as part of any process to refund any improperly collected funds under provisions of California Penal Code Section 12054.

By accessing any and all documents pertaining to initial interviews and appointments where CCW fees have been collected, the total and individual amounts demanded and collected from individuals who made initial applications for Concealed Carry CCW Permits with the San Diego Sheriff’s Department during the period of January 1, 2006 and January 31, 2010 should be easily determined.

REDACTION OF RECORDS:

The undersigned has no objection to redaction of any names associated with the fees collected from individuals for initial CCW applications.

The undersigned represents as part of this request that one or more County of San Diego forms with the heading “Claim and Voucher for Refund of Money” may exist regarding this request.

Respectfully Requested,

Edward A. Peruta
3151 Driscoll Drive
San Diego, CA 92117

imported post

I'm excited to see how they respond to a records/access request from someone they KNOW will drag their asses into court if they don't comply.

My money is on Ed.I bet he'll get his records, and with minimal struggle.

imported post

I can smell the disdain wafting in through the monitor, that takes someliterary skill.

imported post

Just got off the phone with the San Diego Auditor/Comptroller's office regarding my public record request. I had a very pleasant conversation with a member of their staff.


It will obviously take time for them to do their research, but I believe they are now aware of the situation and will do the right thing.


I also believe that the Sheriff's Department is bobbing and weaving inan attempt to delay or prevent this issue and the records of "ERRONEOUS" amount collected from being released.

imported post

Edward Peruta wrote:

I also believe that the Sheriff's Department is bobbing and weaving inan attempt to delay or prevent this issue and the records of "ERRONEOUS" amount collected from being released.

Click to expand...

I love how government criminals fall back on the habit of Deny, Delay, Deter, Deflect, even though it's unlikely any higher law enforcement agency or official will actually do their job, and prosecute them.

imported post

Edward Peruta wrote:

I also believe that the Sheriff's Department is bobbing and weaving inan attempt to delay or prevent this issue and the records of "ERRONEOUS" amount collected from being released.

Click to expand...

Well they have 240 hours to comply (that's 10 calendar days, not 10 "business" days). If not, give 'em hell! It's their LEGAL responsibility to make public records accessible to... the public!

imported post

Tick, tock.

imported post

Hot damn, you go Ed! As always, enjoyable to see the progression of your case.

imported post

Excellent work! You are well on your way to becoming a major hero. One of the reasons I left CA last year was to get away from the smothering laws and regulations, not the least of which was the constant erosion of our 2A rights.

What I don't understand is why somebody hasn't pushed for a BALLOT INITIATIVE to allow loaded open carry and to rationalize the ability of law abiding citizens to obtain CCW permits throughout the State.

2nd Amendment rights is an issue that crosses political lines. The votes are there. It's a sea change that is gaining momentum.

Just look at the comments to anti-gun articles in such liberal bastions as San Francisco and Los Angeles. EX: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/02/22/BA8F1C5GF6.DTL&o=9

The comments tend to be overwhelmingly in favor of liberalizing (pun intended) both CC and OC in California. Make sure to include a clause that preempts local statute, like recently enacted in Nevada, and the whole gun-grabber agenda collapses.

People/voters are READY for this, as long as a ballot initiative is kept simple and doesn't try to over-reach itself.

imported post

Vegas Rick wrote:

Excellent work! You are well on your way to becoming a major hero. One of the reasons I left CA last year was to get away from the smothering laws and regulations, not the least of which was the constant erosion of our 2A rights.

What I don't understand is why somebody hasn't pushed for a BALLOT INITIATIVE to allow loaded open carry and to rationalize the ability of law abiding citizens to obtain CCW permits throughout the State.

2nd Amendment rights is an issue that crosses political lines. The votes are there. It's a sea change that is gaining momentum.

Just look at the comments to anti-gun articles in such liberal bastions as San Francisco and Los Angeles. EX: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/02/22/BA8F1C5GF6.DTL&o=9

The comments tend to be overwhelmingly in favor of liberalizing (pun intended) both CC and OC in California. Make sure to include a clause that preempts local statute, like recently enacted in Nevada, and the whole gun-grabber agenda collapses.

People/voters are READY for this, as long as a ballot initiative is kept simple and doesn't try to over-reach itself.

Click to expand...

Only problem is the attorney general gets to write the ballot summary, and they have been known to screw over any pro-liberty, pro-intrinsically-good initiative by writing the summary in such a way that you'd think there would be human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

You can bet that any pro-gun initiatives would result in "Wild Wild West", this would be devastating... "for the children", etc...

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

I'm excited to see how they respond to a records/access request from someone they KNOW will drag their asses into court if they don't comply.

My money is on Ed.I bet he'll get his records, and with minimal struggle.

Click to expand...

UPDATE:

For those following this PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST, here is the latest:

I just got off the phone with the Account's Payable person at the San Diego County Auditor/Comptrollers office who states that only TWO refunds have been made for CCW denials since January 1, 2006.

The payments were made to me and another person during the same period of time.

The Sheriff's Department has not yet provided the number of individuals who submitted CCW applications and paid the full amount of the local fees.

Obviously it will be interesting to now determine the number of individuals who DID NOT get refunds of improperly collected fees.

The Comptrollers office will be having the County Attorney's Office respond and I can only guess who will be providing information from the Sheriff's Department.

Just one very small example which demonstrates the failure of the Sheriff's Department and their employees to read and understand provisions of the California Penal Code.

But maybe I'm on a wild goose chase and there are no others who paid improper fees, were denied and weredue refunds.

imported post

Edward Peruta wrote:

But maybe I'm on a wild goose chase and there are no others who paid improper fees, were denied and weredue refunds.

Click to expand...

I find that phenomenally unlikely.

imported post

I had to be fair and balanced in my post, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

In the four (4) year period there could be others, but I don't like to make statements without the facts.

imported post

UPDATE AND NEW REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

San Diego Sheriff's Department
Attention: Mr. Faigin
9621 Ridgehaven Ct
San Diego, CA

San Diego Sheriff's Department Licensing Division
9621 Ridgehaven Ct
San Diego, CA


Re: Request for Prompt Access to SPECFIC Public Records and possible copies of same
[/b]
To Whom It May Concern:

The undersigned requests prompt and timely access to public records in the possession of the County of San Diego. After access and review of the public records the undersigned may request copies of documents.

The undersigned has just been informed by the San Diego County Auditor/Comptroller’s accounts payable department that a computer query of their financial records shows that only two refunds[/b] were made regarding denied CCW permit applications[/b] for the period of January 1, 2006 through January 31, 2010.

If these two permits applications were the only ones denied after the collection of fees, then the remainder of this request is moot.

If in fact other residents were improperly charged initial CCW application fees under the provisions of California Penal Code Section 12054, then please provide the following:

1. The name address and date of payment for every initial CCW applicant who paid fees and had their applications denied by the San Diego Sheriff’s Department for the period between January 1, 2006 and January 31, 2010.

2. The total number of initial CCW applications that were received and denied for the period between January 1, 2006 and January 31, 2010.

SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME BEING REVIEWED:
[/b]
The undersigned requests immediate access to any and all relevant hard copy or electronic public records created during the period from January 1, 2006 to January 31, 2010.

FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOUSRE OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE RECORDS REQUESTED:
[/b]
The undersigned believes that the names and addressees of individuals who applied for CCW permits which were denied[/b] enjoy NO[/b] protection or exemptions from public disclosure.

Respectfully Requested,



Edward A. Peruta
San Diego, CA 92117
860-978-5455
edperuta@amcable.tv

imported post

I'm sure there is more to this but here is the response to my public records request.

imported post

Edward Peruta wrote:

I'm sure there is more to this but here is the response to my public records request.

Click to expand...

I guess they haven't heard of a spread sheet. Col #1 applicant....Col #2 date.....Col #3 denied/approved....Col #4 amount collected....Col #5 amount refunded....Col #6 ???

imported post

Lol, nice job Ed. It sounds like your getting some people some money refunded back to them and they didn't even have to ask for it.

The sad part is it sounds like they are doing that in an attempt to keep you from making them dig deeper into their own lousy record keeping.

imported post

The squirming is getting interesting.

imported post

Trust me when I tell you that if 3 refunds have been made and six are pending, there is more to the story.

How many people were intimidated into NOT making an application by the threat that their money would be wasted?

I believe that each person is given a Gun Permit (GP) number and the numbers may be in sequence.

I find it hard to believe that there were only nine denials.

It's not over yet!!

imported post

It aint over till its over.

Any way to get in there and examine their records structure?