Roster and Vehical Assignment, 78th pct, May 30th 2020

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law, I hereby request the following records:

(1) A copy of "PD 406-144 - Roll Call Sheet" and "PD 406-141 - Detail Roster Assignment Sheet", or records sufficient to show attendance and assignment for law enforcement and/or police officers of the NYPD 78th precinct for May 30th, 2020.

(2) A copy of "PD 120-141 Daily Vehicle Assignment Sheet", Vehicle Record Book or records sufficient to show vehicle assignment of the NYPD 78th precinct for May 30th, 2020.

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Ryan Watkins

To Whom It May Concern:

I hereby appeal the January 22, 2020 denial of access regarding my request, made on January 18, 202, FOIL request id 'FOIL-2021-056-00793'.

The records that were denied include:

(1) A copy of "PD 406-144 - Roll Call Sheet" and "PD 406-141 - Detail Roster Assignment Sheet", or records sufficient to show attendance and assignment for law enforcement and/or police officers of the NYPD 78th precinct for May 30th, 2020.

(2) A copy of "PD 120-141 Daily Vehicle Assignment Sheet", Vehicle Record Book or records sufficient to show vehicle assignment of the NYPD 78th precinct for May 30th, 2020.

The request was denied "on the basis of Public Officers Law Section 87(2)(e)(iv) as such information, if disclosed, would reveal non-routine techniques and procedures."

In appealing:

(a) The denial does not provide the justification for the exemption. The denial only quotes the statute, but does not provide particularized and specific justification for denying access, clarifying why the records are exempt. New York courts have consistently held that FOIL is broadly construed, exemptions are narrow, and that agencies have the burden to provide a "particularized and specific justification" about why records are exempt.

(b) I request that segregabilty analysis be done and provide justification for exempted records and respond with all non-exempt records. Even if some of the records are justified as exempt, I request non-exempt records be provided.

(c) The exemption claimed does not apply to this request as the records requested, roster and vehicle assignments, are not techniques or procedures. The request is for a list of officers and vehicles, not any investigative technique or procedure the public would not normally be aware of.

(d) Even if the records would reveal a technique or procedure, they are routine. Its clear to the public that officers are assigned for duty on a particular day and that vehicles are assigned to specific officers. Providing a list of officer and vehicle assignments for May 30th, 2020 provides no knowledge on how to evade the technique or procedure at a later date.

(e) The request is narrow, only for records for a single day, for a single precinct. A record of only officers for marked RMP vehicles listing officer name and vehicle number is sufficient to partially satisfy this records request.

As required by the Freedom of Information Law, a response is required within 10 business days of the receipt of an appeal. If the records are denied on appeal, please explain the reasons for the denial fully in writing as required by law.

In addition, please be advised that the Freedom of Information Law directs agencies to send all appeals and the determinations that follow to the Committee on Open Government, Department of State, One Commerce Plaza, 99 Washington Ave., Albany, New York 12231.

Sincerely,

Ryan Watkins

To Whom It May Concern:

I hereby appeal the January 22, 2020 denial of access regarding my request, made on January 18, 202, FOIL request id 'FOIL-2021-056-00793'.

The records that were denied include:

(1) A copy of "PD 406-144 - Roll Call Sheet" and "PD 406-141 - Detail Roster Assignment Sheet", or records sufficient to show attendance and assignment for law enforcement and/or police officers of the NYPD 78th precinct for May 30th, 2020.

(2) A copy of "PD 120-141 Daily Vehicle Assignment Sheet", Vehicle Record Book or records sufficient to show vehicle assignment of the NYPD 78th precinct for May 30th, 2020.

The request was denied "on the basis of Public Officers Law Section 87(2)(e)(iv) as such information, if disclosed, would reveal non-routine techniques and procedures."

In appealing:

(a) The denial does not provide the justification for the exemption. The denial only quotes the statute, but does not provide particularized and specific justification for denying access, clarifying why the records are exempt. New York courts have consistently held that FOIL is broadly construed, exemptions are narrow, and that agencies have the burden to provide a "particularized and specific justification" about why records are exempt.

(b) I request that segregabilty analysis be done and provide justification for exempted records and respond with all non-exempt records. Even if some of the records are justified as exempt, I request non-exempt records be provided.

(c) The exemption claimed does not apply to this request as the records requested, roster and vehicle assignments, are not techniques or procedures. The request is for a list of officers and vehicles, not any investigative technique or procedure the public would not normally be aware of.

(d) Even if the records would reveal a technique or procedure, they are routine. Its clear to the public that officers are assigned for duty on a particular day and that vehicles are assigned to specific officers. Providing a list of officer and vehicle assignments for May 30th, 2020 provides no knowledge on how to evade the technique or procedure at a later date.

(e) The request is narrow, only for records for a single day, for a single precinct. A record of only officers for marked RMP vehicles listing officer name and vehicle number is sufficient to partially satisfy this records request.

As required by the Freedom of Information Law, a response is required within 10 business days of the receipt of an appeal. If the records are denied on appeal, please explain the reasons for the denial fully in writing as required by law.

In addition, please be advised that the Freedom of Information Law directs agencies to send all appeals and the determinations that follow to the Committee on Open Government, Department of State, One Commerce Plaza, 99 Washington Ave., Albany, New York 12231.

Sincerely,

Ryan Watkins