POPD 734 Location activity

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to RCW Ch. 42.56 (Public Records Act), I hereby request the following records:

"Pursuant to RCW 42.56, please provide for inspection all GPS Tracking reco
rds for the following Port Orchard Police Department Patrol car:

Car #734 for the following dates and time frames:
* October 25, 2015 7:00am through October 29, 2015 3:00pm
* June 28, 2016 9:00pm through June 29, 2016 10:00am
* August 7, 2016 9:00am through 3:00pm
* February 5, 2017 4:00am through 7:00am
* February 6, 2017 4:00am through 7:00am
* February 7, 2017 4:00am through 7:00am

* March 5, 2017 8:00am through 12:00pm
* March 6, 2017 8:00am through 12:00pm
* March 7, 2017 8:00am through 12:00 pm
* March 8, 2017 8:00am through 12:00pm
* March 9, 2017 8:00am through 12:00pm

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Penny Allen

Dear Ms. Tate,
Respectfully, I appeal the decision to withhold vehicle location data from my public records request.

Your stated that the reason for withholding the records as:
* The information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.240(13) exempts "Global positioning system data that would indicate the location of the residence of an employee of worker of a criminal agency as defined in RCW 10.97.030"

Please see:
Open Policing and Phillip ]Mocek v. Seattle Police Department and City of Seattle,
King County Superior Court No. 14-2-26147-1 SEA agreed that This data belongs to the public,” “The citizenry deserves to know where the patrol cars go, how frequently, where they are used, and how often. There are numerous cases sharing this decision.

The decision in that matter and the numerous similar matters is that the;

"City shall disclose to Center the full and complete database of the Seattle Police Department's automatic vehicle location (AVL) data in its native electronic format, including data created from 7/10/13 to the date of this
agreement, except that for the following categories or types of trips the City may redact
AVL data constituting or showing the vehicle path (but not other data related to the
trip):
a. Residential'addresses of officers with take-home vehicles.
b. "Address filtered" incidents meaning if the call is near a sensitive
infrastructure and the offense is one that would disclose the location of
the infrastructure.
C. "Infrastructure checks" that reveal the location of critically-sensitive
infrastructure.
d. "Address filtered" incidents within a specific radius of a domestic
violence shelter and the offense would disclose the location of the
shelter.
e. Stakeout, SWAT, undercover-related and "Help the officer
. (emergency)" call types.
L Child-related calls.
g. Domestic violence related, rape related, and molesting calls.
h. "Assigned Duty" for "CenturyI.ink Stadium," "Community, School,
Special Event," and "Seattle Center Event"
i. "Help the Officer (Emergency)."

Please provide the requested documents with the appropriate redactions:

Patrol car #734 location data for the following dates:
* October 25, 2015 7:00am through October 29, 2015 3:00pm
* June 28, 2016 9:00pm through June 29, 2016 10:00am
* August 7, 2016 9:00am through 3:00pm
* February 5, 2017 4:00am through 7:00am
* February 6, 2017 4:00am through 7:00am
* February 7, 2017 4:00am through 7:00am
* March 5, 2017 8:00am through 12:00pm
* March 6, 2017 8:00am through 12:00pm
* March 7, 2017 8:00am through 12:00 pm
* March 8, 2017 8:00am through 12:00pm
* March 9, 2017 8:00am through 12:00pm

Sincerely,
Penny ALlen

Ms, Tate,
I want to follow up on the information released to me as 'batch one'. It would appear the batch is for portion of the request for Patrol car #734 location data for the following dates:
* October 25, 2015 7:00am through October 29, 2015 3:00pm.

The data provided covers October 25 and October 29.
I want to clarify that I am requesting records for the dates from Oct 25 to Oct 29. which would include the 26th 27th and 28th. I apologize if that was not clear in my initial request. Should I resubmit my request as the remainder of the request also includes a list of date ranges and are not singly listed days.

Thank you,
Penny Allen

Hi,

Thanks so much for your help with this request! I really appreciate it. I do have a few follow up questions. I'm not sure I understand why new MCT's would render data unavailable? Is there a different agency the data was transferred to? What date were the MCT's changed?

Sincerely,
Penny Allen

Ms. Tate,
No problem, that's an easy mistake to make. So, is there another agency who would have the earlier records?
Thanks,
Penny Allen

Hello again Rachelle,
I'd like to clarify- that POPD did not know officers' locations at all prior to July 2016- am I understanding correctly?
Thanks again!
Penny Allen

Hello Rachelle,

You've been very helpful, I really appreciate it! I have a question I hope you can easily answer for me. In looking over the data, the time stamp starts at 00:00:00. Is it accurate to assume that is a start of shift stamp or a 'counter' and not an actual time stamp?

Thank you again,
Penny Allen

Got it. Thanks for all your help!
Penny Allen

Hello Ms. Tate,

I think there is an error in the data provided, and it is not complete.
The data provided for March 05, 2017 starts at:
T 2017-03-05 21:33:03 47.278311833 -122.560590167 64.6 358.0
and ends:
T 2017-03-05 23:59:59 47.530581833 -122.609665500 38.9 359.6

Please provide the record for March 05, 2017 from 00:00:00 through the 21:33:03

Thank you,
Penny Allen

Hello Rachelle,
Thank you for your explanation.

I did see the log shows 734 started shift on March 5th around 10pm and worked through to the 6th until around 6am. Indicating a Graveyard shift. The confusion is that the Archive Status History by Officer log shows 734 logging on to shift on March 5th from around 1:00pm and ending shift around 10pm on March 5th. Returning to shift on March 6th around 1:00pm through 10:30pm which indicates a Swing shift.

Neither Swing nor Graveyard seems accurate because that vehicle's location is known to have been at Feigley and Camas at 9:41 am on March 6th. I thought maybe when I saw the records for a different officer, Officer Wofford, listed with 2 different badge numbers on the Vehicle Unit History Reports, one reports him as 715 and another as 727, maybe 734 was misreported in the document title too. However, looking over all the history reports none of them show the known information which is that vehicle 734 was at location of Feigley/McCary and Camas ln at 9:41am on March 6, 2017. Additionally, the GPS information when placed onto a map, does not show the same locations as the Unit history reports for that same date, regardless of which vehicle activity number is traced.

I'm not sure of the full scope of your duties, I am certain that you've gone above and beyond and I really appreciate it. Can you help me to understand why the records are not in sync with each other?

I am looking for all instances where Vehicle # 734 was at or near Feigley/ McCary and Camas ln whether on duty or off duty ( Apparently off duty). The location is not within POPD jurisdiction and it is not in the direction of or near the officers private residence. It is not reasonable to think that the officer would drive through that location on his way home from shift as the location is out of his way and is a dead end street. There were no calls to that side of Hwy 16 which may have ended his shift, and the times were not even during his shift nor near the beginning or end times of his shift. There is no private citizen information that would need to be redacted as the location is outside of POPD juriusdiction and there was not a call for assist or otherwise to that location.

This should not be considered private information and should not be redacted but should be included with the records request considering that POPD General Orders (G.O.) manual states “Police Vehicles are to be used for official police functions only”. Officers are only allowed to utilize their police vehicles in an off duty capacity if they are working an official off duty job. 734 had been informed of the policy that department-issued vehicles are provided exclusively for 1) work-related duties and 2) travel to and from work, he knew he was using it in violation of department policy. Please see:

On January 11, 2017 Sgt. Main (#729) wrote an Employee Incident Report and issued a written warning to Officer Nathan Lynch #734. The violations listed on the warning included:

-Use of department information for their own or another's personal benefit or interest,

-Unauthorized personal use of Police Vehicle.

-Police issued vehicle driven to a private residence.

His superiors discovered he was using the assigned vehicle in violation of policy and wrote him a disciplinary notice, yet he continued to violate that policy numerous times which is evidenced by eyewitness sightings and video security footage from a camera placed at a private residence on Camas ln. Therefore, I believe it is in the Public interest to know how many times the vehicle was used to drive to the location of Feigley/McCary/Camas ln and/or other locations which are out of departmental jurisdiction or outside of duty. Such information cannot be reasonably construed as private about any citizen or the officer and is a direct violation of Department policy.

Can you provide the full GPS/AVLrecords, complete unaltered, raw data with only the officers private residence redacted? I would suggest redaction from once the vehicle reaches the Narrows Bridge in Tacoma, anything else should not be considered private. Would you prefer I file another separate request for that day's March 6, 2017 and the other dates listed in this request full GPS/tracking records providing this information to justify your office's compliance with the request?

Again, I really appreciate your help!
Thanks so much,
Penny Allen

Rachelle,
From my latest explanation you can probably see that we feel quite a bit of pressure and urgency to get the information for 734. If it would help speed things up a bit , I can request a hold or even withdraw the requests for other officers AVL data at this time, allowing you to focus on the data requested for 734. Let me know what would be most efficient.
Thanks again,
Penny

Rachelle,
Yes, I can accept a delay from December 29th to January 5th.
Thanks,
Penny

Hello Ms. Browning,
Do I understand that Ms. Tate has been out of the office since prior to January 5th when the documents were due? It is unreasonable to require another extension.
Sincerely,
Penny Allen

Hello Rachelle,
The original date range requested was May 20, 2015 through September 24, 2017. The first security video of 734 entering my property was 10/27/2015 at approximately 9:52 am where the vehicle remained for approximately 30 minutes. I did inquire with POPD about why an officer was at my home while I wasn't. Despite my having provided a snapshot .jpeg from the the security footage- all officers denied ever going to that address, and to my knowledge there was no follow up by the department. Another more recent security video shows the same vehicle (734) attempting to enter the property on March 6, 2017 and at least 2 other times shortly thereafter where it returned as witnessed by 2 separate people. Regardless of the fact that your records and POPD records are inconsistent with each other, each event and each 'unauthorized visit' seems to have occurred during times that both Cencom and POPD records show the officer was off duty- I believe the letter I wrote you on 12/22/2017 addresses our concerns and I encourage you to use that information to justify providing the requested records without any further delay. Again, there is no reasonable concern that anyone's privacy or rights would be violated by the release of these records other than my own.

I look forward to hearing from you after your meeting on the 7th. I trust that the records are visible to you and whomever you meet with and you already know that the officer was indeed at that location numerous times and will release the records. Once again, I truly appreciate your help.
Sincerely,
Penny Allen

Rachelle,
I just now see that you wrote:

Penny,

These files were sent to you on 01/04/18.

I will forward them to you again!

I did not receive any communication from you on that date, so if you would resend them I would appreciate it. Thanks!

Hello Rachelle,
It appears that somehow the requests have got mixed together responses to this one have come through the other one and visa versa. needless to say, it has become a little confusing. To assist in clearing things up, I filed the other requests as complete. I hope we can correspond focusing only on this one.

You indicated you had sent records on 01/04/2018. I did not receive any records on or near that date in any of the requests. I also did not receive any records from the 02/01 notice in which you indicated you would forward them to me again. Let me know if you would prefer I pick them up in person to ensure they do not get lost in cyberspace?

On 12/22/2017 I requested the following:

Complete GPS/AVL records, unaltered, raw data with only Officer(734) private residence redacted. I suggested redacting only activity of the vehicle on the Tacoma side of the Narrows Bridge. Anything else should not be considered private.

To clarify that request:

Please provide all GPS raw data location records for POPD vehicle #734 between the hours of 6:00am and 10:00pm from May 20, 2015 through September 24, 2017.

The data will and should include the vehicles location even while the officer was "off duty" The off duty data is not exempt because it is in the public's right to know based on the fact that the officer has a track record of using the vehicle for personal off-duty use. Misconduct on the job and "off-duty" actions that “bear on ability to perform” public office are “not private, intimate, personal details” of a state patrol officer’s life, but are of public concern. Cowles Publ’g Co. v. State Patrol (1988)

In my letter dated 12/26/2017 and again in a follow up letter dated 02/01/2018 I explained and provided evidence supporting the data is not subject to exemption because the officer has received written disciplinary action from his superiors for using POPD vehicle for private use- off duty. Despite the written disciplinary action, the officer has continued the misconduct as is evidenced by video recordings, photographs and eye witness sightings and the public has a right to know to what extent.
That said, I consider the officer still maintains a right to personal residential location privacy, and I respect a redaction of the vehicle location only when it is on the South/Eastern side of the Tacoma Narrows bridge between the hours of 6:00am and 10:00pm.

Sincerely,
P. Allen

Hello Rachelle,
Where did you send them? I have not received.Is it too much trouble to ask you to send them in response to this thread.
Thanks so much!
P. ALlen

Hello Rachelle,
I did not get anything attached to that- but I did find some records you sent under a different request that match the date you indicated. I wonder if the confusion is that the records you sent are not fully responsive to this request.

I am concerned that the location data records I did receive do not match the unit history location reports. The unit history reports even show one officer with 2 different badge numbers. The unit history time stamps do not match the AVL record time stamps... these discrepancies indicate the records may have been altered at some point.

The only verifiable "accurate" data I have was the first record I received which was an .xlsx file on 09/25/2017. It would be great if you would provide me with the full records for the dates requested in that same .xlsx file GPS format, in a 24 hour time range.

Please note that it should not make any difference what the officers’ schedule is. The only reason I brought it up was to offer an explanation which substantiates removal of exemptions and redactions as the officers misconduct is occurring while he is off duty. That it is off duty is the exception to the exemption which allows you to release the full record without redactions regardless of the officers’ shift. Officers are not allowed to use the vehicles off duty for private use. So any transit of the vehicle should be on duty and all records should be released without redaction- at this point, the time of day should not matter.
In a response from you on Nov 13, 2017 you wrote:

" Per request rec'd 10/04/17 for Units listed below GPS (AVL) records. It has been determined (because of time frame that you requested and the redacting's required (20 minutes before/after shift per RCW 42.56.250 (9) The global positioning system data that would indicate the location of the residence of a public employee or volunteer using the global positioning system recording device.) that it is going to take 30 days per officer. I will be releasing this data as I receive it with the hopes that it is before the 30 days for each units."

That statement indicates the disclosure of the GPS data was limited to the officers shift. “20 minutes before/after shift”
Since that time, I offered you information which allows you to disclose the full record ( of Officer 734) without those 20 minutes before and after shift restraints- with the exception of the officers home address:
" Misconduct on the job and off-duty actions that “bear on ability to perform” public office are “not private, intimate, personal details” of a state patrol officer’s life, but are of public concern. See Cowles Publ’g Co. v. State Patrol (1988).

I was not inquiring or seeking records about Officer 734 disciplinary records. Rather, I was informing you about them so that you could confirm and the exemption of “20 minutes before/after shift” could be lifted and disclosure of the full GPS records was expected. I did assume you had access to the disciplinary record and only quoted it. Do you require a full copy of the written disciplinary action before you can release the full record- I am happy to provide it to you as I received it from POPD records request.
I’m not sure why this has turned into such a drawn out arduous request- Assuming it was the other officer’s records requested that were bogging things down, now that I’ve filed them as completed. I anticipate things will go smoother and this will be resolved quickly. If there is anything I can do to make it easier- let me know. I am happy to be flexible and cooperate with you and I appreciate all your help.

P. Allen

Rachelle,
OK. In a nutshell- I have received gps records showing 734 vehicle in transit during graveyard hours. I have received unit reports of 734 reporting to events during swing shift hours. I have records showing 734 out of jurisdiction during day shift hours- no where near his private residence and some on days that I have records reporting he was not on duty at all. I am requesting records that will show where vehicle 734 has transited during any and all hours regardless of his work schedule. At this point, the only way to verify the integrity of records, is they should atleast match the "visible" evidence.
I look forward to hearing from you next week and I hope you have a wonderful weekend!
P. Allen

Hello Rachelle,

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking me to file a new request? I imagine a records query would allow you to run a filter and search for GPS/AVL data for vehicle 734 only. I do not expect you to go through each of the 5 SUV model vehicles' data; I filed those requests as complete when you indicated the task of separating the data was overly time consuming. I also do not expect you to go through all vehicle 734 GPS data and make redactions as I am requesting, and am entitled to the entire record;

Misconduct on the job and OFF-DUTY ACTIONS that “bear on ability to perform” public office are “NOT PRIVATE, intimate, personal details” of a state patrol officer’s life, but ARE of PUBLIC concern. See Cowles Publ’g Co. v. State Patrol (1988).

I'm not sure what you meant when you wrote, " does not mean that there will be AVL data unless the officer signed into the Dispatch software (and that is the only way we track the GPS/AVL data" I think the 'A' in AVL stands for 'automatic'? Further, previous records have been produced which show that dispatch software is only ONE way Officers locations are tracked- GPS recording devices are ANOTHER way their vehicle locations are tracked.

On September 28, 2017 I received records pulled directly from the GPS recording device system. That record appeared accurate and would seem more in line with my request to locate the records from that same GPS data source rather than MTC data source as according to your explanation the MTC is dependent on the officer signing in; which is not the records requested. I did not ask for records showing when officers sign in and out of dispatch. There are GPS recording devices on every department vehicle. Those devices record automatically whenever the vehicle is turned on and the motor is running- the recording is not turned on and off manually by an officer nor any computer software.

From the GPS device recordings for unit 734, I suggest running a filter for the officers home address, which should make it easy to redact - as it will be automatically populated by the query filter. The remaining data should be disclosed in full in its raw unaltered format. The only allowable exemptions are those that would occur during the officers shift which you have already provided and I see no need to re-do those efforts or resend them.

Thus far experiencing and anticipating a continued mutual cooperation, I indicated I would accept Data collection limited to the hours of 6:00 am to 10:00 pm. for each day in the date range requested (May 20, 2015 to September 24, 2017) It was my belief that would be helpful to you- especially as the officer does not generally report for duty during those hours. However, if that is not helpful or time saving then go ahead and just pull the entire 24 hour daily data for the date range requested. Which ever is most efficient for you. I would expect a filter automatically pulling information in a search query is not a manual task and I'm certain the department has access to at least a minimum standard of secure storage technology - so I do not anticipate the task should take very long at all. It has already taken longer to correspond about how difficult it might be to extract the information than it took the entire Seattle police department to provide several years worth of data on every single officer in its jurisdiction. One officer or even 5 officers from a considerably smaller district is certainly no comparison to the entire Seattle/ King County police force.

The GPS recording devices are not turned on and off nor are they dependent on an officer signing in and out of MTC or any other system the department utilizes. Vehicle GPS data is automatically sent when the vehicle is turned on and the motor is running, There is no question the requested records exist but if you do not have access to them then please provide me with the contact information for those who do.

As for the argument that an officer might have the ability to turn on and off his AVL recorder at will- Officer 734 was signed in to his MTC while off duty in order to obtain information for his personal use as is indicated by the disciplinary action written against him. Misconduct on the job and OFF_DUTY ACTIONS that “bear on ability to perform” public office are “NOT PRIVATE, intimate, personal details” of a state patrol officer’s life, but ARE of PUBLIC concern. See Cowles Publ’g Co. v. State Patrol (1988).
You have indicated you can't separate and extract data then contradicted those statements by indicating that you have no choice but to separate and extract data. Which ever the case may be- I will accept it all or I will accept it extracted - which ever is most convenient for you- as long as the records are unaltered, intact and fully disclosed.

Please disclose the full and complete database of the Port Orchard Police Department's AVL/GPS recording data for department vehicle 734 in its native electronic format, including data created from 5/20/2015 to 9/24/2017 except that for the following categories or types of trips the City may redact AVL/GPS data constituting or showing the vehicle path (but not other data related to the
trip):
a. Residential'addresses of officers with take-home vehicles.

*Note that none of the other allowable exemptions would be required for off duty department vehicle parkedat an officers residence.

Sincerely,
P. Allen

Ms. Tate,

Thanks again for your time on the phone and for conferencing with Terese Ungren, IT specialist, to clarify some of the limitations of collecting the data I have requested. I’d like to summarize that conversation:

As regards my request for “inspection all GPS Tracking records for each of the patrol cars assigned to Officers Wofford, Brandon, Pronovost, Lynch and Jensen Port Orchard Police Department Patrol cars for the following dates and time frames:* May 20, 2015 through September 24, 2017”

I took away from our conversation that POPD Officers have the ability to turn their GPS data collection on/off. Location data is only collected when an officer signs in to his mobile computer terminal or MTC.

Internal modems which connect and send data to Cencom are placed in each officers vehicle. The modems can only connect and send data to Cencom when turned on by the officer signing in to their MCT system. If the modem is turned off, that is; the officer is not signed in to the MCT then no data is being sent to Cencom so no data can be collected. The officer signing in to the software or mobile access system is what connects it to Cencom server. Which then records the officers’ location data. That data is collected using CAD and creates a Daily text file for all units in each agency which are the AVL unit reports previously submitted in response to my request.

The data files created by the CAD system are history reports that show when a call comes in and an officer responds. At that point the location data is matched to where he is going not necessarily the officer’s current location at the time of accepting to respond to the event. Which is why the Unit reports location data does not necessarily match the AVL location data.
Locations are marked using the AVL system. AVL records are used to show where officers are located at any given time. However, the officer has the ability to turn the collection of location data on and off by simply logging in or out of his mobile computer.

While you did redact private residential information for all 5 vehicles requested- You did provide full AVL records without redactions of time frames or considerations to shift start and end for the records of vehicle #734 specifically. Any apparent missing chunks of data is likely due to the officer logging out of his MCT terminal. Cencom is not aware of any other location data collection sources or programs.

You have indicated that you are preserving all data in your possession for the 5 SUV model vehicles operated by Port Orchard Police Department vehicles identified as assigned to Officers: Wofford, Brandon, Pronovost, Lynch, and Jensen for the date range of May 2015 through September 24, 2017.

I will let you know if I have any more questions about that data, if there is any further clarification necessary, once I have time to consider the information you provided during our conversation and have a chance to apply it to the records I have received.

Speaking with you was a pleasure and I’d like to thank both you and Ms. Ungren for taking the time to discuss this with me.

Sincerely,
P. Allen

Hello Rachelle,

After talking with you briefly on the phone this morning and wanting to better clarify some of the issues with the records I am receiving not matching up. While not the whole problem, I have figured out at least part of the problem. On October 10, 2017 I received the following GPS log files from Officer 734 MCT:

gpsArchive.2017_03_06
gpsArchive.2017_02_07
gpsArchive.2017_03_05
gpsArchive.2017_02_05
gpsArchive.2017_02_06
gpsArchive.2017_03_08
gpsArchive.2017_03_09
gpsArchive.2017_03_07

These do not appear to be the GPS records of Vehicle 734. These are all records from a Graveyard Vehicle. 734 does not work Graveyard. Unit History Reports support that 734 works a Swing or Afternoon shift.

Please provide the records for vehicle 734 for the dates requested.

Thank you,
P. Allen

Good Morning Ms. Tate,
I anticipate you will preserve all the data I have requested as indicated in an email from you on 02/28/2018 when you confirmed that you are:

"preserving all data in your possession for the 5 SUV model vehicles operated by Port Orchard Police Department vehicles identified as assigned to Officers: Wofford, Brandon, Pronovost, Lynch, and Jensen for the date range of May 2015 through September 24, 2017."

I do not expect that your agency is responsible for other agency records which has nothing to do with the records I have received from your agency. KItsap 911-Cencom has provided me with 3 sets of data and those 3 sets do not even closely align with each other. That fact is what lead me to seek data from other agencies to ascertain which of the data your agency provided is reliable. I'm not asking your agency to authenticate the other agency data. The records make it clear that the gps data provided from your agency as data from vehicle #734 is not data from that vehicle. I would like to assume it is an oversight and am asking to be provided with the actual data for vehicle #734.

Sincerely,
Penny Allen

Hello Ms. Tate,

Currently Officer Lynch logs into MCT POPD-0020. Previously, but during the time period of the requested records, Officer Lynch logged into POPD-20. I had assumed the badge number aligned with the MCT. If there is a discrepency of records due to the different reference numbers - Please understand that my request should include all GPS records for MCT POPD-0020 and POPD-20.

Thank you,
P. Allen

Ms. Tate,
It is my understanding that the RCW calls for records to be preserved for 6 years . Do you mean that they have been archived with the State?

Further, you have explained more than once that AVL data is collected when an officer signs in to his mobile computer terminal or MCT. That means that you should have all the location data for the times that officers were signed in to their MCT's. I have yet to receive all the GPS data for the times that Officer Lynch was logged in to his MCT. In keeping with the law, the records should exist as it would have been unlawful to purge or destroy them before my request was received as that would have been only 2 years. It also would have been unlawful to destroy them after they've been requested.

In order to help you respond appropriately to my request and provide me with the records I am requesting- I have attached Officer Lynch's MCT log that you may provide me with all of his vehicle GPS/AVL data as you should have them by your own explanation that the data is automatically uploaded/ sent when he is logged in to his MCT. It is also reasonable to expect the records from before the system was updated exist. The records should have been preserved and not destroyed due to a system update.

If there was a technical malfunction during the system update that destroyed the data please provide all documents and communications which refer to the data loss. There are laws regarding system updates and the preservation of records. I trust that the IT department would take great care in preserving records through a system update or change as the records need to be preserved for 6 years without special permissions. If there have been special permissions granted by the retention board to purge the records prior to the 6 , please respond to my request by providing the documents that grant those special permissions along with the communications from the members of the board. Please provide the documents in response to this request without further delay.

FYI- Officer Lynch works Swing shift. Approximately 2 pm to 10 pm and has worked those hours generally since before 2015. The AVL/gps records I have received in response to this request to date which are marked as Officer Lynch's are for an officer working Graveyard shift approximately 10 pm to 6 am. The records provided are not responsive to the records requested.

Further, the MCT data I have attached is only a guide to the minimum records that should be provided as I request the full non-redacted records for the vehicle (734) from May 2015 even where those records would include off duty information. As the officer has been disciplined for using his vehicle in an off duty capacity without authorization from his superiors warrants the public to know exactly where the vehicle has been at any time. Multiple court opinions have addressed the disclosure if the misconduct is substantiated or disciplinary action has been taken, these records are to be disclosed because they are of legitimate interest to the public, See Brouillet v. Cowles Publishing Co (1990)

I look forward to getting the records without any further unnecessary delay.
Sincerely,
P. Allen