- Joined
- Jul 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,882
- Reaction score
- 8,577
IANAL, but if these were sent to me, this is what I would highlight/ focus on.
The relevant language from the letter (last sentence on page 1 and the sentence on page 2):
To the extent that these records exist, they are investigative or security files of the AG and the DOJ, that are expressly exempt from disclosure pursuant to GC section 6254(f).
In the case of [...], the CSC held that investigative records in the possession of LE are exempt from disclosure. The Court also ruled that investigative documents did not lose their exempt status due to failure to prosecute, or the close of the investigation.
~~~~~~~~~~~
6254(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. However, state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 13951, unless the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or unless disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation. However, this subdivision does not require the disclosure of that portion of those investigative files that reflects the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Looks like this case law between the San Bernadino County Sheriff and the Daily Press triggered the addition of criteria to the FOIA over and above the CPRA to refine what is and is not subject to disclosure, and actually allowed more openness, if I read it correctly. However, it also reinforced the definition of what is protected.
Of course that last bolded portion is what they are hanging their hat on, because we all know the "investigation" was an elaborate ruse, and any "investigative files" would undoubtedly reveal all of the lies and cover-up. My take, but IANAL.
I am so sorry you keep hitting walls seeking justice for Rebecca.
I wish peace and healing for you and your family.
The relevant language from the letter (last sentence on page 1 and the sentence on page 2):
To the extent that these records exist, they are investigative or security files of the AG and the DOJ, that are expressly exempt from disclosure pursuant to GC section 6254(f).
In the case of [...], the CSC held that investigative records in the possession of LE are exempt from disclosure. The Court also ruled that investigative documents did not lose their exempt status due to failure to prosecute, or the close of the investigation.
~~~~~~~~~~~
6254(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. However, state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 13951, unless the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or unless disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation. However, this subdivision does not require the disclosure of that portion of those investigative files that reflects the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Looks like this case law between the San Bernadino County Sheriff and the Daily Press triggered the addition of criteria to the FOIA over and above the CPRA to refine what is and is not subject to disclosure, and actually allowed more openness, if I read it correctly. However, it also reinforced the definition of what is protected.
Of course that last bolded portion is what they are hanging their hat on, because we all know the "investigation" was an elaborate ruse, and any "investigative files" would undoubtedly reveal all of the lies and cover-up. My take, but IANAL.
I am so sorry you keep hitting walls seeking justice for Rebecca.
I wish peace and healing for you and your family.
