Email Chain in Justice Department Report

Patrick Mackie filed this request with the Baltimore Police Department of Baltimore, MD.
Status
Completed

Communications

From: Patrick Mackie

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Maryland's Public Information Act ("PIA"), I hereby request the following records:

I'm requesting any and all emails sent or received that have the text "This victim seems like a conniving little
whore", which is listed in the justice departments report. Please include all further emails that have it in the reply section as well. Please expand your search to all subject headers, body, and any other way text is sent through department email.

-- BELOW IS CONTEXT INFORMATION --

(https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/883366/download)

Plaintext:

We were also troubled by statements of BPD detectives suggesting an undue skepticism of reports of sexual assault. One victim advocate told us about a detective in the BPD Sex Offense Unit making comments at a party, in the company of BPD officers and victim advocates, that, “in homicide, there are real victims; all our cases are bullshit.” When another person suggested the detective soften the statement, the detective added, “Ok, 90 percent.” We also reviewed e-mail correspondence between a BPD officer and a prosecutor in which they openly expressed their contempt for and disbelief of a woman who had reported a sexual assault: the prosecutor wrote that “this case is crazy. . . I am not excited about charging it. This victim seems like a conniving little whore. (pardon my language).”; the BPD officer replied, “Lmao! I feel the same.”

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. 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 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Patrick Mackie

From: DCU

Dear Requester,

Please see attached record provided in response to your below request.

The Maryland Public Information Act ("MPIA"), Annotated Code of Maryland, General Provisions Article, § 4-101, et seq. governs your request.

Please find attached the record responsive to your request. This record is produced in redacted fashion pursuant to MPIA Section 4-343 and Section 4-351(a)(b)(7) providing the custodian of records with the discretion to deny portions of investigative records when disclosure of same could jeopardize a person's physical safety. See MPIA 4-351(a) "Subject to subsection (b) of this section, a custodian may deny inspection of: (1) records of investigations conducted by the Attorney General, a State's Attorney, a municipal or county attorney, a police department, or a sheriff." See MPIA 4-351(b)(7) "A Custodian may deny inspection by a person in interest only to the extent that the inspection would: endanger the life or physical safety of an individual."

Nothing in this response is intended to indicate that any records sought from the BPD exist or to waive any privileges held by the BPD. You may contest this response by filing a complaint for Judicial Review in Circuit Court pursuant to MPIA Section MPIA Section 4-362.

Sincerely,

Brent D. Schubert

Assistant City Solicitor

Legal Affairs Division

Baltimore Police Department

100 N. Holliday Street, Room 101

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

From: Patrick Mackie

Thank you!

I am wondering why the to and from of the email is redacted? You list two reasons for redaction. Would you clarify which redaction(s) apply to the to and from fields of the email.

Also, is there a case or public information request number associated to my request?

From: Patrick Mackie

I am requesting a speedy response to this e-mail.

Below is my request for three redactions to be removed from the document and my explanation as to a reason why. Of course, Baltimore Police reserve the right to decline this, but this in response to my pursuit of information related to my original request.

You state the to/from and email can not be redacted due to 4-351(a)(b)(7). There is no proof to suggest either the prosector, police officer, or anyone else's life could be or would be in danger if the three redactions related to the "to" "from" and email of the prosector removed.

Under 4-351(a)(1) you state "records of investigations conducted by the Attorney General, a State's Attorney, a municipal or county attorney, a police department, or a sheriff."

You state these three redactions related to the "to" "from" and email of the prosector are record of investigations conducted, but the email "chain" was released. Also, the email itself is property of the Baltimore Police Department, not anyone who conducted an investigation. I requested the email, not a document produced by another agency.

The request for this information is supported by the Maryland constitution and MPIA. In article four ("That the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.” ) and article six (“That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct.” ) along with § 4-103 (a) of the MPIA (“In general. -- All persons are entitled to have access to information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees.”).

I am requesting you produce a document with the three redactions related to the "to" "from" and email of the prosector removed. If not, please send a vaughn index explaining each redaction.

Thanks!

From: DCU

Good Afternoon,

In response to your below comments:

The BPD has previously publicly commented on very similar questions, in response to the same Public Information Act request. See, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-sun-investigates-doj-email-20160917-story.html.

The Email produced in redacted fashion to you is now part and parcel to an open and ongoing (current) disciplinary investigation of the BPD Member that authored the correspondence to the State's Attorney.

As well, to respond to your questions/comment: “You state the to/from and email can not be redacted due to 4-351(a)(b)(7). There is no proof to suggest either the prosector, police officer, or anyone else's life could be or would be in danger if the three redactions related to the "to" "from" and email of the prosector removed.”

The BPD and Baltimore City Office of the State's Attorney, as a joint custodians of the responsive record, are of the position that due to the current climate of retaliation against Law Enforcement Officers and Officials, to reveal the names of the individuals reflected in the email would create an unacceptable risk to the personal safety of those named in the document
Thank you.

Brent D. Schubert

Assistant City Solicitor

Legal Affairs Division

Baltimore Police Department

100 N. Holliday Street, Room 101

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

From: Patrick Mackie

I am requesting a speedy response to this e-mail.

Could I have a itemized index of withheld redactions – sometimes referred to as a Vaughn index?

It is not required at the administrative denial stage, as long as the letter complies with GP § 4-203(c). I do not not believe your denial complied with GP § 4-203(c), because I can not take proper action through § 4-362 without knowing the reasons for each of the redactions. I know I can take action through § 4-362 , but without and "itemized index of withheld redactions " it limits my ability to properly submit what redactions I'm contesting under judicial review. As each of the redactions have a different reason for denial and you gave me multiple (two) reasons for denial for the whole document.

Thanks Brent,

Patrick

From: Brooks, Wayne

Mr. Mackie
I did not handle this request, however I will send this to BAD attorney for his review. All request for records and all inquiries about those records should be sent to DCU@baltimorepolice.org<mailto:DCU@baltimorepolice.org>

Thank You

Wayne Brooks
Assistant to Legal Affairs
Baltimore Police Department

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in or attached to this e-mail message may be a privileged and confidential attorney/client communication, or otherwise confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Legal Affairs Division immediately by telephone at 410-396-2496 and DELETE the message from your system immediately. Thank you.

The materials in this e-mail are private and may contain sensitive law enforcement information. Please note that e-mail is not necessarily confidential or secure. Use of e-mail constitutes your acknowledgment of these confidentiality and security limitations. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited as covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return e-mail.

From: DCU

Oops I meant BPD attorney. Brent Schubert. Brent is a great attorney

Thank You

Wayne Brooks
Assistant to Legal Affairs
Baltimore Police Department

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in or attached to this e-mail message may be a privileged and confidential attorney/client communication, or otherwise confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Legal Affairs Division immediately by telephone at 410-396-2496 and DELETE the message from your system immediately. Thank you.

The materials in this e-mail are private and may contain sensitive law enforcement information. Please note that e-mail is not necessarily confidential or secure. Use of e-mail constitutes your acknowledgment of these confidentiality and security limitations. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited as covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return e-mail.

Files

pages

Close