Petition for release of info and FOIL info

[mysterymom7]

Homeboy,
Im from the neighborhood. Most of your "research" is already programmed in my skull. I agreed with you that that case will go cold.


BTW anyone see page A6 of newsday today?

I think a subscription might be required to view it. Any chance you could give a little quote and link?

 

[Justiceforever]

I think a subscription might be required to view it. Any chance you could give a little quote and link?

You get five freebes.

 

[Tugela]

SEASLUG44,

Every time an official somebody wants to keep something secret they use the same general excuses. I believe each case must be examined and evaluated on its own merits, which I hope the appeals will do.

In this case the only civilian on the 911 call is SG, and she is dead. Hundreds of LE officials have heard the call to no avail. Why would they not want an wider audience to hear it?

People who call 911 and do not want their identity known, do so anonymously. If SG named somebody or alluded to somebody in the call, LE is protecting that person, why?

MOO

Most likely because the tape contains nothing the public could help with. Releasing them would compromise the privacy of the individuals involved, and if it was not relevant to her death then it would only serve as public entertainment.

 

[mysterymom7]

Most likely because the tape contains nothing the public could help with. Releasing them would compromise the privacy of the individuals involved, and if it was not relevant to her death then it would only serve as public entertainment.

Compromise the privacy of whom? SG's?

How would a 22 minute 911 call not be relevant to her death when she was found dead yards from where that call was placed?

 

[Seaslug44]

The release of 911 recordings is already illegal in over a dozen States and over two hundred counties (including New York counties).

Linda Casey's story is one of many reasons why;

Linfa Casey 911 Call.

In every state & every county where the recordings are protected, the FOIL act cannot be utilized to over rule the laws that provide the protection.

You can appeal the denials all the way up to the Federal coutts & you still will not win a favorable ruling. You also cannot pick and choose which recordings should be the exception.

 

[mysterymom7]

The release of 911 recordings is already illegal in over a dozen States and over two hundred counties (including New York counties).

Linda Casey's story is one of many reasons why;

Linfa Casey 911 Call.

In every state & every county where the recordings are protected, the FOIL act cannot be utilized to over rule the laws that provide the protection.

You can appeal the denials all the way up to the Federal coutts & you still will not win a favorable ruling. You also cannot pick and choose which recordings should be the exception.

The way the current law stands, it's a case by case basis. That's what the exceptions are for, and it is up to the "Agency" (in this case the SCPD) to prove the exception fits in Court.

I've already given examples of 911 calls that have been released in NY that took a determination by the court whether the calls should or should not be released.

I'll explain, in layman's terms, the 9/11 911 calls that were released. The majority of callers gave their names, their loved ones names and made statements in the face of immanent death. In those cases, the calls were NOT released based on privacy exemptions. The calls that were descriptions of what was seen or heard were released with the names redacted. In some cases, the kind words of the 911 operators were released.

You are correct that the exceptions are there so it doesn't deter a person from calling 911. That includes personal information (to protect privacy), confidential informants, and calls that would cause some one or more danger. It is then left to the Agency to prove to the Court, and if the Court feels the burden of proof is not met, then it is up to the Court to release the records in its entirety or with redactions. That is how it works according to the law.

It is not I who "picks and chooses" what does or doesn't fall into an exception. It is the Court.

 

[WINDSOR]

Most likely because the tape contains nothing the public could help with. Releasing them would compromise the privacy of the individuals involved, and if it was not relevant to her death then it would only serve as public entertainment.

Tugela,

You make four assertions in one paragraph

1) "the tape contains nothing the public could help with" And how do you know this? Most crimes that police make an arrest in have some sort of public involvement. A tip, a witness, a suggestion , an anonymous call, a conversation overheard, a background noise, all have lead to crimes being solved. Unless you are with law enforcement and have heard the tape you cannot make this assertion.

2) "releasing it would compromise the privacy of the individuals involved"
The only persons that could be named on the tape are SG, JB, MP who have no privacy issues since this crime occurred. The only other person that might be mentioned is someone that SG mentions in relationship to her fears of danger. That person then becomes a suspect/POI and has no right to privacy.


3) "if it were not relevant to her death would serve as only public entertainment". First of all, after several television shows, several radio shows, numerous press announcements by SCPD and scores of articles in the media, this case is public entertainment by your definition.

4)" not relevant to SG's death". How can you even think this? This is the last recorded message from a woman calling the police who ends up dead, and you have a doubt this tape is relevant. Next thing you will tell me SG's life was not relevant.


MOO

 

[WINDSOR]

The release of 911 recordings is already illegal in over a dozen States and over two hundred counties (including New York counties).

Linda Casey's story is one of many reasons why;

Linfa Casey 911 Call.

In every state & every county where the recordings are protected, the FOIL act cannot be utilized to over rule the laws that provide the protection.

You can appeal the denials all the way up to the Federal coutts & you still will not win a favorable ruling. You also cannot pick and choose which recordings should be the exception.

If it illegal in over dozen states does that mean it is legal in about three dozen?

MOO

 

[Seaslug44]

If it illegal in over dozen states does that mean it is legal in about three dozen?

MOO

Absolutely yes.

But the slowness of some states to react is not an accurate indication of right or wrong.

A perfect example are the DWI (DUI) laws. For a very long time it was only a severe offense to drive under the influence within the borders of a select few states that were the first to be smart enough to recognize a problem and address it. The absence of strict DWI laws I'm the majority of the states back then was not a clear indication that the laws were a good or bad thing.

 

[Seaslug44]

The way the current law stands, it's a case by case basis. That's what the exceptions are for, and it is up to the "Agency" (in this case the SCPD) to prove the exception fits in Court.

I've already given examples of 911 calls that have been released in NY that took a determination by the court whether the calls should or should not be released.

I'll explain, in layman's terms, the 9/11 911 calls that were released. The majority of callers gave their names, their loved ones names and made statements in the face of immanent death. In those cases, the calls were NOT released based on privacy exemptions. The calls that were descriptions of what was seen or heard were released with the names redacted. In some cases, the kind words of the 911 operators were released.

You are correct that the exceptions are there so it doesn't deter a person from calling 911. That includes personal information (to protect privacy), confidential informants, and calls that would cause some one or more danger. It is then left to the Agency to prove to the Court, and if the Court feels the burden of proof is not met, then it is up to the Court to release the records in its entirety or with redactions. That is how it works according to the law.

It is not I who "picks and chooses" what does or doesn't fall into an exception. It is the Court.

I asked once before because I think I missed it;

Please show examples of court rulings that instructed Counties in NY state to release actual 911 recordings since 2008 (the year the E911 laws were last updated).

Cases that do not involve Counties or recordings or that are older than 2008 do not apply.

 

[mysterymom7]

I asked once before because I think I missed it;

Please show examples of court rulings that instructed Counties in NY state to release actual 911 recordings since 2008 (the year the E911 laws were last updated).

Cases that do not involve Counties or recordings or that are older than 2008 do not apply.

My copy/paste isn't working, so I can't link these. Google these cases for links.

Troy, NY-July 31, 2012: 911 call released in a case where a man was being dragged by a truck.

Hawthorne, NY-Oct 28, 2009: two 911 calls released in a case of a wrong way accident.

There's 2/3 for starters.

 

[shadowraiths]

Most likely because the tape contains nothing the public could help with. Releasing them would compromise the privacy of the individuals involved, and if it was not relevant to her death then it would only serve as public entertainment.

I respectfully disagree. Thanks to the original websleuths post made by trigger ( [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5902830#post5902830"]link[/ame] ) in the very 1st thread on this case ( [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122551"]link[/ame] )... it's not in the printed bit, rather in the video ( link ). Go to approx the 2:17 mark, where they're interviewing the family. It's right after the interview. I went ahead and transcribed that bit as well (emphasis, news reporter's).

Gilbert's family says on that night Shannan met with a man she met on Craigslist at the beach in Long Island. They say police have talked to the man and he has taken a lie detector test. It is not the man Shannan named as her attacker.​

 

[LINative13]

If the phonecall is so harmless and is nothing but jibberish....release it, shut us all up.

I mean, they had no problem addressing "the unfounded rumors" that were spreading on the internet. Release the tape so we can see what you are hiding!!!

It would be very embarrassing to them if SG actually did give a good description of where she was. I personally belive it was not the first time SG met JB. MOO however on that one.

 

[mysterymom7]

I got an answer back from Suffolk Co regarding my appeal.

They are dragging their feet. They never gave any legal reasons for denying MOST of my request in the first place. They only addressed the 911 call and police reports.

I called COOG to find out if this was a denial or a legal basis for them to deny or if it was something I was supposed to add. They should have denied or given access. When asked what county I was referring to, he said, "Suffolk is known for their hostility." It sure is!

I'm going to send the copies (even though they have them), and then send it all to the COOG.

 

[Justiceforever]

Give em hell Mom! ; )

 

[mysterymom7]

I got an answer back from Suffolk Co regarding my appeal.

They are dragging their feet. They never gave any legal reasons for denying MOST of my request in the first place. They only addressed the 911 call and police reports.

I called COOG to find out if this was a denial or a legal basis for them to deny or if it was something I was supposed to add. They should have denied or given access. When asked what county I was referring to, he said, "Suffolk is known for their hostility." It sure is!

I'm going to send the copies (even though they have them), and then send it all to the COOG.

I sent an express letter to them on Saturday. It's been sitting in their P.O. Box since Monday because of Sandy. I'm not sure when they're going back to work since they lost power. I requested an answer from them within 5 business days of receipt of my letter since their request has no legal basis and I should have been given access or denied records within 10 business days.

 

[mysterymom7]

I sent an express letter to them on Saturday. It's been sitting in their P.O. Box since Monday because of Sandy. I'm not sure when they're going back to work since they lost power. I requested an answer from them within 5 business days of receipt of my letter since their request has no legal basis and I should have been given access or denied records within 10 business days.

Here's what I wrote:

October 27, 2012

Re: appeal of 911 calls, records, etc.

Dear Mr. Cohen,

Upon receipt of your letter dated October 22, 2012, I contacted the Committee on Open Government (COOG) to inquire about the validity of your request, as I used their sample appeal form shown on their website to be sure I had the correct information.

According to the COOG, I had followed the appropriate steps by giving a detailed description of requested records to the Suffolk County Police Department F.O.I.L. Officer, Central Records Division, Janine Kelleghan. A copy of the denial letter from the F.O.I.L. Officer at Suffolk County Police Department is not required to appeal their decision to the County Attorney.

Although it is not a valid request, it is not an excessive request, therefore, I've attached a copy of the list of requested records as well as the letter of denial from the Records Assessor at the Suffolk County Police Department. I trust this will expedite a decision.

Since the time frame to answer an appeal is ten business days from receipt of an appeal, and the request for more information is invalid, I would respectfully request an answer within five business days from receipt of this letter.

To expedite the process, an answer can be emailed to the email address below. Records may also be emailed to the email address below. I trust the law will be upheld and a release of records or denial is a reasonable request within five business days from receipt of this letter.

I appreciate your cooperation on this matter.


Respectfully,

mysterymom7

They received it on Thursday at 8:13 am. I should hear back by this Thursday (hopefully by email). If not, I may not receive it until Saturday.

I should either receive the records or be denied and then an Article 78 is the next procedure.

 

[Justiceforever]

I love your tenacity Mom! I'm in the cheering section!

 

[mysterymom7]

Here's what I wrote:



They received it on Thursday at 8:13 am. I should hear back by this Thursday (hopefully by email). If not, I may not receive it until Saturday.

I should either receive the records or be denied and then an Article 78 is the next procedure.

Updating this...

I called last Wed. since I still hadn't heard anything, yet. I spoke with the attorney who is assigned to FOIL appeals, and he said he would be sending "something" out by the end of the week. I'm expecting to receive SOMETHING (what, who knows?) today or tomorrow. If not, I will be calling again.

 

[LINative13]

Something? They are either sending you a bomb or a hitman. LOL