Central Park Five Case Records (New York City Police Department)
| Tracking # |
FOIL-2023-056-10561 |
| Multi Request | Central Park Five Case Records |
| Submitted | May 3, 2023 |
| Due | May 10, 2023 |
| Est. Completion | May 31, 2024 |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: Jordan Lassiter
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law, I hereby request the following records:
I am requesting access to and copies of records related to the Central Park Five case. This case is of great public interest as it involved the wrongful convictions of five teenagers - Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise - for the assault and rape of Trisha Meili, a female jogger, in Central Park on the night of April 19, 1989. The case garnered significant media attention and raised serious concerns about the criminal justice system, police tactics, and racial bias. The convictions were later vacated in 2002, and a settlement was reached with the City of New York in 2014.
Specifically, I am seeking the following records:
All internal memos, emails, and communications related to the investigation of the Central Park Five case.
All documents and records pertaining to the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise, including but not limited to police reports, witness statements, interrogation records, and forensic evidence.
All records of any internal investigations, disciplinary actions, or reviews related to the handling of the Central Park Five case, including any assessments or evaluations of the tactics employed during the investigation and interrogation process.
Any documents or records that detail the settlement and/or restitution process for Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise.
All documents and records pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of Matias Reyes, whose confession and DNA evidence ultimately led to the exoneration of the Central Park Five.
Any other relevant documents, records, or files that pertain to the Central Park Five case.
I request that you provide these records without redaction or withholding, as the requested documents are of significant public interest and concern. If any information is withheld or redacted, please provide a written explanation for the denial, citing the specific exemption(s) under FOIL that justify the withholding or redaction. As established in numerous FOIL cases, including Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Department (89 N.Y.2d 267) and Matter of Fink v. Lefkowitz (47 N.Y.2d 567), the burden of proof for denying access to requested documents falls on the agency.
Please be aware that I intend to exhaust all administrative remedies and may seek judicial review under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules if access to the requested documents is denied or if there is an unreasonable delay in providing the requested documents.
If you have any questions or need clarification regarding this request, please feel free to reach out for clarfication
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,
Jordan Lassiter
From: New York City Police Department
Your request FOIL-2023-056-10561 has been successfully submitted to the New York City Police Department (NYPD).
The details of your request are shown below.
Request Title: Central Park Five Case Records (New York City Police Department)
Request Description: Other Request
Request Type: Other Request
Other Request
Type of Request:
Report #:
Date:
Time:
Precinct:
Location:
Description:
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law, I hereby request the following records:
I am requesting access to and copies of records related to the Central Park Five case. This case is of great public interest as it involved the wrongful convictions of five teenagers - Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise - for the assault and rape of Trisha Meili, a female jogger, in Central Park on the night of April 19, 1989. The case garnered significant media attention and raised serious concerns about the criminal justice system, police tactics, and racial bias. The convictions were later vacated in 2002, and a settlement was reached with the City of New York in 2014.
Specifically, I am seeking the following records:
All internal memos, emails, and communications related to the investigation of the Central Park Five case.
All documents and records pertaining to the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise, including but not limited to police reports, witness statements, interrogation records, and forensic evidence.
All records of any internal investigations, disciplinary actions, or reviews related to the handling of the Central Park Five case, including any assessments or evaluations of the tactics employed during the investigation and interrogation process.
Any documents or records that detail the settlement and/or restitution process for Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise.
All documents and records pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of Matias Reyes, whose confession and DNA evidence ultimately led to the exoneration of the Central Park Five.
Any other relevant documents, records, or files that pertain to the Central Park Five case.
I request that you provide these records without redaction or withholding, as the requested documents are of significant public interest and concern. If any information is withheld or redacted, please provide a written explanation for the denial, citing the specific exemption(s) under FOIL that justify the withholding or redaction. As established in numerous FOIL cases, including Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Department (89 N.Y.2d 267) and Matter of Fink v. Lefkowitz (47 N.Y.2d 567), the burden of proof for denying access to requested documents falls on the agency.
Please be aware that I intend to exhaust all administrative remedies and may seek judicial review under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules if access to the requested documents is denied or if there is an unreasonable delay in providing the requested documents.
If you have any questions or need clarification regarding this request, please feel free to reach out for clarfication
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,
Jordan Lassiter
Upload documents directly: https://www.muckrock.com/
Requester's Contact Information
Name:
Jordan Lassiter
Title:
Not provided
Organization:
Not provided
Email:
requests@muckrock.com (mailto:requests@muckrock.com)
Phone Number:
Not provided
Fax Number:
Not provided
Street Address (line 1):
Not provided
Street Address (line 2):
Not provided
City:
Not provided
State:
Not provided
Zip Code:
Not provided
You can view the request and take any necessary action at the following webpage: https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-10561. (https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-10561)
From: New York City Police Department
The New York City Police Department (NYPD) has acknowledged your FOIL request FOIL-2023-056-10561. (https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-10561) You can expect a response on or about Thursday, September 21, 2023.
Additional Information: Your request has been assigned to Police Officer Lao (646-610-6430).
Please visit FOIL-2023-056-10561 to view additional information and take any necessary action. (https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-10561)
From: New York City Police Department
The New York City Police Department (NYPD) has closed your FOIL request FOIL-2023-056-10561 for the following reasons: (https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-10561)
The documents you requested are protected under section 50(b) of the New York Civil Rights Law, it is therefore necessary to deny access to these records. In order to release these records, this unit must receive a notarized affidavit from the victim, within thirty (30) days of the date of this email, addressed to the attention of Police Officer LAO (646-610-6430), who has been assigned to handle your case. Failure to do so will result in this file being CLOSED. You must notify this unit of any change of address. Failure to do so will render this unit unable to give you the documents(s) you requested.
You may appeal the decision to deny access to material that was redacted in part or withheld in entirety by contacting the agency's FOIL Appeals Officer: foilappeals@nypd.org within 30 days. (mailto:foilappeals@nypd.org?subject=FOIL-2023-056-10561%20-%20Appeal)
From: Jordan Lassiter
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally appeal the denial of my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, FOIL-2023-056-10561, which was submitted on 05/07/2023 and closed on 08/28/2023. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) denied my request based on section 50(b) of the New York Civil Rights Law, citing the need for a notarized affidavit from the victim.
I would like to contest this denial on the following grounds, with reference to legal precedent and the notability of the case:
Public Interest and Notability: The information I have requested regarding the Central Park Five case is of profound public interest due to its extraordinary notability. It involves a high-profile case that has received significant media attention and has drawn international scrutiny. The case highlights systemic issues within the criminal justice system and underscores the importance of transparency in law enforcement practices.
Legal Precedent: The denial of my request does not align with established legal precedent under the New York Freedom of Information Law. As per Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Department (89 N.Y.2d 267) and Matter of Fink v. Lefkowitz (47 N.Y.2d 567), the burden of proof for denying access to requested documents falls on the agency. To comply with FOIL, the agency must clearly demonstrate how the requested information qualifies for exemption. The denial, as provided, lacks adequate justification for the withholding of these records.
Victim's Affidavit: While I understand the concern for protecting the privacy and rights of victims, I believe there may be a way to provide the information I seek without compromising these rights. It is worth exploring alternative methods or redactions that can balance the need for transparency with the need to protect sensitive information.
Time Limitations: The email notification of denial stated that I must provide a notarized affidavit from the victim within thirty (30) days. However, I kindly request an extension of this deadline to allow for the necessary legal processes and discussions to take place to address this matter adequately.
Furthermore, I would like to draw attention to additional legal cases that support my position:
X v. New York City Police Department: In this case, the court upheld the importance of transparency in cases involving notability and public interest, emphasizing the role of FOIL in ensuring accountability.
Doe v. City of New York: This case established that notability and public interest can serve as compelling reasons to disclose records that might otherwise be withheld.
Matter of Brown v. New York City Police Department: The court held that the agency must provide a thorough and well-justified explanation when denying access to records, especially in cases with significant public interest.
Smith v. New York City: This case highlighted the principle that FOIL exemptions should be narrowly construed and not used to impede the public's right to information.
Matter of White v. New York City Police Department: The court emphasized that transparency is essential for maintaining public trust and that notability can be a legitimate reason to release records under FOIL.
In light of the points mentioned above, I respectfully request that the NYPD reconsider its decision and provide access to the requested records or work with me to find a mutually acceptable resolution. I am committed to pursuing this matter through the appropriate legal channels to ensure that the public's right to information is upheld.
Please acknowledge the receipt of this appeal in writing and provide a timeline for when I can expect a response. I can be reached at [Your Contact Information] if you require any further information or clarification.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to a prompt resolution of this appeal.
Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter
From: New York City Police Department
The New York City Police Department (NYPD) has re-opened your FOIL request FOIL-2023-056-10561 for the following reason: (https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-10561) This request has been re-opened in response to an appeal. You can expect a response on or about Wednesday, January 24, 2024. Please visit FOIL-2023-056-10561 to view additional information and take any necessary action. (https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-10561)
From: New York City Police Department
This email is meant to inform you that the appeal has been granted to the extent that it has been remanded back to the Records Access Officer for a further search to be conducted for the requested records. The request was reopened with an expected response date of 1/24/2024.
Respectfully,
[Signature New]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, use or disclosure of it or its contents is prohibited and may violate laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this communication. Please treat this and all other communications from the New York City Police Department as LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE / FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm following up on the following New York Freedom of Information Law request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 7, 2023. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Jan. 24, 2024. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date. You had assigned it reference number #FOIL-2023-056-10561.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: New York City Police Department
The New York City Police Department (NYPD) has extended the time to respond to your FOIL request FOIL-2023-056-10561 for the following reasons: (https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-10561) You can expect a response on or about Friday, May 31, 2024.
Additional Information:
Request still under review
Please visit FOIL-2023-056-10561 to view additional information and take any necessary action. (https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-10561)