Documents related to Key Watcher system

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the California's Sunshine Amendment (Cal. Const. Art. I, § 3(b)), I hereby request the following records:

Documents related to the operation, capabilities and auditing of "key watcher" system used by Concord Police Department

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this request is in the public interest. The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, processed by a representative of the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and not for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived, 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 calendar days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Rodger Box

I view your response letter dated September 25, 2014 to be a denial of my California Public Records Act request. I refer you to the California Government Code §6250-6268, the California Public Records Act (CFRA), http://ag.ca.gov/publications/summary_public_records_act.pdf, and http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/87-304.pdf.

I specifically draw your attention to California Government Code §6253.3. “A state or local agency may not allow another party to control the disclosure of information that is otherwise subject to disclosure pursuant to this chapter”.

Your denial of this CFRA request is without basis, as per 6257.5 “This chapter does not allow limitations on access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure”. You have stated no reason other than current pending litigation. Extensive case law demonstrates your denial is invalid. County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 170 Cal. App. 4Th 1301, 1321 (2009), “disclosure is favored,” and therefore “all exemptions are narrowly construed”, Fairley v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1414; 71 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 235 (1988), Filarsky v. Superior Court (City of Manhattan Beach) (2002)28 Cal.4th 419 , 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 844; 49 P.3d 194 [No. S091308. July 15, 2002.], County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Axelrad II) (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 819, 826; Wilder v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 77; Fairley v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1414; City of Hemet v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise) (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1420-1421, fn. 11; but see dicta in Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363, 372., County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Axelrad II) (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 819, 830. Also See the California Attorney General's Public Records Act Summary (link provided above) and the California Attorney General's published opinion 87-304, 71 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 235 (1988) (link provided above).

I respectfully appeal your decision to deny this California Public Records Act request.

I am prepared to litigate in the event you continue to deny this and future California Public Records Act requests. I draw your attention to California Government Code §6259 (d) “The court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in litigation filed pursuant to this section”.

Sincerely,

Rodger Box

Mr. Clendenin

I believe your analysis of this situation is incorrect. This is a CPRA request.

I believe that the written and email responses I have received prove that you are in violation of California Government Code §6253.3.

California Government Code §6253.3. “A state or local agency may not allow another party to control the disclosure of information that is otherwise subject to disclosure pursuant to this chapter”.

The letter has been uploaded into this system.

Here is the responding email.

From Joseph Surges to MuckRock on Sept. 27, 2014:

We will not be send this information. We have mailed Mr. Box a letter.

- Joe,sent from the Batphone.

Rodger Box

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Sept. 24, 2014. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

Mr. Coon -

I find your response insufficient. This is a "sales brochure". This is non-responsive to the document request.

Sincerely,

Rodger Box