• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Jan 3 San Pedro PRAR Request Denied!!

C

chewy352

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Harrah, Oklahoma
imported post

Katarina A. Thomas, Lieutenant Acting Officer-in-Charge, Discovery Section, Risk Management Division denied my PRAR request in its entirety.

Attached in the second post is my initial request and all other documents will be attached asap. I was keeping my PRAR request quiet however their arrogance convinced me that the full might of the OCDO community needs to be brought against them.
 
A ECNALG

A ECNALG

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
138
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

"Risk Management Division"

Guess that says it all !

Well, I suppose that all those who witnessed and personally experienced LAPD overplaying its hand on January 3 should not be terribly surprised by this denial.

This incident is so strikingly similar to that of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO case of MATTHEW A. ST. JOHN v. DAVID McCOLLEY and THE SIX UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE ALAMOGORDO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY . . .

http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/Drs-Web/view-file?full-path-file-name=%2Fdata%2Fdrs%2Fdm%2Fdocuments%2Fcadd%2F2009%2F09%2F08%2F0002561429-0000000000-08cv00994.pdf

. . . that LAPD and City attorneys are almost certainly withholding thisdamning evidence for fear of self-incrimination. Some risk management strategy, huh?

And St. John won his case without the benefit of nofewer than two video cameras recording the entirefiasco from start to finish.

Now, a written complaint is the next step in the process, is it not?
 
W

Wc

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
329
Location
, ,
imported post

A ECNALG wrote:
"Risk Management Division"

Guess that says it all !

Well, I suppose that all those who witnessed and personally experienced LAPD overplaying its hand on January 3 should not be terribly surprised by this denial.

This incident is so strikingly similar to that of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO case of MATTHEW A. ST. JOHN v. DAVID McCOLLEY and THE SIX UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE ALAMOGORDO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY . . .

http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/Drs-Web/view-file?full-path-file-name=%2Fdata%2Fdrs%2Fdm%2Fdocuments%2Fcadd%2F2009%2F09%2F08%2F0002561429-0000000000-08cv00994.pdf

. . . that LAPD and City attorneys are almost certainly withholding thisdamning evidence for fear of self-incrimination. Some risk management strategy, huh?

And St. John won his case without the benefit of nofewer than two video cameras recording the entirefiasco from start to finish.

Now, a written complaint is the next step in the process, is it not?
Click to expand...
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S1164609.shtml
 
coolusername2007

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

I didn't know they could deny the request, these are PUBLIC records. Time to get a lawyer. I'll pitch in for the fees. Would CGF be interested in helping to get these records?

ETA: I smell a rat!
 
We-the-People

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
imported post

Man, that is a bunch of CRAP.

Sounds like they're trying to identify any and every act that the police to as "an investigation that is exempt".

LAWYER AND LAWSUIT TIME.
 
Gundude

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
imported post

Here are the rules for such a request.

http://www.harp.org/og/cpra.htm#6250

6253.1.
  • (a) When a member of the public requests to inspect a public record or obtain a copy of a public record, the public agency, in order to assist the member of the public make a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances:
    • (1) Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated.
    • (2) Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist.
    • (3) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.
 
We-the-People

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
imported post

Sons of Liberty wrote:
Did they cite a reason for their denial?

Are there reasons stipulated in the law that allows for denial of a PRAR request?
Click to expand...
The denial document is posted as a link. If you read it you will get your answers.
 
N

Nopal

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
90
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

We-the-People wrote:
Man, that is a bunch of CRAP.

Sounds like they're trying to identify any and every act that the police to as "an investigation that is exempt".

LAWYER AND LAWSUIT TIME.
Click to expand...

Isn't a 12031(e) check technically an "inspection"? Investigating is very different from inspecting. Isn't the result of an inspection supposed to be public, anyway? It'll be interesting to see what they were supposedly "investigating."

The LAPD has been caught with it's pants down once again.
 
Sons of Liberty

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
imported post

Of course, the incident never happened!

X-files!:banghead:

This doesn't sound right...I'll bet this answer was constructed in hopes you will get discouraged and go away. Maybe the LAPD is knowingly violating the law because, if you do persist, they are no worse off under a judges order to comply than if they complied with the request in the first place.

Maybe you can file a compliant with Jerry Brown on the LAPD handling of your request. He might be looking for some good publicity to expose an LAPD cover-up! I heard he's running for governor.
 
W

Wc

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
329
Location
, ,
imported post

Sons of Liberty wrote:
Of course, the incident never happened!

X-files!:banghead:

This doesn't sound right...I'll bet this answer was constructed in hopes you will get discouraged and go away. Maybe the LAPD is knowingly violating the law because, if you do persist, they are no worse off under a judges order to comply than if they complied with the request in the first place.

Maybe you can file a compliant with Jerry Brown on the LAPD handling of your request. He might be looking for some good publicity to expose an LAPD cover-up! I heard he's running for governor.
Click to expand...
Maybe not during his elect:exclaim::lol:
 
coolusername2007

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

Nopal wrote:
We-the-People wrote:
Man, that is a bunch of CRAP.

Sounds like they're trying to identify any and every act that the police to as "an investigation that is exempt".

LAWYER AND LAWSUIT TIME.
Click to expand...

Isn't a 12031(e) check technically an "inspection"? Investigating is very different from inspecting. Isn't the result of an inspection supposed to be public, anyway? It'll be interesting to see what they were supposedly "investigating."

The LAPD has been caught with it's pants down once again.
Click to expand...

Yes it is...and maybe they aren't finished with their investigation! Maybe the UOC'ers were marked as a new gang. Maybe they're still watching those who participated. :uhoh:

The denial letter sure made it sound like something more was going on behind the scenes. Though at least they made it was clear thatthey haven't re-evaluated or changed their policies for law-abiding UOC'ers (item #7). They're not exactly what I'd callaConstitutionally focused PD.
 
Gundude

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
Nopal wrote:
We-the-People wrote:
Man, that is a bunch of CRAP.

Sounds like they're trying to identify any and every act that the police to as "an investigation that is exempt".

LAWYER AND LAWSUIT TIME.
Click to expand...

Isn't a 12031(e) check technically an "inspection"? Investigating is very different from inspecting. Isn't the result of an inspection supposed to be public, anyway? It'll be interesting to see what they were supposedly "investigating."

The LAPD has been caught with it's pants down once again.
Click to expand...

Yes it is...and maybe they aren't finished with their investigation! Maybe the UOC'ers were marked as a new gang. Maybe they're still watching those who participated. :uhoh:

The denial letter sure made it sound like something more was going on behind the scenes. Though at least they made it was clear thatthey haven't re-evaluated or changed their policies for law-abiding UOC'ers (item #7). They're not exactly what I'd callaConstitutionally focused PD.
Click to expand...

look for the keyword.

(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top