MPIA Request for IAD Records
It is a clone of this request.
| Submitted | Sept. 1, 2022 |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: Amelia McDonell-Parry
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Maryland Public Information Act, I am hereby requesting access to the records listed below and held by the Anne Arundel County Police Department:
- Copies of any and all internal affairs complaints, including internal, citizen, or other agency complaints of the following officers:
1. Jeffrey Silverman (1134)
2. Andrew Salenieks (1926)
3. Daniel M. Reynolds (1882)
4. Jacob Miskill (2130)
5. Kelly Harding (1309)
6. Jason DiPietro (1249)
7. Brian Ranck (2021)
8. Joshua Shapiro (1849)
9. Jonathan Ricci (2319)
10. Trey Keller (2010)
11. Jaron Taylor (2242)
12. Louis Facciponti (1695)
13. Steven James (1598)
14. Mark Collier (1632)
15. James Davis (1078)
16. John Gilmer (1319)
17. Scott Wolford (1740)
18. Bradley Tuthill (2011)
19. Paul Smith (1705)
20. Michael Radzibaba (1925)
21. Devin Simmons (1690)
22. Brian Houseman (1523)
23. Russell Hewitt (1537)
24. William Selander (924)
25. Rodney Price (1946)
- Complete investigative files for each complaint, including but not limited to reports of recorded statements, video surveillance or body camera footage, investigative files, witness interviews, and photographs.
- The investigative findings of each complaint.
- Any correspondence from the Civilian Review Board, Police Advisory Commission or other civilian police oversight board.
- The final disposition of each case, if any.
The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.
In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. Alternatively, please consider waiving any fees, pursuant to § 4-206(e)(2)(ii) of the General Provisions Article, as this request is on behalf of individuals served by the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, a state government agency, which solely serves indigent citizens of Maryland. As a result, my request for the above-listed public records is in the public interest. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 calendar days, as the statute requires.
Sincerely,
Deborah Levi
Director of Special Litigation
Maryland Office of the Public Defender
(443) 272-1068
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Maryland Public Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on Sept. 1, 2022. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Anne Arundel County Police Department
This correspondence is in response to the request for inspection or copies
of public records. Your request will be evaluated in accordance with the
Maryland Public Information Act, Annotated Code of Maryland, General
Provisions Article § 4-101, et seq. (MPIA). Specifically, you have
requested internal affairs records of twenty-five Officers of this
Department.
Pursuant to MPIA § 4-203(b)(2) it is reasonably expected that it will take
more than 10 business days to respond to your request. The reason for this
is because the Internal Affairs Section has physical custody of potentially
responsive records, and we currently have a backlog of those requests to
process. Once the responsive record(s) are assessed I will be able to
advise you of the estimated fees and related waiver of fees outcome (if
applicable), as well as a more accurate estimation of time required to
produce. However, response will be within the required 30 days. As
responsive records have not been evaluated, I do not yet know if denial in
full or in part (redactions) will be required, but, if any are applied, the
response will explain the reason for that.
Sincerely,
Christine Ryder
Anne Arundel County Police Department
Custodian of Records
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Maryland Public Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on Sept. 1, 2022. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Anne Arundel County Police Department
This correspondence is in response to your request for public records.
Specifically you have requested records pertaining to Internal Affairs
investigations of twenty-five named Officers. Your request has been
reviewed in accordance with Maryland Public Information Act, Annotated Code
of Maryland, General Provisions Article § 4-101, et seq. (MPIA) and is
approved in part and denied in part.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Silverman 1134, two records are
exempt from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction(s). Three matters were deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Salenieks 1926, one record is
exempt from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction. One matter was deemed responsive and
releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Reynolds 1882, there are six
matters deemed responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Miskill 2130, one matter was deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer DiPietro 1249, two matters were
deemed responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Ranck 2021, four matters were
deemed responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Shapiro 1849, there are three
matters deemed responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Keller 2010, two records are of an
investigatory matter which is not yet closed/adjudicated. Release of such
records at this time could interfere with a proper law enforcement
proceeding and prejudice an investigation. MPIA § 4-351(b)(1),(6); 71 Op.
Atty Gen. Md. 288 (1986). In accordance with the provisions cited, your
request for this record is denied at this time.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Taylor 2242, one record is of an
investigatory matter which is not yet closed/adjudicated. Release of such
records at this time could interfere with a proper law enforcement
proceeding and prejudice an investigation. MPIA § 4-351(b)(1),(6); 71 Op.
Atty Gen. Md. 288 (1986). In accordance with the provisions cited, your
request for this record is denied at this time. Three records are exempt
from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction. One matter was deemed responsive and
releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Facciponti 1965, five matters were
deemed responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer James 1598, one matter was deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Collier 1632, one matter was deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Gilmer 1319, one record is exempt
from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction. One matter was deemed responsive and
releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Wolford 1740, one matter was deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Tuthill 2011, one matter was deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Smith 1705, one record is exempt
from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction. One matter was deemed responsive and
releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Simmons 1960, one matter was deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Houseman 1523, two matters were
deemed responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Hewitt 1537, one record is exempt
from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Selander 0924, six records are
exempt from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction. Three matters were deemed responsive
and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Price 1946, two records are exempt
from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction. One matter was deemed responsive and
releasable generally.
No records were found responsive to your request for records pertaining to
Officers Harding 1309, Ricci 2319, Davis 1078 or Radzibaba 1925.
Of the matters deemed releasable generally, the records within the files
contain both releasable and privileged or exempt material that would
require denial in part or in whole. Therefore, the Department must
carefully review and process each record within the case file to identify
content that may contain privileged or exempt material. There are 4,211
pages of records within the releasable files. I estimate that it will take
between 281 and 351 hours to extract, copy review and apply required
redactions for release. An additional copy fee of $.25 per page will be
applied once the total number of responsive pages is determined. I
anticipate that the copy fee will be between $700 and $1,082.25. These
records cannot be produced electronically due to file size and redactions
required.
You have sought a waiver of fees for costs associated with the review and
production of records of the entire request on the grounds that the records
you seek are for a public purpose in accordance with MPIA § 4-206. I do not
agree that the public interest compels waiving the fee for the records. To
perform the review and preparation of the extraordinary volume of
responsive records that you have requested, the department must dedicate
significantly substantial time and resources that otherwise would be
devoted to other public interest activities. As a result of careful
consideration of your request, I must advise that your request for a fee
waiver is denied.
Significantly more than two hours have been expended already in response to
this request. Based on the hourly rate of the County employee who would
process the remainder of your request ($57.17 per hour), the estimated
range of fees for the Police Department to process your request is $16,064
to $20,066.67, plus applicable copy/ reproduction fee of $.25 per page. Due
to the nature of the responsive records, this work cannot be delegated to
an employee with a lesser hourly pay rate. Accordingly, if you would like
to proceed, please send a check payable to "Anne Arundel County” for the
minimum fee estimate in the amount of $16,064.77. Upon receipt of payment,
work will begin to complete the processing of the potentially responsive
records. You will be required to pay the difference if the actual fee
exceeds the minimum, and given a refund if it is less. I do not yet know
whether all of the responsive records in whole or in part are subject to
disclosure, but, if any are to be withheld, the response will explain the
reason for that.
If you wish to adjust the scope to narrow the records you seek (*summary
only, investigative reports only, etc*.), please let me know and I will
conduct a new review with lesser corresponding estimated fees.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this response. You may
challenge any part of this response to your request by filing an action in
the appropriate court of law pursuant to MPIA § 4-362. You may also contact
the Public Access Ombudsman per MPIA § 4-1B-04.
Sincerely,
Christine Ryder
Anne Arundel County Police Department
Custodian of Records
From: Anne Arundel County Police Department
*---RESPONSE CORRECTION. PLEASE DISREGARD PREVIOUS RESPONSE---*
This correspondence is in response to your request for public records.
Specifically you have requested records pertaining to Internal Affairs
investigations of twenty-five named Officers. Your request has been
reviewed in accordance with Maryland Public Information Act, Annotated Code
of Maryland, General Provisions Article § 4-101, et seq. (MPIA) and is
approved in part and denied in part.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Silverman 1134, two records are
exempt from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction(s). Three matters were deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Salenieks 1926, one record is
exempt from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction. Two matters were deemed responsive and
releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Reynolds 1882, there are six
matters deemed responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Miskill 2130, one matter was deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer DiPietro 1249, two matters were
deemed responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Ranck 2021, four matters were
deemed responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Shapiro 1849, there are three
matters deemed responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Keller 2010, two records are of an
investigatory matter which is not yet closed/adjudicated. Release of such
records at this time could interfere with a proper law enforcement
proceeding and prejudice an investigation. MPIA § 4-351(b)(1),(6); 71 Op.
Atty Gen. Md. 288 (1986). In accordance with the provisions cited, your
request for this record is denied at this time.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Taylor 2242, one record is of an
investigatory matter which is not yet closed/adjudicated. Release of such
records at this time could interfere with a proper law enforcement
proceeding and prejudice an investigation. MPIA § 4-351(b)(1),(6); 71 Op.
Atty Gen. Md. 288 (1986). In accordance with the provisions cited, your
request for this record is denied at this time. Three records are exempt
from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction. One matter was deemed responsive and
releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Facciponti 1965, five matters were
deemed responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer James 1598, one matter was deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Collier 1632, one matter was deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Gilmer 1319, one record is exempt
from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Wolford 1740, one matter was deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Tuthill 2011, one matter was deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Smith 1705, one record is exempt
from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Simmons 1960, one matter was deemed
responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Houseman 1523, two matters were
deemed responsive and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Hewitt 1537, one record is exempt
from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Selander 0924, six records are
exempt from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction. Four matters were deemed responsive
and releasable generally.
Regarding records pertaining to Officer Price 1946, two records are exempt
from disclosure as personnel records pertaining to a
technical/administrative infraction. One matter was deemed responsive and
releasable generally.
No records were found responsive to your request for records pertaining to
Officers Harding 1309, Ricci 2319, Davis 1078 or Radzibaba 1925.pertaining
to Officers Harding 1309, Ricci 2319, Davis 1078 or Radzibaba 1925.
Of the matters deemed releasable generally, the records within the files
contain both releasable and privileged or exempt material that would
require denial in part or in whole. Therefore, the Department must
carefully review and process each record within the case file to identify
content that may contain privileged or exempt material. There are 4,211
pages of records within the releasable files. I estimate that it will take
between 281 and 351 hours to extract, copy review and apply required
redactions for release. An additional copy fee of $.25 per page will be
applied once the total number of responsive pages is determined. I
anticipate that the copy fee will be between $700 and $1,082.25. These
records cannot be produced electronically due to file size and redactions
required.
You have sought a waiver of fees for costs associated with the review and
production of records of the entire request on the grounds that the records
you seek are for a public purpose in accordance with MPIA § 4-206. I do not
agree that the public interest compels waiving the fee for the records. To
perform the review and preparation of the extraordinary volume of
responsive records that you have requested, the department must dedicate
significantly substantial time and resources that otherwise would be
devoted to other public interest activities. As a result of careful
consideration of your request, I must advise that your request for a fee
waiver is denied.
Significantly more than two hours have been expended already in response to
this request. Based on the hourly rate of the County employee who would
process the remainder of your request ($57.17 per hour), the estimated
range of fees for the Police Department to process your request is $16,064
to $20,066.67, plus applicable copy/ reproduction fee of $.25 per page. Due
to the nature of the responsive records, this work cannot be delegated to
an employee with a lesser hourly pay rate. Accordingly, if you would like
to proceed, please send a check payable to "Anne Arundel County” for the
minimum fee estimate in the amount of $16,064.77. Upon receipt of payment,
work will begin to complete the processing of the potentially responsive
records. You will be required to pay the difference if the actual fee
exceeds the minimum, and given a refund if it is less. I do not yet know
whether all of the responsive records in whole or in part are subject to
disclosure, but, if any are to be withheld, the response will explain the
reason for that.
If you wish to adjust the scope to narrow the records you seek (summary
only, investigative reports only, etc.), please let me know and I will
conduct a new review with lesser corresponding estimated fees.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this response. You may
challenge any part of this response to your request by filing an action in
the appropriate court of law pursuant to MPIA § 4-362. You may also contact
the Public Access Ombudsman per MPIA § 4-1B-04.
Sincerely,
Christine Ryder
Anne Arundel County Police Department
Custodian of Records
From: Amelia McDonell-Parry
Dear Ms. Ryder,
Thank you for your prompt response to our request for Internal Affairs files for 25 Anne Arundel County Police Department officers. In hopes of finding a more cost effective way to deliver the records, like a summary spreadsheet which includes case numbers, allegations, findings and their respective dates? After reviewing the list of responsive files and these details, we'll be able to limit our request for more specific IAD files. This is a measure other departments have been willing to offer us as a starting point.
Let me know if you have any questions and I look forward to your response.
Amelia McDonell-Parry
Special Litigation Unit
Maryland Office of the Public Defender
Amelia.McDonell-Parry@maryland.gov
646.271.0371
From: Anne Arundel County Police Department
Good morning. With respect to your request for the releasable internal case
records in a spreadsheet format with detail, there are no such records
responsive and the Department is not required to create a document to
satisfy a request. Alternatively, we have printed the system summaries
which are attached. Please note that some portions of the responsive
record(s) have been redacted to protect privacy and safety of involved
parties according MPIA § 4-351(b)(3). It is standard procedure to redact
identifiers of victims, witnesses, and reporting parties when producing
records to the media and other persons not directly related to the incident
in order to protect privacy of those persons. The confidentiality of
sources and complaints must be maintained if there is an expressed or
implied assurance of confidentiality when reporting crime and other illegal
or unethical activity. Otherwise, members of the public and others would be
hesitant to bring forward potentially unethical or illegal activity in the
future or cooperate altogether. These considerations were given to the
disclosure of the records and redactions which I believe outweigh the
disclosure of those details, which are in accordance with MPIA §
4-351(d)(2). The unredacted portions provide the identity of the accused
Officer and the circumstances of the incidents if captured in summary—all
but the identifying information of the complainant/victim/witness
information.
You may challenge any part of this response to your request by filing an
action in the appropriate court of law pursuant to MPIA § 4-362. You may
also contact the Public Access Ombudsman per MPIA § 4-1B-04.
Sincerely,
Christine Ryder
Anne Arundel County Police Department
Custodian of Records
Files
pages