Culver City Police Dept Body Camera Footage
| Submitted | July 16, 2020 |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: Annette Morasch
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I hereby request the following records:
My office represents Lawrence Perez. I am informed that Culver City Police Department officers detained and handcuffed my 75 year old client on February 20, 2020 for approximately 30 minutes on February 20, 2020 at around 15:50 p.m. The location of the detention was in the alleyway between Barman Ave. and Sepulveda Blvd., West of Sepulveda, and behind Lifestyle Outdoor hot tub store.
We request that you take all necessary and appropriate steps to preserve all evidence and records relating to this incident including but not limited to, radio broadcasts, MDT messages, dash camera video, body-worn camera video, and FI cards, and that you produce those records pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code 6253. To be clear, we are requesting all dash cam and body camera footage from the first moment when the officers witnessed Mr. Perez. This means approximately five minutes prior to the detention.
It is our understanding the officers were in their vehicle travelling east on Braddock Drive and witnessed Mr. Perez riding his bicycle in the alleyway. The officers then flipped a U-turn, and followed Mr. Perez through the alleyway in a north-eastern direction. The officers assert Mr. Perez failed to yield to traffic when Mr. Perez rode his bicycle from the alley across Barman. These portions of the video footage must also be produced.
We also request radio broadcasts, MDT messages, dash camera video, body-worn camera video, and FI cards, concerning a stop on July 7, 2020 at approximately 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. at the U.S. Bank on Sawtelle and Sepulveda. At this stop, two young African American men were placed on the curb.
We also request radio broadcasts, MDT messages, dash camera video, body-worn camera video, and FI cards, concerning a stop of all young African American boys, wherein the officers searched the boys' backpacks. This happened approximately the week of June 18, 2020.
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
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following California Public Records Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on July 16, 2020. 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: Culver City Police Department
Please see attached response letter.
Lisa A. Vidra
Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Culver City
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, CA 90232
• (310) 253-5660
•lisa.vidra@culvercity.org<blocked::mailto:lisa.vidra@culvercity.org>
P Do you really need to print this e-mail?
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this e-mail with publicly accessible written or electronic records. If you are not the designated addressee and you received this document through inadvertent error, any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, and any attachments, by you, or anyone else, is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE TO THE ABOVE-NAMED SENDER AT (310)253-5660. Thank you.
From: Annette Morasch
Ms. Vidra,
As you know, I represent the 75 year old, Hispanic man, Lawrence Perez. Without any legitimate reason, CCPD stopped and handcuffed Mr. Perez for 30 minutes on his way home from the grocery store. In my Public Records Act (PRA) request, I asked for body camera footage, dash cam footage, radio broadcasts, and field investigation cards concerning Mr. Perez’s arrest. You objected to everything, and refused to produce a single document or video, ostensibly because these documents are exempt from disclosure under Gov’t Code Section 6254(f).
This email serves as a meet and confer effort to resolve this matter without resort to potentially lengthy and expensive litigation. If the City refuses to produce the requested documents, we will be filing a petition for writ of mandate to compel the City to produce the requested documents. We will be also be seeking attorneys’ fees and costs.
The PRA was enacted for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to records in the possession of local agencies. The California Legislature found this right of access to be “a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (Gov’t Code section 6250.) This right was confirmed and expanded upon by the people of California when we passed an amendment to our Constitution, securing a “right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.” (Cal. Const., art. 1, Section 3, subd. (b)(1).)
As you very well know, 6254(f) has nothing to do with the requests here. Rather, 6254(f) concerns investigations conducted by, and complaints to, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, and any state or local police agency. Be that as it may, assuming in arguendo, that 6254(f) applies, the Code actually requires the City to produce the documents to me. Recordings “shall be disclosed promptly, upon request, to any of the following: The subject of the recording whose privacy is to be protected, or their authorized representative.” If we are pretending 6254 applies, the City must state, in writing, “the specific basis for” the failure to produce the requested information. Even if there is supposedly an ongoing investigation into the CCPD’s abusive handling of Mr. Perez, the City must first show that releasing the footage would “substantially interfere with” the investigation, and the City must provide an estimated date for the disclosure of the video/audio recording. You have done neither. Mr. Perez has a right to see the body camera footage, the field investigation card, and dash cam footage, etc. This is clearly a matter of public interest. So please, state why the CCPD is not being transparent.
The videos of this arrest and detention are all the more imperative to obtain, in light of Officer Tropeano's (Badge # 1094), August 5, 2020 sworn statement that the ticket he issued to my client needed to be changed from witnessing my client's alleged legal violation from the intersection of Sepulveda and Barman, to Sepulveda and Braddock. Thankfully, my client was not driving a "vehicle" as defined under Vehicle Code section 670, and will be found not-guilty anyway. The extent CCPD is going to in order to save face for an infraction against a 75-year old Hispanic man is impressive, but futile.
Also in my request, I asked for the same information concerning the CCPD’s detention of two young African American males on July 7, 2020 at approximately 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. at the U.S. Bank on Sawtelle and Sepulveda. You made the same baseless objection. If these individuals are minors, CCPD has a right to redact identifiable information, but you cannot completely withhold it. See National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter v. City of Hayward, 9 Cal.5th 488 (May 28, 2020). If these individuals are not minors, release the footage.
Moreover, the City is acting in a hypocritical manner and arbitrarily determining which body worn and dash camera footage it wants to release, likely for political purposes due to Culver City residents placing the CCPD’s actions under a microscope. The City released the footage of LAPD Captain Darnell Davenport. The City released footage of the double choking of Terry Walton. Explain, in writing, why the City is not releasing the body camera footage of the 30 minute handcuffing of a little old man riding his bicycle, and the detention of two African-American males. The City will have to release the information to me anyway in response to the discovery requests I sent over, as I am defending Mr. Perez in the CCPD’s sham citation for an infraction which you know will be dismissed.
I anticipate the City will make the same objections to my PRA requests for information on the harassing and illegal stop of De’Shaun Villalpando. Therefore, I encourage you to respond to my request for Mr. Villalpando’s documents in compliance with the PRA.
If I do not receive the requested documents and recordings within 10 business days from the August 5 email I sent you, I will assume the City is uninterested in resolving this matter without court intervention. I will then exercise all the rights afforded to the public through a writ of mandate, and seek attorneys’ fees and costs.
Thank you.
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following California Public Records Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on July 16, 2020. 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: Culver City Police Department
To Muckrock,
The City’s further response (attached) was timely sent directly to the requestor, on the agreed upon date, August 19, 2020.
Lisa A. Vidra
Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Culver City
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, CA 90232
• (310) 253-5660
•lisa.vidra@culvercity.org<blocked::mailto:lisa.vidra@culvercity.org>
P Do you really need to print this e-mail?
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this e-mail with publicly accessible written or electronic records. If you are not the designated addressee and you received this document through inadvertent error, any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, and any attachments, by you, or anyone else, is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE TO THE ABOVE-NAMED SENDER AT (310)253-5660. Thank you.
From: Annette Morasch
I am following up on particular requests which the City has refused to produce responsive and discoverable documents.
The Culver City community is watching with great interest Culver City Police Department's continued prosecution and actions towards my 75 year old client, Larry Perez. There have been almost 1,000 views of the videos of Mr. Perez's detention and handcuffing, one of said videos is accessible here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUMwFCd-gLg .
The City Council has commissioned a racial justice report, which found the CCPD targets racial minorities for minor/trivial traffic infractions on a disproportionate basis. An African-American City Councilman gave public comments at a hearing, reflecting that more than once, the CCPD stopped and detained him for no reason. The CCPD's treatment of minorities, and treatment of Larry Perez is of great public interest to the vast majority of Culver City residents who are interested in justice for racial minorities in our city. As such, the City's refusal to produce documents, recordings and videos of the CCPD targeting racial minorities is problematic at best, and a cover-up at worst.
The CCPD's own arrest and detention records show that 80-90% of individuals stopped, detained and/or arrested in the City are persons of color. The January Solidarity Consultant's report recommended that the CCPD discontinue minor traffic enforcement, as CCPD perpetuates racial inequities through the targeting persons such as the Hispanic Larry Perez. (See attached Solidarity Consultant Report, which was commissioned by the City Council.)
The City and CCPD's refusal to produce requested documents also contradicts the Chief of Police, Manny Cid's press releases, (attached for your reference). On July 30, 2020, Chief Cid issued a press release stating the CCPD "believes in building and maintaining trust and legitimacy with our community through collaboration, transparency, information sharing, and accountability." See attached. On February 10, 2021, Chief Cid issued another press release stating the CCPD is "refocusing" its resources and will "reduce the number of traffic stops and contacts with community members for low-level traffic infractions. Effective immediately the Culver City Police Department will move away from solely stopping community members based on minor equipment related traffic infractions...[which] will also be another step towards addressing community concerns that low-level traffic infraction enforcement has a disproportionate impact on lower-income segments of our community, particularly for community members of color." See attached.
So here we have an engaged community, interested in what CCPD and the City are doing to an elderly Hispanic man who rode his bicycle across a residential street. We have a Police Chief who acknowledges the CCPD has a pattern and practice of engaging in behavior which disproportionately targets our community of color. And yet we have a City Attorney's office which says none of this is of public interest, and thus none of the information I have requested shall be produced in response to a public records act request.
As such, I again request the production of the following items, which various Culver City representatives, employees, and/or agents, have confirmed to exist, but the City has not produced in response to my public records act request. Please note that Nathan Oyster, attorney for the City in Mr. Perez's federal Civil Rights case, has disclosed the existence of "call for service report relating to the February 20, 2020 incident; Culver City Police Department ATT to Locate Bulletin...Audio file of the radio traffic relating to the February 20, 2020 incident." And yet your office, and the Deputy City Attorney's office have all said those have not existed.
"All evidence and records relating to [the February 20, 2020 detention of Mr. Perez] including but not limited to, radio broadcasts, MDT messages...and FI cards, and that you produce those records pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code 6253." This includes the records referred to above by Nathan Oyster.
Thank you, and I look forward to your response within 10 days.
Annette Morasch
Law Office of Annette Morasch, APC
5701 W. Slauson Ave., #210
Culver City, CA 90230
annette@amoraschlaw.com
Tel: (323) 791-6276
Fax: (323) 617-5523
www.amoraschlaw.com
From: Culver City Police Department
Dear Annette Morasch:
The City of Culver City (“City”) is in receipt of your request for records under the California Public Records Act, California Government Code section 6250 et seq. Please be advised, the City of Culver City is operating under a Local Emergency, due to the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19). City staff is engaged in focusing on crisis management and emergency response, and the majority of City employees are working remotely. As a result, access to many City files and documents may be limited. In addition, there is a concern that responding to lengthy and complicated requests on non-emergency matters may take away valuable staff time from the essential and necessary emergency work.
Culver City values its record of transparency and timely responsiveness to the public. We are asking for your patience at this time, as the City finds it necessary to and is extending the initial 10-day response deadline, or any previously issued extension, by an additional 14 days. In this regard, the City will respond to your request on or before March 25, 2021.
If your request is routine and does not require considerable review and analysis of documents, staff will respond as quickly as possible under the circumstances, if the document is accessible. If your request involves detailed review of documents or emails, or if exempt information will need to be redacted, we ask that you are patient with staff in getting the information to you when time allows. We will keep you apprised of the status of your request.
Sincerely,
City Clerk’s Office
City of Culver City
(310) 253-5851
city.clerk@culvercity.org<mailto:city.clerk@culvercity.org>
-
~WRD1737
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following California Public Records Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on July 16, 2020. 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: Culver City Police Department
Please see attached response.
Lisa A. Vidra
Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Culver City
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, CA 90232
• (310) 253-5660
•lisa.vidra@culvercity.org<blocked::mailto:lisa.vidra@culvercity.org>
P Do you really need to print this e-mail?
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this e-mail with publicly accessible written or electronic records. If you are not the designated addressee and you received this document through inadvertent error, any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, and any attachments, by you, or anyone else, is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE TO THE ABOVE-NAMED SENDER AT (310)253-5660. Thank you.
---
On Feb. 26, 2021:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Culver City Police Dept Body Camera Footage
I am following up on particular requests which the City has refused to produce responsive and discoverable documents.
The Culver City community is watching with great interest Culver City Police Department's continued prosecution and actions towards my 75 year old client, Larry Perez. There have been almost 1,000 views of the videos of Mr. Perez's detention and handcuffing, one of said videos is accessible here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUMwFCd-gLg .
The City Council has commissioned a racial justice report, which found the CCPD targets racial minorities for minor/trivial traffic infractions on a disproportionate basis. An African-American City Councilman gave public comments at a hearing, reflecting that more than once, the CCPD stopped and detained him for no reason. The CCPD's treatment of minorities, and treatment of Larry Perez is of great public interest to the vast majority of Culver City residents who are interested in justice for racial minorities in our city. As such, the City's refusal to produce documents, recordings and videos of the CCPD targeting racial minorities is problematic at best, and a cover-up at worst.
The CCPD's own arrest and detention records show that 80-90% of individuals stopped, detained and/or arrested in the City are persons of color. The January Solidarity Consultant's report recommended that the CCPD discontinue minor traffic enforcement, as CCPD perpetuates racial inequities through the targeting persons such as the Hispanic Larry Perez. (See attached Solidarity Consultant Report, which was commissioned by the City Council.)
The City and CCPD's refusal to produce requested documents also contradicts the Chief of Police, Manny Cid's press releases, (attached for your reference). On July 30, 2020, Chief Cid issued a press release stating the CCPD "believes in building and maintaining trust and legitimacy with our community through collaboration, transparency, information sharing, and accountability." See attached. On February 10, 2021, Chief Cid issued another press release stating the CCPD is "refocusing" its resources and will "reduce the number of traffic stops and contacts with community members for low-level traffic infractions. Effective immediately the Culver City Police Department will move away from solely stopping community members based on minor equipment related traffic infractions...[which] will also be another step towards addressing community concerns that low-level traffic infraction enforcement has a disproportionate impact on lower-income segments of our community, particularly for community members of color." See attached.
So here we have an engaged community, interested in what CCPD and the City are doing to an elderly Hispanic man who rode his bicycle across a residential street. We have a Police Chief who acknowledges the CCPD has a pattern and practice of engaging in behavior which disproportionately targets our community of color. And yet we have a City Attorney's office which says none of this is of public interest, and thus none of the information I have requested shall be produced in response to a public records act request.
As such, I again request the production of the following items, which various Culver City representatives, employees, and/or agents, have confirmed to exist, but the City has not produced in response to my public records act request. Please note that Nathan Oyster, attorney for the City in Mr. Perez's federal Civil Rights case, has disclosed the existence of "call for service report relating to the February 20, 2020 incident; Culver City Police Department ATT to Locate Bulletin...Audio file of the radio traffic relating to the February 20, 2020 incident." And yet your office, and the Deputy City Attorney's office have all said those have not existed.
"All evidence and records relating to [the February 20, 2020 detention of Mr. Perez] including but not limited to, radio broadcasts, MDT messages...and FI cards, and that you produce those records pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code 6253." This includes the records referred to above by Nathan Oyster.
Thank you, and I look forward to your response within 10 days.
Annette Morasch
Law Office of Annette Morasch, APC
5701 W. Slauson Ave., #210
Culver City, CA 90230
annette@amoraschlaw.com<mailto:annette@amoraschlaw.com>
Tel: (323) 791-6276
Fax: (323) 617-5523
www.amoraschlaw.com<http://www.amoraschlaw.com>
---
On Aug. 26, 2020:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Culver City Police Dept Body Camera Footage
To Muckrock,
The City’s further response (attached) was timely sent directly to the requestor, on the agreed upon date, August 19, 2020.
Lisa A. Vidra
Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Culver City
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, CA 90232
• (310) 253-5660
•lisa.vidra@culvercity.org<blocked::mailto:lisa.vidra@culvercity.org>
P Do you really need to print this e-mail?
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this e-mail with publicly accessible written or electronic records. If you are not the designated addressee and you received this document through inadvertent error, any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, and any attachments, by you, or anyone else, is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE TO THE ABOVE-NAMED SENDER AT (310)253-5660. Thank you.
---
On Aug. 8, 2020:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Culver City Police Dept Body Camera Footage
Ms. Vidra,
As you know, I represent the 75 year old, Hispanic man, Lawrence Perez. Without any legitimate reason, CCPD stopped and handcuffed Mr. Perez for 30 minutes on his way home from the grocery store. In my Public Records Act (PRA) request, I asked for body camera footage, dash cam footage, radio broadcasts, and field investigation cards concerning Mr. Perez’s arrest. You objected to everything, and refused to produce a single document or video, ostensibly because these documents are exempt from disclosure under Gov’t Code Section 6254(f).
This email serves as a meet and confer effort to resolve this matter without resort to potentially lengthy and expensive litigation. If the City refuses to produce the requested documents, we will be filing a petition for writ of mandate to compel the City to produce the requested documents. We will be also be seeking attorneys’ fees and costs.
The PRA was enacted for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to records in the possession of local agencies. The California Legislature found this right of access to be “a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (Gov’t Code section 6250.) This right was confirmed and expanded upon by the people of California when we passed an amendment to our Constitution, securing a “right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.” (Cal. Const., art. 1, Section 3, subd. (b)(1).)
As you very well know, 6254(f) has nothing to do with the requests here. Rather, 6254(f) concerns investigations conducted by, and complaints to, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, and any state or local police agency. Be that as it may, assuming in arguendo, that 6254(f) applies, the Code actually requires the City to produce the documents to me. Recordings “shall be disclosed promptly, upon request, to any of the following: The subject of the recording whose privacy is to be protected, or their authorized representative.” If we are pretending 6254 applies, the City must state, in writing, “the specific basis for” the failure to produce the requested information. Even if there is supposedly an ongoing investigation into the CCPD’s abusive handling of Mr. Perez, the City must first show that releasing the footage would “substantially interfere with” the investigation, and the City must provide an estimated date for the disclosure of the video/audio recording. You have done neither. Mr. Perez has a right to see the body camera footage, the field investigation card, and dash cam footage, etc. This is clearly a matter of public interest. So please, state why the CCPD is not being transparent.
The videos of this arrest and detention are all the more imperative to obtain, in light of Officer Tropeano's (Badge # 1094), August 5, 2020 sworn statement that the ticket he issued to my client needed to be changed from witnessing my client's alleged legal violation from the intersection of Sepulveda and Barman, to Sepulveda and Braddock. Thankfully, my client was not driving a "vehicle" as defined under Vehicle Code section 670, and will be found not-guilty anyway. The extent CCPD is going to in order to save face for an infraction against a 75-year old Hispanic man is impressive, but futile.
Also in my request, I asked for the same information concerning the CCPD’s detention of two young African American males on July 7, 2020 at approximately 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. at the U.S. Bank on Sawtelle and Sepulveda. You made the same baseless objection. If these individuals are minors, CCPD has a right to redact identifiable information, but you cannot completely withhold it. See National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter v. City of Hayward, 9 Cal.5th 488 (May 28, 2020). If these individuals are not minors, release the footage.
Moreover, the City is acting in a hypocritical manner and arbitrarily determining which body worn and dash camera footage it wants to release, likely for political purposes due to Culver City residents placing the CCPD’s actions under a microscope. The City released the footage of LAPD Captain Darnell Davenport. The City released footage of the double choking of Terry Walton. Explain, in writing, why the City is not releasing the body camera footage of the 30 minute handcuffing of a little old man riding his bicycle, and the detention of two African-American males. The City will have to release the information to me anyway in response to the discovery requests I sent over, as I am defending Mr. Perez in the CCPD’s sham citation for an infraction which you know will be dismissed.
I anticipate the City will make the same objections to my PRA requests for information on the harassing and illegal stop of De’Shaun Villalpando. Therefore, I encourage you to respond to my request for Mr. Villalpando’s documents in compliance with the PRA.
If I do not receive the requested documents and recordings within 10 business days from the August 5 email I sent you, I will assume the City is uninterested in resolving this matter without court intervention. I will then exercise all the rights afforded to the public through a writ of mandate, and seek attorneys’ fees and costs.
Thank you.
---
On July 27, 2020:
Subject: RESPONSE to request rec'd 7-17/ FW: California Public Records Act Request: Culver City Police Dept Body Camera Footage
Please see attached response letter.
Lisa A. Vidra
Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Culver City
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, CA 90232
• (310) 253-5660
•lisa.vidra@culvercity.org<blocked::mailto:lisa.vidra@culvercity.org>
P Do you really need to print this e-mail?
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this e-mail with publicly accessible written or electronic records. If you are not the designated addressee and you received this document through inadvertent error, any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, and any attachments, by you, or anyone else, is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE TO THE ABOVE-NAMED SENDER AT (310)253-5660. Thank you.
---
On July 16, 2020:
Subject: California Public Records Act Request: Culver City Police Dept Body Camera Footage
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I hereby request the following records:
My office represents Lawrence Perez. I am informed that Culver City Police Department officers detained and handcuffed my 75 year old client on February 20, 2020 for approximately 30 minutes on February 20, 2020 at around 15:50 p.m. The location of the detention was in the alleyway between Barman Ave. and Sepulveda Blvd., West of Sepulveda, and behind Lifestyle Outdoor hot tub store.
We request that you take all necessary and appropriate steps to preserve all evidence and records relating to this incident including but not limited to, radio broadcasts, MDT messages, dash camera video, body-worn camera video, and FI cards, and that you produce those records pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code 6253. To be clear, we are requesting all dash cam and body camera footage from the first moment when the officers witnessed Mr. Perez. This means approximately five minutes prior to the detention.
It is our understanding the officers were in their vehicle travelling east on Braddock Drive and witnessed Mr. Perez riding his bicycle in the alleyway. The officers then flipped a U-turn, and followed Mr. Perez through the alleyway in a north-eastern direction. The officers assert Mr. Perez failed to yield to traffic when Mr. Perez rode his bicycle from the alley across Barman. These portions of the video footage must also be produced.
We also request radio broadcasts, MDT messages, dash camera video, body-worn camera video, and FI cards, concerning a stop on July 7, 2020 at approximately 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. at the U.S. Bank on Sawtelle and Sepulveda. At this stop, two young African American men were placed on the curb.
We also request radio broadcasts, MDT messages, dash camera video, body-worn camera video, and FI cards, concerning a stop of all young African American boys, wherein the officers searched the boys' backpacks. This happened approximately the week of June 18, 2020.
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
Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
Upload documents directly: https://www.muckrock.com/
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.
For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 98307
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516
PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.
[Image removed by sender.]
________________________________
The City of Culver City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.
-
~WRD0195
Files
pages