Culver City Police Department and City Attorney's Office (Culver City Police Department)

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I hereby request the following records:

June 30, 2020

To the Clerk of Culver City:

I am consolidating all of my past public records act requests, in addition to propounding the following new requests, into a single request for the purposes of convenience. On March 16, 2020, I requested that Lt. Dunlap answer a yes or no question: “Does CCPD maintain, collect, or have any documents reflecting the race of those detained, arrested, handcuffed, jailed, or forced to put their hands out of the windows or sit on the curb during traffic stops?” Lt. Dunlap responded, “No such records exist.” I have not only learned that to be a false statement, but now the CCPD and City Attorney have issued a Joint Statement, misrepresenting to the public, that I did not ask for arrest information. As such, please ensure a complete search is conducted prior to stating "no such records exist."

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The City of Culver City, its Police Department, and all other agencies, shall comply with California’s Right to Know Act, SB1421, which gives the public the right to access three categories of records related to investigation and discipline of peace officers:

1. Records related to any incident where a law enforcement officer fired a gun at a person (regardless of whether someone was hit), or used force that resulted in serious injury or death;
2. Records related to incidents where the agency found that an officer committed sexual assault against a member of the public;
3. Records related to incidents where the agency found that an officer engaged in dishonesty in the investigation, reporting, or prosecution of crime or police misconduct. This kind of dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, filing a false report, testifying untruthfully, or planting evidence.

Unless otherwise specified, the scope of time for each request will be January 1, 2000 to the present.

The definition of Culver City Police Officers Association, or “CCPOA” shall include, but not be limited to Culver City employees, Ivan Hernandez, Roy Lopez, Ryan Thompson, Charles Koffman and/or Jack Witter. Thus while CCPOA may be a nonprofit unaffiliated with the City of Culver City, any City employee who made any statement as listed below, must produce all requested documents.
The term “DOCUMENT” is used in the broadest possible sense and means and includes, without limitation, any body camera footage, written, printed, typed, photostated, photographic, recorded or otherwise reproduced communication or representation, whether comprised of letters, words, numbers, pictures, sounds or symbols, or any combination thereof. This definition includes copies or duplicates of documents contemporaneously or subsequently created that have any non-conforming notes or other markings. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the term “document” includes, but is not limited to, correspondence, memoranda, notes, records, letters, messages, studies, analyses, agreements, drafts, working papers, summaries, statistical statements, work papers, accounts, analytical records, reports and/or summaries of investigations, trade letters, press releases, comparisons, books, articles, magazines, newspapers, booklets, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, bulletins, notices, instructions, notes or minutes of meetings, or other communications of any type, including, inter- and intra-office communications, questionnaires, surveys, charts, graphs, recordings, films, tapes, videotapes, disks, data cells, print-outs, e-mails, and all other data compilations from which information can be obtained (translated, if necessary, into usable form), and any preliminary versions, drafts, or revisions of any of the foregoing. In addition, “DOCUMENT” means any “writing” as defined by Evidence Code 250 and includes all ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, but excludes attorney-client privileged documents.
“ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION” or “ESI” means “all information stored in an electronic medium, including but not limited to all data stored in a computer, data, stored on removable magnetic or optical media (such as zip drives, thumb drives, USBs, recordable optical disks), data stored in personal digital assistants, other handheld computers and devises, and cell phones, as well as all e-mails (and attachments thereto), carbon copies of e-mails, and blind carbon copies of e-mails, into readily usable form.”
When a response to a request may reasonably include DOCUMENTS which are kept as ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, such DOCUMENTS shall be produced either a) in their native format, unscrubbed of all metadata, b) electronically with searchable text, or c) via a webpage or data portal where Culver City has posted the requested information.

1. All arrest data reported to the California Department of Justice via the Monthly Arrests and Citation Register program covering arrests made from 2000 to the present, including (but not limited to) the age, race/ethnicity, gender, offense category (felony, misdemeanor, status offense), charge and disposition of arrestees.

2. The age, race, and gender of every person stopped, detained, or arrested, by CCPD.

3. The reason each of individuals referred to in responses to 1 or 2 were stopped or detained by CCPD. This means whether the individual was stopped by an officer-initiated stop, a loss prevention officer call, a 911 call, or other reason.

4. Whether each of the individuals referred to in responses to 1 or 2 were arrested, ticketed, cited and released, and/or booked, and/or charged, or issued a verbal warning.

5. All documents reflecting or pertaining to why CCPD stated in its March 23, 2020 letter to Annette Morasch that “no such records exist,” in response to her March 16, 2020 question, “I just want a yes or no to this question: Does CCPD maintain, collect, or have any documents reflecting the race of those detained, arrested, handcuffed, jailed, or forced to put their hands out of the windows or sit on the curb during traffic stops.”

6. All documents reflecting or pertaining to why on June 26, 2020, the Joint Statement of the Chief of Police and the City Attorney stated that Ms. Morasch’s public records act request called for “significantly different information” when on March 16, 2020 Ms. Morasch asked, “I just want a yes or no to this question: Does CCPD maintain, collect, or have any documents reflecting the race of those detained, arrested, handcuffed, jailed, or forced to put their hands out of the windows or sit on the curb during traffic stops?”

For your convenience, the requestor reminds the City that on March 23, 2020, Lt. Troy Dunlap answered the yes or no question with “No such records exist.”.

7. CCPD’s policies on requiring a person stopped for traffic or other violations to be either handcuffed, sat on the curb, or other “safety measure”. For clarification, this request seeks information about why officers require some drivers or pedestrians to sit on the curb or be handcuffed, while other individuals do not have to do the same.

8. All lawsuits against CC or CCPD alleging race discrimination, racial profiling, etc.

9. All lawsuits against CC or CCPD alleging excessive use of force, false imprisonment, wrongful arrest, 42 USC 1983, Civil Code 52.1, or 63 violations. This request includes listing the case number, the parties, whether a verdict was reached, and if so the prevailing party, and the amount of judgment. If the case was resolved through settlement, the amount CC or CCPD paid to settle the case.

10. All tort claims and claims for damages, made against any CCPD employee, for any reason, including but not limited to alleging race discrimination, racial profiling, excessive force, inappropriate behavior, 42 USC 1983, Civil Codes 52.1 or 63, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, or similar complaint.

11. All training manuals or materials provided to any CCPD employees, concerning or related to racial profiling and/or race discrimination.

12. The race and title of every CCPD employee who has worked for the CCPD in the past 20 years, and the years of their employment.

13. The gender and title of every CCPD employee who has worked for the CCPD in the past 20 years, and the years of their employment.

14. The recordings, or link to the recordings, of all City Council meetings from January 1, 2020 to the present, during which the CCPD was discussed. This includes, but is not limited to, the June 22, 2020 City Council meeting.

15. All Public Records Act requests, or requests for documents, made to the City of Culver City or the Culver City Police Department, by any individual, school, or organization-whether responsive documents were produced or not. This request number 15 includes, but is not limited to, requests made by Annette Morasch, Kelly Lytle Hernandez, and/or UCLA.

16. All written responses to any of the aforementioned Public Records Act Requests.

17. From 2000 to the present, the total number of police uses of force, per year.

18. The total number of use of force complaints reported by civilians, every year from 2000 to the present, per year.

19. The total number of use of force complaints reported by civilians that were sustained from the year 2000 to the present, broken down per year.

20. All emails, text messages, voicemails, or any other documents from January 2020 to the present including the phrase “Morasch” or “Annette Morasch” or “Morash.” This request includes, but is not limited to, all documents sent to inside of, or outside of, @culvercity.org domains.

21. All emails, text messages, voicemails, or any other documents from June 1, 2020 to the present, linking to, or referring to, any www.culvercitycrossroads.com article. This includes, bu tis not limited to, all communications concerning or about how to respond to Annette Morasch’s June 25, 2020 letter to the editor of Culver City Crossroads.

22. All drafts of any statement, any comments made on any statement, prepared in response to Annette Morasch’s June 25, 2020 letter to the editor of culvercitycrossroads.com.

23. All training manuals or materials, check lists, rules or regulations, provided to CCPD employees concerning or related to how to handle traffic stops, detaining pedestrians, when it is appropriate to handcuff individuals, when it it appropriate to require vehicle occupants to place their hands up and/or out windows, when it is appropriate to require vehicle occupants to exit their vehicle and/or sit on the curb or sidewalk.

24. From June 25, 2020 to June 26, 2020, any documents or analysis reflecting any effort to research the veracity of, or address the allegations put forth in, Annette Morasch’s June 25, 2020 Letter to the Editor.

25. From June 26, 2020 to June 27, 2020, any documents or analysis reflecting any effort to research the veracity of, or address the allegations put forth in, Annette Morasch’s June 25, 2020 Letter to the Editor.

26. From June 28, 2020 to the present, any documents or analysis reflecting any effort to research the veracity of, or address the allegations put forth in, Annette Morasch’s June 25, 2020 Letter to the Editor,.

27. Any and all documents reflecting or pertaining to any research or analysis of the racial composition of arrests in Culver City, whether that research or analysis was conducted by the CCPD, City Council, or any other Culver City employee or contractor, from January 1, 2000 to the present.

28. All documents showing the address or site of any juvenile arrest, whether that arrest resulted in a citation or booking.

29. Any and all documents which support or undermine the Culver City Police Officers Association (“CCPOA”) allegation in its June 27, 2020 public letter, in which CCPOA represented, during the 2017-2018 years, “75% of those [juvenile] arrests were the result of radio calls, not observations or self-initiated activities involving racial profiling.”

As a reminder, “CCPOA” shall include, but not be limited to Culver City employees, Ivan Hernandez, Roy Lopez, Ryan Thompson, Charles Koffman and/or Jack Witter.

30. Any and all documents which support or undermine the CCPOA’s allegation in its June 27, 2020 public letter, in which CCPOA represented, during the 2017-2018 years, “75% of theses (sic ) [juvenile] arrests were a result of a radio call after a crime had occurred.”

31. Any and all documents which the City of Culver City, or CCPD, provided to any member of the CCPOA, between June 25, 2020 and June 27, 2020.

32. Any and all documents which were relied upon by any member of the CCPOA between June 25, 2020 and June 27, 2020 to support its allegation in its June 27, 2020 public letter, that during the 2017-2018 years, “75% of theses (sic ) [juvenile] arrests were a result of a radio call after a crime had occurred.”

33. Any and all documents which support or undermine CCPOA allegation in its June 27, 2020 public letter, in which CCPOA represented, during the 2017-2018 years, “25% of these [juvenile] arrests were in response to calls for service for crimes such as robbery, carjacking, residential burglary and assault with a deadly weapon.”

34. Between June 25, 2020 and June 27, 2020, all documents which were relied upon by any member of the CCPOA to support CCPOA’s allegation in its June 27, 2020 public letter, that during the 2017-2018 years, “25% of these [juvenile] arrests were in response to calls for service for crimes such as robbery, carjacking, residential burglary and assault with a deadly weapon.”

35. Any and all documents which support or undermine CCPOA’s allegation in its June 27, 2020 public letter, in which CCPOA represented, during the 2017-2018 years, “50 % of the overall [juvenile] arrests were for petty theft and were not in-custody arrests (meaning that an individual was not physically taken to the station and booked), they were issued a citation in the field.”

36. Any and all documents which were relied upon by any member of the CCPOA, between June 25, 2020 and June 27, 2020 to support its allegation in its June 27, 2020 public letter, that during the 2017-2018 years, “50 % of the overall [juvenile] arrests were for petty theft and were not in-custody arrests (meaning that an individual was not physically taken to the station and booked), they were issued a citation in the field.”

37. Any and all documents which support or undermine CCPOA’s allegation in its June 27, 2020 public letter, in which CCPOA represented, during the 2017-2018 years, that when the CCPD receives “a petty theft call after an individual has been detained by loss prevention offers, [CCPD is] obligated to respond to the radio call for service, accept the arrest, issue a citation, and complete the necessary paperwork.”

38. Any and all documents which were relied upon by any member of the CCPOA between June 25, 2020 and June 27, 2020 to support its allegation in its June 27, 2020 public letter, that during the 2017-2018 years, that when the CCPD receives “a petty theft call after an individual has been detained by loss prevention officers, [CCPD is] obligated to respond to the radio call for service, accept the arrest, issue a citation, and complete the necessary paperwork.”

39. The “paperwork” CCPD is “obligated” to complete when CCPD receives a petty theft call after an individual has been detained by loss prevention officers.

40. All policies and procedures from January 2000 to the present, concerning how CCPD is supposed to handle private person’s arrest affidavits, including but not limited to, whether an officer must have independent probable cause to make an arrest, and/or the level of officer’s discretion to issue a citation or cause a suspect to be booked.

41. All videos shown to, and handouts given to, any individual who participated in the Culver City Police Explorer Program (also known as the Basic Explorer Academy) from 2015 to the present.

42. The race of every individual who has participated in the Culver City Police Explorer Program (also known as the Basic Explorer Academy), from 2015 to the present.

43. The race of every individual who applied to participate in the Culver City Police Explorer Program (also known as the Basic Explorer Academy), from 2014 to the present.

44. Any and all documents which were relied upon by any member of the CCPOA between June 25, 2020 and June 27, 2020 to support its allegation in its June 27, 2020 public letter, that “Morash (sic)...is a staunch supporter of the de-fund (sic) the police movement.”

45. Any and all documents, including any videos or audio recordings, which were relied upon by City employee to support their allegation that Annette Morasch leveled “baseless accusations” against the CCPD during the June 22, 2020 Culver City Council meeting.

46. Any and all documents, including any videos or audio recordings, which support CCPOA’s June 27, 2020 public letter’s allegation that any of Ms. Morasch’s allegations were “baseless.” This includes, but is not limited to, documents identifying which allegation of Ms. Morasch’s were “baseless,” and why the allegations were “baseless.”

47. Any and all documents, including any videos or audio recordings, which were relied upon by any member of the CCPOA, to support police employees’ allegation that Annette Morasch “urged the city council to adopt the recommendations of the Culver City Action Network...and reduce the police budget by 50% within the next 90 days.”

48. Any and all documents, including any videos or audio recordings, which any member of CCPOA relied upon to state, “[w]e all know what a disaster the ‘Seattle’ experiment has been.”

49. Any and all documents, including any videos or audio recordings, which any Culver City employee relied upon to state, “Morash (sic) knows in order to garner support for the defund the police movement, she must ultimately paint our organization with the broad brush of racism.”

50. Any and all documents, including any videos or audio recordings, which support CCPOA’s June 27, 2020 public letter’s allegation that Ms. Morasch “is attempting to argue her point in the court of public opinion using incomplete and out of context statistical data which allows her to level wildly sensational accusations.”

51. All documents which CCPD or any employee of the City of Culver City, deems necessary to provide Ms. Morasch, so that she has “complete” statistical data which would assist Ms. Morasch to refrain from making “wildly sensational accusations.” This request includes, but is not limited to, what statistical data the CCPOA has determined was missing to allege Ms. Morasch was using “incomplete” statistical data to make “wildly sensational accusations.”

52. All crime rates statistics from January 1, 2000 to the present.

53. The race and age of all individuals placed in the Culver City Police Juvenile Diversion Program, from the inception of the Diversion Program until the present.

54. Any documents reflecting the metrics, policies, or procedures, of accepting individuals into the Culver City Police Juvenile Diversion Program.

55. Any and all documents reflecting CCPD “has made great strides over the last two decades to become one of the most effective and professional police organizations in the country.”

56. All documents which explain why, on March 23, 2020, Lt. Troy Dulap wrote to Annette Morasch, “No such records exist,” in response to her request for documents showing “Any steps taken by the CCPD to implement, or prepare to implement, the requirements of” the RIPA.

57. All documents which explain why, on the one hand, pursuant to Lt. Troy Dunlap’s March 23, 2020 representations, that no records exist showing steps the CCPD had taken to “implement, or prepare to implement, the requirements of [RIPA],” but on the other hand the June 26, 2020 Joint Statement of the Chief of Police and the City Attorney stated, “CCPD has made it a top priority to expedite its efforts in obtaining the technology to process and retain the data that will be required under Government Code 15525.5, (sic) even before the 2022 deadline.”

58. Records under the California Penal Code 832.7-832.8, and Art. I, 3(b) of the California Constitution. This refers to disclosable records relating to the report, investigation, findings, and administrative discipline of any CCPD employee. This includes all records related to the following conduct:
(a) An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person, whether the person was hit or not;
(b) An incident in which the use of force resulted in death or great bodily injury;
(c) Any sustained finding involving sexual assault, as defined by Penal Code 832.7b(1)(B)(ii).
(d) Any sustained finding involving dishonesty directly relating to the reporting, investigating, or prosecution of a crime, including but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, tampering with, or concealing of evidence, receipt or solicitation of bribes, loans, favors, or gifts, misappropriation of property, obstructing an investigation, or influencing a witness.

For request No. 58, “Records” include all investigative reports; photographic, audio, and video evidence; transcripts or recordings of interviews; autopsy reports; all materials compiled and presented for review to the district attorney or to any person or body charged with determining whether to file criminal charges against an officer in connection with an incident, or whether the officer’s action was consistent with law and agency policy for purposes of discipline or administrative action, or what discipline to impose or corrective action to take; documents setting forth findings or recommended findings; and copies of disciplinary records relating to the incident, including any letters of intent to impose discipline, any documents reflecting modifications of discipline due to the Skelly or grievance process, and letters indicating final imposition of discipline or other documentation reflecting implementation of corrective action.

59. All policies and procedures concerning the publication of a juvenile’s name and/or date of birth, to the general public.

60. Any document, including texts, emails, or other communications, which has the term “8GHK534” from February 1, 2020 to the present.

61. Any and all documents supporting the assertion found in the June 26, 2020 Joint Statement of the Chief of Police and City Attorney, that Annette Morasch’s February 14, 2020 Public Records Act Request called for “significantly different information” than if she requested “documents reflecting the race of every individual arrested by CCPD, and the reason for arrest.”

62. Any and all documents explaining how a CCPD employee can arrest an individual without stopping and/or detaining that individual.

63. Any and all documents explaining why the City of Culver City and/or the CCPD determined Annette Morasch’s Public Records Act Requests did not request arrest records.

64. Any and all documents used by the CCPD which defines the word, “arrest.”

65. Any and all documents relied upon by the June 26, 2020 Joint Statement of the Chief of Police and City Attorney, that CCPD “engages in approximately 50,000 official contacts with the public each year.”

66. Any and all documents reflecting the definition of “official contacts” as used in the June 26, 2020 Joint Statement of the Chief of Police and City Attorney.

67. Any and all documents, including any videos or audio recordings, which were relied upon by any employee or agent of Culver City, between June 25, 2020 and June 26, 2020 to support the allegation in the June 26, 2020 Joint Statement of the Chief of Police and City Attorney, that “[a]pproximately 50% of these [juvenile] arrests were in response to radio calls for service for theft related crimes and/or trespassing.”

68. Any and all documents, including any videos or audio recordings, which were relied upon by any employee or agent of Culver City, between June 25, 2020 and June 26, 2020 to support its allegation in the June 26, 2020 Joint Statement of the Chief of Police and City Attorney, that “[a]pproximately 25% of these [juvenile] arrests were in response to calls for service for crimes such as robbery, carjacking, residential burglary and assault with a deadly weapon.”

69. Any and all documents, including any videos or audio recordings, which were relied upon by any employee or agent of Culver City, between June 25, 2020 and June 26, 2020 to support its allegation in the June 26, 2020 Joint Statement of the Chief of Police and City Attorney, that “[t]he remaining approximate 25% of these juvenile arrests were for crimes such as gun and weapons possession, grand theft auto, sexual battery and drug possession.”

70. Any documents, from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018, reflecting or pertaining to how many arrests were officer-initiated, as opposed to radio calls for service, or phone calls for service.

71. Any documents, from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2016, reflecting or pertaining to how many arrests were officer-initiated, as opposed to radio calls for service, or phone calls for service.

72. Any documents, from January 1, 2019 to the present, reflecting or pertaining to how many arrests were officer-initiated, as opposed to radio calls for service, or phone calls for service.

73. Any and all documents supporting the representation of Culver City employees in the June 26, 2020 Joint Statement of Chief of Police and City Attorney, that “The City looks for additional measures for increasing transparency.”

74. Any and all documents supporting the representation of Culver City employees in the June 26, 2020 Joint Statement of Chief of Police and City Attorney, that “CCPD has made it a top priority to expedite its efforts in obtaining the technology to process and retain the data that will be required under Government Code 15525.5, (sic) even before the 2022 deadline.”

Request No. 74 it is the requestor’s belief that the Chief of Police and City Attorney meant to state “Government Code 12525.5,” which is the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (“RIPA”).

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 calendar days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Annette Morasch