Vancouver PD Policies/procedures manual and training bulletins re: OC

I was reading this thread:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?98075-Bellingham-police-draw-down-on-Open-Carrier

and got to wondering how to go about getting a current copy of VPD's policies/procedures manual and training bulletins with respect to OC. I want to understand what training VPD is receiving and what the position is of VPD management on the topic.

I looked on their web site, but couldn't find a link to any such information.

They do have community liaison officers listed on the web site. Would they be the appropriate source to request this info?

Does anyone know if this material is publicly available?

All you have to do is go to the city clerk's office, and fill out a
'Public Records Request' for your police departments Training Bulletings regarding openly carried firearms.

Obi Wan

Obi Wan said:

All you have to do is go to the city clerk's office, and fill out a
'Public Records Request' for your police departments Training Bulletins regarding openly carried firearms. Obi Wan

Click to expand...

This is Truth.
I have done this also. Be sure you ask for everything you want.
1. A copy of the training bulletin
2. Who, in the PD, has read this training bulletin.
3. Are LEOs required to read the training bulletins. (you may be surprised at this answer)
4. Has any training been conducted.
5. Who is being trained (LEO/911 oper) and who is conducting the training.
6. When and where was the last training conducted.


Take a look at the top of the page for the training bulletins that Bill and others have collected for review.
Good luck in your request and keep us all informed.

MSG Laigaie said:

This is Truth.
I have done this also. Be sure you ask for everything you want.
1. A copy of the training bulletin
2. Who, in the PD, has read this training bulletin.
3. Are LEOs required to read the training bulletins. (you may be surprised at this answer)
4. Has any training been conducted.
5. Who is being trained (LEO/911 oper) and who is conducting the training.
6. When and where was the last training conducted.


Take a look at the top of the page for the training bulletins that Bill and others have collected for review.
Good luck in your request and keep us all informed.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the laundry list of items to request.

Would I ask for these things in the manner you've described them?

And how would those activities normally be documented? For example, what document would show who has read a particular bulletin? I don't want to have the city come back and say my request is too vague.

Also, I didn't see a list of training bulletins others have collected. Is it at the top of the Washington forum? or somewhere else?

jhfc said:

Also, I didn't see a list of training bulletins others have collected. Is it at the top of the Washington forum? or somewhere else?

Click to expand...

Please see here: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=f8ad20d00d6bfe79e2055cd0c832347c&action=downloads;cat=1

jhfc said:

Thanks for the laundry list of items to request.

Would I ask for these things in the manner you've described them?

And how would those activities normally be documented? For example, what document would show who has read a particular bulletin? I don't want to have the city come back and say my request is too vague.

Also, I didn't see a list of training bulletins others have collected. Is it at the top of the Washington forum? or somewhere else?

Click to expand...

I have gotten emails from the PD before and hard copies from city hall.

Hint: Through Johns request of the training bulletin that was part of my settlement, it was discovered they were not required to train, but digging further we found out that the officer's superior officer who harassed John, Officer Allen Bass, had signed off that he trained.

slapmonkay said:

Please see here: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=f8ad20d00d6bfe79e2055cd0c832347c&action=downloads;cat=1

Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

The language in these training bulletins seems far from what we would want.

Nowhere yet, do I see 911 operators being trained to tell callers mere OC is not a crime.

So far, I find the training contained within rather alarming.

RCW 42.56 is the Public Records Act. Basically any government document they HAVE TO give you unless there is an explicit statutory exemption. If they fail to, they owe up to $100 per day. Most agencies are aware of the teeth on the PRA and comply quickly.

Obi Wan said:

All you have to do is go to the city clerk's office, and fill out a
'Public Records Request' for your police departments Training Bulletings regarding openly carried firearms.

Obi Wan

Click to expand...

I'd be careful about using a form they provide you. I've seen many that you basically consent to allow them to deny you the records, even though the law says they must provide them.
It's best to type it up, and clarify that you are making a public records request pursuant to RCW 42.56. It can be in any format. Email works good too, as a lot of the docs are in digital form anyway.

jhfc said:

Thanks for that.

The language in these training bulletins seems far from what we would want................

So far, I find the training contained within rather alarming..................

Click to expand...

go behind them to verify the document. If it is a badly worded or vague document, challenge it. If you find out 911 operators are not being trained, bring it to their attention. Citizenship is a verb. Sic 'em. You are the government.

Filed a request for copies of police department training bulletins, emails, memos related to open carry today.

We'll see what comes back....

OK, as I understand it, Washington public agencies have 5 business days to respond with either the records, a time estimate to produce the records or a denial to produce the records.

Today is day 5 and I've not received any of the above. When I sent in my email request, I received an automated response that the request was received and would be printed for processing.

I'll give them a day or two longer, but what is the next step in getting my request fulfilled? Granted the day isn't quite over yet on the left coast, but I'm not expecting to see anything today.

jhfc said:

OK, as I understand it, Washington public agencies have 5 business days to respond with either the records, a time estimate to produce the records or a denial to produce the records.

Today is day 5 and I've not received any of the above. When I sent in my email request, I received an automated response that the request was received and would be printed for processing.

I'll give them a day or two longer, but what is the next step in getting my request fulfilled? Granted the day isn't quite over yet on the left coast, but I'm not expecting to see anything today.

Click to expand...

Call tommorow morning and ask if your disclosure is ready.........don't ask what the status is, ask them if its ready.....

EMNofSeattle said:

Call tommorow morning and ask if your disclosure is ready.........don't ask what the status is, ask them if its ready.....

Click to expand...

Imo, EVERY agency should have these things publically available posted on the internet. Some agencies do. I'm working on requesting that my agency do so. It's a good example of open govt. and the internet is certainly a great tool for facilitating open govt. - shouldn't need to do a request to get this stuff, it should be right there on the internet.

We don't even have a General Orders (policies and procedures) manual anymore. We used to get issued an actual manual , with the pages hole punched so we could remove the deleted policies and add the new ones as they came out. Now, it's online and we get our manual updates via email. Since it's already online on our intranet, it would be easy peasy lemon squeezy to make it publically available on our web page.

My agency has an awesome policy on how to deal with people filming the police (in brief, leave them alone, but has a lot of detail and is consistent with the law and good open policing). Our roll call training on dealing with OCers is excellent too. It's REALLY important that agencies have good policy in regards to these things, because they are (imo) the two things that law enforcement has consistently screwed up on. Respondin g to armed robberies, doing death notifications, vehicle pursuits, pit maneuvers, felony stops, building searches, crime scene investigation, advanced interrogation techniques, report writing, search warrants, ASAP maneuvers, setting perimeters, etc. etc we generally do a great job. But over and over we see cops reacting badly to OCers and people filming us. It's gotten better, but still a ways to go. We do (imo) so many things with excellence and professionalism, but the way (some) cops deal with OCers and people filming/recording is just a friggin embarassment.

Since I'm more of an everything in writing kind of guy, I sent the public records compliance officer for the city an email:

Dear Ms. McJilton:

I submitted a records request (attached) on August 21, 2013. To date, I've received only an automated response indicating the request was received for processing.

Per RCW 42.56.520, applicable government entities must respond in five business days by either:

(1) providing the record; (2) providing an internet address and link on the agency's web site to the specific records requested, except that if the requester notifies the agency that he or she cannot access the records through the internet, then the agency must provide copies of the record or allow the requester to view copies using an agency computer; (3) acknowledging that the agency, the office of the secretary of the senate, or the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives has received the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the agency, the office of the secretary of the senate, or the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives will require to respond to the request; or (4) denying the public record request.

As of August 30, 2013, I have received none of the above responses.

Today it will be seven business days since my request was made. My request is now out of compliance with the Public Records Act. As public records compliance officer, can you please ensure my request is promptly addressed?

Thank you,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Click to expand...

Received a response. It seems a response indicating how I can get the records (pay $5 and go pick them up), was sent to the wrong address.

Just a typo.

Once I get my hands on the requested material. I'll post my findings.

PALO said:

It's REALLY important that agencies have good policy in regards to these things, because they are (imo) the two things that law enforcement has consistently screwed up on. Respondin g to armed robberies, doing death notifications, vehicle pursuits, pit maneuvers, felony stops, building searches, crime scene investigation, advanced interrogation techniques, report writing, search warrants, ASAP maneuvers, setting perimeters, etc. etc we generally do a great job. But over and over we see cops reacting badly to OCers and people filming us. It's gotten better, but still a ways to go. We do (imo) so many things with excellence and professionalism, but the way (some) cops deal with OCers and people filming/recording is just a friggin embarassment.

Click to expand...

Just another iteration of the 80/20 rule. PD's do 80% of their job well but that 20% they screw up on is what they're "graded on".

Now if they were to knock back a few ego's that seem to cause the biggest problems with those two scenarios (OD and Filming), then it's highly likely that the issue would be relegated to that "Less than one percent" category.

I received a rather underwhelming response to my request: two training bulletins, that are essentially identical and a copy of the various firearms-related RCWs.

Vancouver's TB uses much the same language as other cities with some additions. I'd like to discuss this training bulletin with you folks.

Is there a place I can post it? Post the text here?

And in parallel, I don't feel they responded completely to my request. My original request was:

"Vancouver Police Department e-mails, training bulletins related to the open carry of firearms, including a copy of the training bulletin(s), training requirements, who has been trained (LEO, 911 Operators) when and where was the last training conducted"

In one of the TBs there is an unfilled out training roster -- a template. Per my request, I got 0 emails on the topic, the copy of the training bulletin, a template for training requirements and who was likely to be trained (no mention of 911 operators) or a response to when/where training was last conducted. So, no internal emails exist on the topic?

jhfc said:

And in parallel, I don't feel they responded completely to my request. My original request was:

"Vancouver Police Department e-mails, training bulletins related to the open carry of firearms, including a copy of the training bulletin(s), training requirements, who has been trained (LEO, 911 Operators) when and where was the last training conducted"

In one of the TBs there is an unfilled out training roster -- a template. Per my request, I got 0 emails on the topic, the copy of the training bulletin, a template for training requirements and who was likely to be trained (no mention of 911 operators) or a response to when/where training was last conducted. So, no internal emails exist on the topic?

Click to expand...

Mention that you feel the FOIA request was not fulfilled to them in a reply and pressure them to provide the missing information. Politely inform them they are legally required to disclose the information requested.

jhfc said:

Is there a place I can post it? Post the text here?

Click to expand...

created an account on NWCDL.org, then go to the downloads section, you can upload the file there.
or
Email it to me and I'll make it available. (m1gunr at GMAIL dott Comm)