Police Misconduct Records (SB 1421 / Becerra v Superior Court) - Immediate Disclosure Request - SF Police Commission

--- Please respond above this line ---

February 24, 2020 Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear :
The San Francisco Police Commission (Commission) received your Immediate Disclosure request, dated February 22, 2020, on February 24, 2020.
You requested, " February 22, 2020"

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous
The immediate disclosure process is for requests that are “simple, routine or otherwise readily answerable.” Please see San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.25(a). Your request is not simple or routine. The maximum deadline for responding to a request applies. The Commission is looking into your request and will provide you with a response within 10 calendar days but no later than by March 03, 2020. Please refer to California Government Code Section 6253(c).
Sincerely,
Sgt. Stacy Youngblood
Office in Charge
Police Commission Office
To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the SFPD Public Records Center. (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddHZionDPZxe8o-2F99A9Uuw20LDZfm7D4-2FK-2BCddT5rU7tgHxZvgMbJ-2FoLc5CEpfQ7wvylri_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3SygqEI77qbqGkT24WHDfhMmbxmUqZERpEGVdy1vf9xWwXKxLt5rKPQccFdAjWH1AcM-2F9avd6pVbj6LsxVNucG48-2BRnk3SaaBqh-2BSUnEzcyzndLitk51uYwG7u9kx3NrQtfsuwVJRvHQcRGA4-2FW-2B8BKwoKryC7HCftuEk5fdKO9gPejkjfQb0W8eSv59uik-2FhU06M0v24itMtDAtM6Ptz4lQt7xcrPhwavN3utNZXk9YCDEbIoM-2BbFe3k4ag3wdzyOBxhHhnqq1Bdb9FpJipm7DTulQBlxKc8w-2BgeXXGOU2gTpaXUXTmJBbORzfeMJ2ix-2F7Jw1FK9uLiTFma7SDtnMXzM-3D)
This is an auto-generated email and has originated from an unmonitored email account. Please DO NOT REPLY.

February 24, 2020
​
San Francisco, CA
​
RE: Public Records Request/Immediate Disclosure Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
​
Dear Anoymous:
​
The San Francisco Police Commission (Commission) received your Immediate Disclosure Request, dated February 22, 2020, on February 24, 2020.
​
You requested, "February 22, 2020 Police Commission: NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com<http://MuckRock.com> FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records. Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency. Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records. Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253). Your non-exhaustive obligations: - All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27). - All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26). - You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)). - You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)). - You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)). - Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service. Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints. ****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ****** In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request: 1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i). 2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions) Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations. FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. " However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i). Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Anonymous".
​
The immediate disclosure process is for requests that are “simple, routine or otherwise readily answerable.” Please see San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.25(a). Your request is not simple or routine. The maximum deadline for responding to a request applies. The Department is looking into your request and will provide you with a response within 10 calendar days but no later than by March 03, 2020. Please refer to California Government Code Section 6253(c).
​
If you have any questions, please contact the Police Commission Office at 415-837-7070.
​
​
Sincerely,
​
Sergeant Stacy Youngblood
Officer in Charge
Police Commission

--- Please respond above this line ---

To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the SFPD Public Records Center. (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddHZionDPZxe8o-2F99A9Uuw20LDZfm7D4-2FK-2BCddT5rU7tgHxZvgMbJ-2FoLc5CEpfQ7wv1lzr_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3Syl-2BxDgCi6HGp9K8gfHK1WLWR7ajPhFi2AE6op73-2BXR8OH6PYakeDseOqA2UPnbFIRn6sJ5n02ihsQtQmm51yMpdjQmt38mfmc1S-2BHKHSPH6ZO9B-2FeSok4JW3mqbLvNxGLFTO7qtnI26CQ8RMV05WsDFBsHED-2F8L5mo4Rn3zOitXKiwMT47wmGTp576RTjoElOX-2Fcp67kmm8a9bNFcmHAemiKKt3HAjRHO75c41NiEZCIsvFNP3eTlhIAMMkNLfziQuCdgN3XVgiw-2Fd-2F-2BBTJcZz3d6X8KYoz92ngQHRq3RNshCn2nrrbyci4buTDaPRHcBrotU-2Faz2FLVonAP5KgVCN4-3D)
This is an auto-generated email and has originated from an unmonitored email account. Please DO NOT REPLY.

Resending responsive records originally sent on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission Office is providing the following responsive records:

Officers Kevin Byrne, Gordon Moore, Christopher Schaefer and Jason Zimiga (OIS 2013-0008):

* Copy of the November 6, 2013 agenda which includes closed session item 7e - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following and Officer Involved Shooting
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.

* Return to Duty letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* Summary of Investigative Findings in OIS 2013-0008
* First Quarter 2016 FDRB Findings and Recommendations
* March 30, 2016 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional records for Officers Byrne, Moore, Schaefer and Zimiga and no additional records for OIS -2013-0008

Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,

Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

Resending responsive records originally sent on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission Office is providing the following responsive records:

Officer Perfecto Barbosa (OIS 2014-0003):

* Copy of April 2, 2014 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 5a - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.

* March 17, 2014 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* March 28, 2014 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
The Commission redacted portions of page 2 of the March 28, 2014 RTD letter pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(c) and (6) because disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

* Summary of Investigative Finding in case OIS 2014-0003
* June 30, 2016 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Perfecto Barbosa and no additional responsive records for OIS 2014-0003

Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,

Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission

Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

Resending responsive records originally sent on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission Office is providing the following responsive records:

Officer William Reininger (OIS 2018-0004)

* Copy of June 13, 2018 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.

* June 12, 2018 RTD letter from Chief Scott to the Commission
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer William Reininger and no additional responsive records for OIS -2018-0004.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,

Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

Resending responsive records originally sent on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission Office is providing the following responsive records:

Officers Nathan Chew, Roger Morse, Richard Schiff, and Jason Sawyer (OIS 2014-0004):

* Copy of April 2, 2014 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 5a - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.

* March 28, 2014 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* Summary of Investigative Findings in OIS 2014-0004
* 2nd Quarter 2015 RDRB Findings and Recommendations
* June 23, 2015 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Morse, Schiff, and Sawyer and no additional responsive records for OIS -2014-0004.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,

Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

Resending responsive records originally on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission Office is providing the following responsive records:

Officers Nathan Chew and Paul Dominguez (OIS 2016-0003):

* Copy of November 2, 2016 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.

* Copy of December 7, 2016 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.

* October 24, 2016 RTD letter from Chief Chaplin to Commissioner Loftus
Each redaction on page 2 of the October 24, 2016 RTD letter was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(c) and (6) because disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Chew and Dominguez and no additional responsive records for OIS -2016-0003.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,

Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

Resending responsive records originally sent on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission Office is providing the following responsive records:

Officer Roderick Suguitan (OIS 2019-0001):

* Copy of September 11, 2019 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.

* September 6, 2019 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Hirsch
The two redactions on page 1 and the one redaction on page 2 of the September 6, 2019 RTD letter were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(c) and (6) because disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2019-0001.

Officer Michael Shavers (OIS 2019-0002):

* Copy of October 2, 2019 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8a - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.

* September 20, 2019 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Hirsch
The three redactions of page 2 of the September 20, 2019 RTD letter were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(c) and (6) because disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2019-0002.

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Shavers.

Officers Sterling Hayes and Christopher Flores (OIS 2019-0003):

* Copy of January 8, 2020 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.

* January 8, 2020 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Hirsch
The one redaction on page 2 and the one redaction on page 3 of the January 8, 2020 RTD letter were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(c) and (6) because disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Hayes and Flores and no additional responsive records for OIS 2019-0003.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,

Rachael Kilshaw
Police Commission

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

Resending responsive records originally send on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA

Officer David Colclogh (OIS 2010-0013):

* Copy of December 8, 2010 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code sec. 832.7 the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record.

* November 30, 2010 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Mazzucco
* Summary of Investigations in OIS 2010-0013
* 2012 1st quarter FDRB findings and Recommendations
* March 20, 2012 FDRB agenda
* transcript of FDRB 1st quarter 2012 regarding OIS 2010-0013
The 4 redactions on page 10 of the transcript for FDRB 1st quarter 2012 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(B) and (6). The 2 redactions on page 15 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), and (6). The three redactions on page 16 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 17 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 19 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(B) and (6). The two redactions on page 24 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 25 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The two redactions on page 27 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 29 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A) (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 34 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(a), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 38 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B), and (6). The four redactions on page 40 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 41 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(C) and (6). The one redaction on page 43 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A) and (5)(B). The four redactions on page 46 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The five redactions on page 48 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 49 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 50 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 51 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 52 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The two redactions on page 55 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The four redactions on page 54 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 55 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 56 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 57 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The four redactions on page 58 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The four redactions on page 59 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 60 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6) The two redactions on page 61 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 62 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The three redactions on page 63 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The first redaction on page 64 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(c) and (6). The second and third redactions on page 64 were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 65 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6). The one redaction on page 67 was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254(c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code sec. 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Colclough and no additional responsive records for OIS 2010-0013.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.
Sincerely,

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

Resending responsive records originally send on March 2, 2020 through GOVQA

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

Regarding your request for "2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)."

You have asked for all SB 1421 records in the Police Commission's possession. As you pointed out in your request, only certain categories of records are subject to release. Unfortunately, the Commission has not maintained personnel records according to the releasable categories. Rather, the Commission has maintained records under the names of individual officers. This makes our search for records responsive to your request exceedingly time-consuming, as we must manually look through the personnel file of every officer covered by your request to determine if it contains responsive records. And, in reviewing a responsive record covered by SB 1421, we must be careful to redact information that may be confidential for other reasons, before releasing the record.

Complicating this problem is that Commission has received a number of requests for previously confidential peace officer records made public as a result of the passage of SB 1421. Despite our best efforts to respond promptly, a backlog has quickly developed and will remain for some time.

The Police Commission must balance its duty to respond to public records requests with its duty to perform the broad range of tasks performed by Commission personnel. Responding to your request will be quite burdensome and time-consuming, especially when coupled with our duty also to respond to like public records requests from others. The Commission will not be able to respond within the customary time frame without unreasonably impinging on its ability to perform its other duties.

It is in this rare circumstance that we find it necessary to invoke a rule of reason to guide the timing of our response to your public records request. As the City Attorney has stated on pages 97-98 of the Good Government Guide, which is available on the City Attorney's website, the law recognizes that when there is a conflict between a department's performance of its wide range of duties, and its responsibilities under public records laws, reason demands flexibility in the timing of responses to requests. Under this rule and given the Commission's other public obligations, we will not be able to devote an unlimited amount of staff time to your request and like requests.

We have compiled the set of responsive records for 9 Officer Involved Shooting and these 14 individual officers provided to you earlier. That responsive records took approximately 12 hours to complete. Because of the voluminous nature of the records that still need to be searched, reviewed and redacted to comply with your request, the Police Commission will provide the remaining responsive records to you on a rolling basis. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 13, 2020.

Sincerely,

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you the following responsive records:
Officer Gregory Pak (OID 2008-0008):

* March 17, 2009 FDRB agenda

* 1st quarter 2009 FDRB Findings and Recommendations

Officer Gregory Pak and Officer Reginald Scott (OIS 2013-0001):

* OIS 2003-0001 Summary of Investigation

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Gregory Pak, or for OID 2008-0008 or OIS 2013-0001. The Commission will continue to search to determine if there are additional responsive records for Officer Reginald Scott.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis. The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 27, 2020.
Sincerely,

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission has the following responsive records:

Officer Patrick Griffin and Officer Michael Tursi:
OIS 2011-0003:

* Copy of the July 6, 2011 Police Commission public Agenda which includes closed session item 6c - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* July 6, 2011 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco
* OIS Summary of Investigation for OIS 2011-0003
* January 14, 2014 agenda for 3th quarter 2013 FDRB
* 4th quarter 2013 FDRB findings and recommendations
The Commission has no additional records for OIS -2011-0003

Officer Patrick Griffin and Office Constantine Zachos:
OID-2006-0003

* March 29, 2006 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Patrick Griffin, for OIS 2011-0003 or OID-2006-0003. The Commission will continue working to determine if there are additional responsive records for Officer Constantine Zachos.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 27, 2020.

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission has the following responsive records:

Officers Kevin Knoble, Joshua Kumli, Richard Alves, John Bisordi, John Burke, Samuel Christ, Moses Gala, Mark Gamble, John Greenwood, Wendell Jones, Sylvia Morrow, Thomas Newland, Daniel Simone, and Thomas Smith. (OIS 2004-0006):

* OIS 2004-0006 investigative summary
The Commission has no additional records for Officers Kevin Knoble, Joshua Kumli, Richard Alves, John Bisordi, John Burke, Samuel Christ, Moses Gala, Mark Gamble, John Greenwood, Wendell Jones, Sylvia Morrow, Thomas Newland and, Daniel Simone, and Thomas Smith , or OIS 2004-0006

Officers James Garrity and Timothy Brophy (OID 2007-0015):

* July 30, 2008 2nd quarter 2008 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional records for Officers James Garrity, Timothy Brophy or OID 2007-0015.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 27, 2020.

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission has the following additional responsive records for Officer Reginald Scott:
Officer Reginald Scott (OID 2007-0012):

* March 21, 2008 1st Quarter 2008 FDRB agenda

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OID 2007-0012.

Officer Reginald Scott (OIS 2007-0005):

* June 4, 2007 2nd quarter 2007 FDRB agenda
The Commission has no additional records for Officer Reginald Scott or OID 2007-0005.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), the Police Commission hereby avails itself of the time limit extension set forth therein for responding to your request due to the need to search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. The Commission staff will devote two to three hours each week to work on this Public Records Act request and will continue to provide you responsive records on a rolling basis The Commission will provide you with the next set of responsive records no later than Friday, March 27, 2020.

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 - 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

March 25, 2020

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Officers Timothy Ortiz and Austin Wilson (OIS 2010-0015):

* Copy of the January 12, 2011 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8a - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* January 10, 2011 RTD letter from Chief Godown to Commissioner Mazzucco

* OIS summary of investigation for OIS 2010-0015

* March 20, 2012 1st quarter FDRB agenda

* 1st quarter 2012 FDRB findings and recommendations

* 1st quarter 2012 FDRB transcript - redacted

All five redactions on page 10 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redaction on page 15 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first redaction on page 16 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The second and third redactions on page 16 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first and second redactions on page 17 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The third redaction on page 17 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 19 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 24 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 25 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first redaction made on page 27 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The second redaction made on page 27 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 29 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 34 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions made on page 38 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redactions made on page 40 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 43 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first redaction on page 46 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The second, third and fourth redactions on page 46 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The five redactions on page 48 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 49 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 50 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 51 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 52 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redaction on page 53 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redaction on page 54 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 55 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 56 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 57 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redactions on page 58 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redactions on page 59 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 60 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 61 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 62 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 63 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 64 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 65 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 67 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Timothy Ortiz, Officer Austin Wilson or OIS 2010-0015.

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission has the following responsive records:

Noah Mallinger and Terrance Saw (OIS 2011-0001)

* Copy of the January 19, 2011 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8d - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* January 11, 2011 RTD letter from Chief Godown to Commissioner Mazzucco

* OIS summary of investigation for OIS 2011-0001

* March 20, 2012 1st quarter FDRB agenda

* 1st quarter 2012 FDRB findings and recommendations

* 1st quarter 2012 FDRB transcript - redacted

All five redactions on page 10 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redaction on page 15 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first redaction on page 16 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The second and third redactions on page 16 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first and second redactions on page 17 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The third redaction on page 17 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 19 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 24 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 25 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first redaction made on page 27 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The second redaction made on page 27 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 29 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 34 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions made on page 38 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redactions made on page 40 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction made on page 43 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The first redaction on page 46 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The second, third and fourth redactions on page 46 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The five redactions on page 48 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 49 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 50 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 51 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(A), (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 52 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redaction on page 53 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redaction on page 54 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 55 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 56 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 57 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redactions on page 58 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The four redactions on page 59 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 60 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 61 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 62 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The three redactions on page 63 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The two redactions on page 64 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB were made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 65 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).
The redaction on page 67 of the transcript for 1st quarter 2012 FDRB was made pursuant to California Government Code sec. 6254 (c), Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 832.7 (5)(B) and (6).

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Lt. Noah Mallinger, Sgt. Terrance Saw or OIS 2011-0001.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Officer Mary Godfrey (OIS 2013-0003):

* Copy of the August 15, 2012 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* July 27, 2012 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Mazzucco

* OIS summary of investigation for OIS 2012-0003

* March 31, 2015 1st quarter FDRB agenda

* 1st quarter 2015 FDRB findings and recommendations

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Mary Godfrey or OIS 2012-0003.

April 06, 2020

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing the following records:

Officers Julius Dempsky, Roel Dilag and David O'Connor (OIS 2006-0002):

* April 12 ,2006 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3 - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the offices to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved offer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* April 10, 2006 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne

* OIS summary of investigation for OIS 2006-0002

* March 20, 2007 RTD agenda

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Dempsky, Dilag and O'Connor or OIS 2006-0002.

April 06, 2020

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following records:
Officers Michelle Alvis and John Keesor (OIS 2006-0004):

* June 14, 2006 2006 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3 - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the offices to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved offer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* June 13, 2006 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne

* OIS 2006-0004 Investigative summary

* June 20, 2006 RTD agenda

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Michelle Alvis and officer John Keesor, and no additional responsive records for OIS 2006-0004.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following records:
Officers Gerald Arquero and Jamie Hyun (OIS 2006-0005):

* July 5, 2006 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3 - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* June 30, 2006 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne

* OIS 2006-0005 investigative summary

* November 7, 2008 3rd quarter 2008 FDRB agenda

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Garald Arquero and Jamie Hyun and no additional responsive records for OIS -2006-0005.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you the following responsive records:
Officer Steven Hampton (OIS 2006-0007):

* June 4, 2007 FDRB agenda (the case is listed as OIS 2006-0006, but that is an error). This case is OIS - 2006-0007.

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Steven Hampton or for OIS 2006-0007.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officer Jose Guardado (OIS 2006-0008):

* OIS 2006-0008 Summary of Investigation

* September 18, 2007 FDRB agenda (the case is listed as OIS 2006-0007, but that is an error). The case is OIS 2006-0008.

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Jose Guardado or OIS 2006-0008

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

Due to an administrative clerical error, the additional responsive record (attached) was not provided to you in an earlier email today regarding OIS 2006-0007 and Officer Stephen Hampton:

* OIS 2006-0007 summary of investigation

This record was filed incorrectly under 2007 OIS cases and not discovered until the staff began reviewing records for 2007. The Commission apologizes for any confusion.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officers Matthew Cole, John Haggett, Adam Street and Henry Yee (OIS 2006-0003):

* May 24, 2006 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3 - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the offices to duty following and Officer Involved Shooting.

Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* May 18, 2006 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne

* January 11, 2007, 4th quarter 2006 FDRB agenda( The agenda incorrectly lists this OIS as OIS 2006-0002; the correct number is OIS 2006-0003)

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Cole, Haggett, Street and Yee and no additional responsive records for OIS -2006-0003.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officer Fabian Fowler (OIS 2006-0006):

* September 13, 2006 Police Commission

Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* August 31, 2006 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne

* OIS 2006-0006 summary of investigative findings

* November 7, 2008 3rd quarter 2008 FDRB (The agenda incorrectly lists this OIS as OIS 2006-0005; the correct number is OIS 2006-0006)

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Fabian Fowler and no additional responsive records for OIS 2006-0006.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officers Gregory Buhagiar and Eric Chiang (OIS 2007-0001):

* February 7, 2007 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3c - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* February 2, 2007 RTD letters from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne regarding Officer Buhagiar and Officer Chiang

* OIS 2007-0001 Investigative Summary

* July 30, 3008 2nd quarter 2008 FDRB agenda

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Chiang, and no additional records for OIS 2007-0001. The Commission will continue to search its records to determine if there are additional records for Officer Gregory Buhagiar.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officers Monica MacDonald and Joseph Salazar (OIS 2007-0002):

* March 21, 2007 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3b - Chief's performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* March 14, 2007 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne

* OIS 2007-0002 investigative summary

* December 18, 2008, 4th quarter 2008 FDRB

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Salazar or MacDonald, and no additional records for OIS 2007-0002.

Attachments:
OIS_07-002_agenda.pdf (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddhTktxCQo3dAEL3UN6JwjbrIOEhWaSG1hipJN4KjQBAglXX-2B-2BHUcqv1GmLf8zwxotcG8Mg2t1ERlXfRyVtq56PKMkn8wjlGQroOR5yLE8QpEDZxqXVDl6p6avoduCrXFi-2FbWJMnE8f2EuIPcaPY9S4FCfRFrGoN2JFntwSZzatU8-3D5-Or_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3SyoLNBpG6exhi1dc-2F4wcNaTRXmDHym7O8xpGz03XnzjTFbzaVUnF31H0Hof3mMzSr2gZ5np5jdxdsm1E-2BKw-2BtvwUJTR8TmL1Pfp7I4rl5EJL6FFVBDsVdYLtGH6slN5yde8Fos7MJYF1i8DGrGv9NSKS3RvBSmf78TvMn3YRDqK83EoiarHucHitJdJNU0A0gFvrP7WNtLaut5boguT9AtoStVoLs-2BMQ56EY0Ne7ULUFypmUCwCThHZJybS4gWvh9EhmWk82H2-2F1a3DuekwVPhUPzmsc7bDcFXGL75eMOL4xffvpExvpBQEDqOPJUHoDQ5z-2B5Cz7smUm2muijCq73k78-3D)
OIS_07-002_RTD_letter.pdf (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddhTktxCQo3dAEL3UN6JwjbrIOEhWaSG1hipJN4KjQBAglXX-2B-2BHUcqv1GmLf8zwxotcG8Mg2t1ERlXfRyVtq56PKMkn8wjlGQroOR5yLE8QpHsPn9ZNYJlC3Drur7DkEfhZpoLSyNKEakA1g8tuGhYrp0KNIa4giUOYo0VUBD3HlY-3D-KLl_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3SyoLNBpG6exhi1dc-2F4wcNaTRXmDHym7O8xpGz03XnzjTFbzaVUnF31H0Hof3mMzSr2gZ5np5jdxdsm1E-2BKw-2BtvwUJTR8TmL1Pfp7I4rl5EJL6FFVBDsVdYLtGH6slN5yde8Fos7MJYF1i8DGrGv9NSKS3RvBSmf78TvMn3YRDqK83AWXMYmLaqal622nAm-2FVuF0SH7fRirfARcsg1QGCSl-2B-2B8FOaR-2BNNJzvFllT-2FBrGb8VRYOLA8t9s1uBdmHFBMY03Yexh6TLobSmt-2BXXeGEBfqzesSxXpY7feuniDGXQD3oN8NmdDrwUFBmqKtcwW796dOFjlHO3BgUDri9Wa5APh0-3D)
ois_2007-0002_investigative_summary.pdf (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddhTktxCQo3dAEL3UN6JwjbrIOEhWaSG1hipJN4KjQBAglXX-2B-2BHUcqv1GmLf8zwxotcG8Mg2t1ERlXfRyVtq56PKMkn8wjlGQroOR5yLE8QpEWClBTh9D0-2BqfVCSdCHR8-2F8LadBQP5BbKt5HjNi1JyIlOFMr-2FKyGHwGX-2Fn54woWRE-3D6tAR_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3SyoLNBpG6exhi1dc-2F4wcNaTRXmDHym7O8xpGz03XnzjTFbzaVUnF31H0Hof3mMzSr2gZ5np5jdxdsm1E-2BKw-2BtvwUJTR8TmL1Pfp7I4rl5EJL6FFVBDsVdYLtGH6slN5yde8Fos7MJYF1i8DGrGv9NSKS3RvBSmf78TvMn3YRDqK83qirbEeeRfT9wC8ILW0cGz3TxDkrIbaOiKq7tMEEt2CPpKG-2Bh1SvPxG7-2BHNqZih3eOv41tBbYeP0wBwDTDfv8zHEK7I3IGTF-2BcPJHKkTgV6PkvZG0oliaFLSMNpht23enXP-2BzDKHfClyrBRPNisX1kZWec7r-2F2b1Qf3s-2BouuTOTY-3D)
dec182008.wpd (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddhTktxCQo3dAEL3UN6JwjbrIOEhWaSG1hipJN4KjQBAglXX-2B-2BHUcqv1GmLf8zwxotcG8Mg2t1ERlXfRyVtq56PKMkn8wjlGQroOR5yLE8QpFdDHaXTuIK-2BAx-2FG6RtDIO5PuLp6FfuRYMdAKvV2DpTSBx-2FFlA5S-2F0AjP0iyqgWEA4-3Dmdog_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3SyoLNBpG6exhi1dc-2F4wcNaTRXmDHym7O8xpGz03XnzjTFbzaVUnF31H0Hof3mMzSr2gZ5np5jdxdsm1E-2BKw-2BtvwUJTR8TmL1Pfp7I4rl5EJL6FFVBDsVdYLtGH6slN5yde8Fos7MJYF1i8DGrGv9NSKS3RvBSmf78TvMn3YRDqK838u7NEr6Eny8GSC6OnHm0nkh98bc-2FWEXQ05tUrUEuX2rZqG0tyhfkM7sZ7y8i-2FRiGywWZod-2BWlODzMO5L1OzgKp5szRpmxwhfdTbk8n5iCp8opS-2FZCIBhkSDJ9IWdqrKsKXJsa90vdZSefx8SFm3GN3fiJNVtO7ZJtfN9HeBAmeU-3D)

--- Please respond above this line ---

April 27, 2020
Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, " February 22, 2020"

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous
The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records: Officers Monica MacDonald and Joseph Salazar (OIS 2007-0002):

* March 21, 2007 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3b – Chief’s performance evaluation on their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record.  Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* March 14, 2007 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Renne
* OIS 2007-0002 investigative summary December 18, 2008, 4 th quarter 2008 FDRB The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Salazar or MacDonald, and no additional records for OIS 2007-0002.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Officer Joshua Olson (2008-0001):

* OIS summary of investigation OIS 2008-0001

* June 16, 2009 agenda for 2nd Quarter 2009 FDRB
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Joshua Olson or for OIS 2008-0001.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:
Officers Kathrine Holder and Kim Reynolds (OIS 2009-0003):

* August 27, 2008 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 3a - Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session item as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* August 27, 2008 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Sparks

* OIS 2008-0003 investigation summary

* June 16, 2009 2nd quarter 2009 FDRB
The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officers Holder and Reynolds or for OIS 2008-0003.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Officers Corbyn Carroll, Stephen Cassinelli, Loren Chiu, Juan Gustilo, John Ishida, Nicholas Nagai, Sean O'Rourke, Colby Smets, Ari Smith-Russack, and Joshua Tupper (OIS 2018-0002):

* April 4, 2018 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9a - Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not to return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.
Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a), the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* March 14, 2018 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Turman

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2018-0002 or for Officers Tupper, Smets, Nagai, Ishida, Gusitlo, Chiu, Cassinelli and Carroll. The Commission will continue to search its records to determine if there are additional responsive records for Officer Smith-Russack.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called "catchall exemption" of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Officers Tasawan Casey Kevin Endo (OIS 2018-0003):

* April 11, 2018 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a - Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

* June 6, 2018 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9c - Chief's performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer's personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

* March 28, 2018 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Turman

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2018-0003 of for Officers Casey or Endo.

Dear Anonymous: Apologies. I forgot to include you in the original email.

Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724

[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

Anonymous: Please see the responsive email and attachments regarding your complaint 20066.

Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724

[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Officer Joshua Cabillo (OIS 2018-0005):
• June 20, 2018 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• June 15, 2018 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Mazzucco

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2018-0005 of for Officer Joshua Cabillo.

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Officer Kenneth Cha (OIS 2017-0001):
• January 18, 2017 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

• January 17, 2017 RTD letter from Chief Chaplin to Commissioner Turman

Officer Kenneth Cha (OIS 2017-0003):

· June 14, 2017 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8g – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

• May 10, 2017 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Turman
The one redaction on page 2 of the May 10, 2017 letter was made pursuant to PC 832.7(b)(5)(C).

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2017-0001, OIS 2017-0003 of for Officer Kenneth Cha.

--- Please respond above this line ---

June 12, 2020 Via email requests@muckrock.com
San Francisco, CA
RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420
Dear Anonymous:
The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.
You requested, " February 22, 2020"

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous
Responsive records are available via the San Francisco Public Records Center. Click on the link below to view your request. Public Records Request - P011115-022420 (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddBoz8cxbO7RMgLIH9TkIycDEu8hg2c0COMOWTL1-2FjHDY-3DYKgS_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3Syj3FqQlRlaor6Tb4mfFsNg7lz-2B3iqfRb2PTDpH51bfFZmCY16vfNj2nsdwIDuSP7NAuMlqSsxd4SOKiXPVwOC9CgMgvUo9NJtTPl3R7uiG8oXoU-2BSSI3C5JlKWAHS5cK5oG8W-2B9XRiPliTv4OXUJXSf4Q3AAD-2F2dtF-2BYWjDCK62YAmT0GFMnVz02CsOiB1fcXowWTiZKHqWvaKswP51Yvwrewo-2FazDKpFeeRBsrDWrlRR9lQLtUKluE0rjEDjhKuf6C2RUiPVTdwJgmGWuRHgs-2BA3Ilj5t-2BmTt7P5PR7bppc)
Documents released in this response include:

* OIS Transcript from Police Commission Closed Session for Sgt. Erb - 5/8/19 - No Redactions made
* OIS Transcript from Police Commission Closed Session for Sgt. Erb - 9/18/19 - Redactions (Refer to Redaction Index on the last page)
If you have any questions, please contact the Police Commission Office at 415-837-7070.
Sincerely,
Sergeant Stacy Youngblood
Officer in Charge
Police Commission
To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the SFPD Public Records Center. (https://u8387795.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nZGH0ylxadMp5hTpNkeAFs2KguIDF883TvKUiL5Czauo89OcQL1XvHpyaOEmJgddHZionDPZxe8o-2F99A9Uuw20LDZfm7D4-2FK-2BCddT5rU7tgHxZvgMbJ-2FoLc5CEpfQ7wv3m2A_938YLShXsLN-2Bjq-2BExyt-2F7gfP7bL4mmdjXalmA660Vx61rfbIryhLIIXAJEAJ1vhbNFU1Q01vvRzK-2ByClsM3Syj3FqQlRlaor6Tb4mfFsNg7lz-2B3iqfRb2PTDpH51bfFZmCY16vfNj2nsdwIDuSP7NAuMlqSsxd4SOKiXPVwOC9CgMgvUo9NJtTPl3R7uiG8oXoU-2BSSI3C5JlKWAHS5cK5oG8W-2B9XRiPliTv4OXUJXSf4Q3AAD-2F2dtF-2BYWjDCK62YXbD9euu5EuFeYmYr6vZt1h5JfvTJ-2FL3XjION6D4GY24QOlpbfyhV8zJRh7Uu3-2FY2Zq6ZRfiicGhJv6g9YwQ8PTkdzn33lodnzVqYOp-2FDOuKvke3zK3umFz2lgj-2Fo9CPv)
This is an auto-generated email and has originated from an unmonitored email account. Please DO NOT REPLY.

June 23, 2020

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Officers Wiloran Ravelo and Jason Robinson (OIS 2017-0005):
• November 8, 2017 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8c – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• September 8, 2017 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Turman

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2017-0005 of for Officers Wiloran Ravelo or Jason Robinson.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Officer Samuel Fung (OIS 2017-0006)
• November 8, 2017 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8d – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• November 8, 2017 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Turman

· Officer Involved Shooting Summary 17-0006

· 3rd Quarter 2019 FDRB agenda

· 3rd Quarter 2019 FDRB transcript (redactions made pursuant to attached Commission Redaction Index and noted for each redaction)

· FTFO Incident Review of OIS 17-0006

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2017-0006 or Officer Samuel Fung.

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Officer Dack Thompson (OIS-20017-0004)
• June 14, 2017 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8h – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

· June 21, 2017 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 6b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not to return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items for both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

• May 26, 2017 RTD letter from Chief Scott to Commissioner Turman

Officer Dack Thompson (OID-2008-0004)

· July 30, 3008 2nd Quarter 2008 FDRB agenda

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2017-0004, OID 2008-0004 or Officer Dack Thompson.

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Officer Robert Fung (OID-2008-0003)
• March 21, 2008 1st Quarter 2008 FDRB agenda

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OID 2008-0003 or Officer Robert Fung.

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Sgt. John Tack (OIS-2007-0010):
• March 21, 2008 1st Quarter 2008 FDRB agenda

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OID 2078-0010 or Sgt. Joh Tack.

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Sgt. Nicolas Pena and Lt. Michael Serujo (OIS 2015-0002):

• January 14, 2015 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 5a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• January 12, 2015 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus

· Summary of Investigation of OIS 2015-0002

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2015-0002 of for Sgt. Nicolas Pena or Lt. Michael Serujo.

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Sgt. Jeffrey Aloise, Officer Jeffrey Camilosa, and Officer Andres Garza (OIS 2015-0009):

• December 2, 2015 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7d – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.
• November 18, 2015 2015 RTD letter from Chief Suhr to Commissioner Loftus

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2015-0009 or for Sgt. Jeffrey Aloise, Officer Jeffrey Camilosa or Officer Andres Garza.

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Officers Walter Contreras and Zahid Khan (OIS 2009-0001):

· January 14, 2009 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 8b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

• January 9, 2009 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Sparks

· OIS 2009-0001 Summary of Investigations

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2009-0001 or for Officers Contreras and Khan.

Dear Anonymous:
I inadvertently sent the responsive records for OIS 2009-0001, Officers Contreras and Khan, without the following attachments

· 4th quarter 2009 FDRB agenda

· 4th quarter 2009 FDRB findings and recommendations

Sorry for the confusion.
Regards,

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 – 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

“Dear Anonymous:
Thank you for your email to the Commission regarding the “first petition solely regarding entirely withheld records by the Police Commission under PC 832.7.” While your email is addressed to the Police Commission, the attachment is addressed to the Supervisor of Records at the City Attorney’s Office. Can you please clarify if you would like a response from the Police Commission or the Supervisor of Record at the City Attorney’s Office?”
Regards,

Rachael Kilshaw
San Francisco Police Department
Police Commission Office
1245 – 3rd Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94158

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Lt. Renota Martinez (OID-2006-0009):

· 4th Quarter 2006 FDRB agenda

The Commission has no additional records for OID 2006-0009 or Lt. Renata Martinez.

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing you with the following responsive records:

Officer Gregg Gotelli (OID-2007-0014):

· 2nd Quarter 2008 FDRB agenda

The Commission has no additional records for OID 2007-0014 or Officer Gregg Gotelli.

Via email requests@muckrock.com

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing the following responsive records:

Officer Perterkent DeJesus and Officer Jessica O’Connor(OIS 2009-0002):

· May 27, 2009 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officers to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items or both meetings as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

• May 22, 2009 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Sparks

* OIS 2009-0002 Summary of Investigations
* 4th Quarter 2009 FDRB agenda

The Commission has no additional records for OIS-2009-0002 or for Officers Peterkent DeJesus and Jessica O’Connor.

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing the following responsive records:

Officer Julian Hermosura (OIS-2009-0004):

* September 16, 2009 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 11b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

• September 14, 2009 RTD letter from Chief Fong to Commissioner Sparks

* OIS 2009-0004 Summary of Investigations
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached.

The Commission has no additional records for OIS-2009-0004 or for Officer Hermosura .

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing the following responsive records:

Officer Roderick Suguitan:
OIS 2010-0001:

* February 3, 2010 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 9b – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

• January 28, 2010 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Marshall

* OIS 2010-0001 Summary of Investigations
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached. The full discussion of OIS 2010-0001 was not captured on the audio recording.

The Commission has no additional responsive records for Officer Suguitan.

Via email requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

San Francisco, CA

RE: Public Records Request, dated February 22, 2020, Reference # P011115-022420

Dear :

The San Francisco Police Commission ("Commission") received your request, dated February 22, 2020.

You requested, "February 22, 2020

Police Commission:

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by Feb 25, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in or Terms of Service.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

In simple terms, I want all SB 1421 records you have retained, and I want a quantity/existence/form statement, even if you believe their contents are exempt. Just like the AG in Becerra v Superior Court, if you retained any police misconduct records you must release your own copies, regardless of what SFPD/DPA do. But here's the full request:

1. Pursuant to Becerra v Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition, 2020), provide all records (where "record(s)" is defined specifically by Penal Code 832.7(b)(2), and REGARDLESS of whether they are prepared by or for your agency or its employees) of all incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; all incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; all records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Note: The potential exception that the State AG may have under Gov Code 6255 / public-interest balancing test, which the Court of Appeal found may apply if Becerra had asked for it, DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR OFFICE, pursuant to SFAC 67.24(g and i).

2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these records in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

FYI - If you haven't read Becerra v Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held: "We conclude, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that section 832.7 generally requires disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the Department, regardless whether the records pertain to officers employed by the Department or by another public agency and regardless whether the Department or another public agency created the records. Although we also determine, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the so-called “catchall exemption” of the CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6255, may apply to records that are subject to disclosure under section 832.7, our independent review leads us to conclude the Department did not adequately demonstrate that the public interest served by nondisclosure of the records at issue clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure. "

However, no San Francisco agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to SF Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"

The Commission is providing the following responsive records:

Officer John Newman (OIS 2010-0005):

* July 14, 2010 Police Commission public agenda which includes closed session item 7a – Chief’s performance evaluation of their decision on whether or not return the officer to duty following an Officer Involved Shooting.

Per CA Penal Code section 832.7(a). the Commission is declining to release the audio recording and the additional documents related to the closed session items as they relate to an uninvolved officer’s personnel record. Those records may be releasable through the Pitchess process.

• July 9, 2010 RTD letter from Chief Gascon to Commissioner Marshall

* OIS 2010-0005 Summary of Investigations
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB agenda
* 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB Findings and Recommendations letter
* Redacted transcript from 4th Quarter 2010 FDRB; specific redactions on each page of the transcript are referenced to the Police Commission’s Redaction Index which is attached. The discussion of OIS 2010-0005 was not captured on the audio recording.

The Commission has no additional responsive records for OIS 2010-0005 or for Officer John Newman.