Baron vs. County of Orange G046620 (SB 1421 / Becerra v Superior Court) - Immediate Disclosure Request - Orange County Sheriff Department (Orange County District Attorney)

September Baron filed this request with the Orange County District Attorney of Orange County, CA.

It is a clone of this request.

Multi Request Baron vs. County of Orange G046620 (SB 1421 / Becerra v Superior Court) - Immediate Disclosure Request - Orange County Sheriff Department
Submitted Oct. 28, 2021
Status
Awaiting Acknowledgement

Communications

From: September Baron

Subject: California Public Records Act Request: Baron vs. County of Orange G046620 (SB 1421 / Becerra v Superior Court) - Immediate Disclosure Request - Orange County Sheriff Department (Orange County District Attorney)

Email

Orange County Sheriff Department and District Attorney:

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (OC Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency.
Your initial response is required by November, 6. 2021. Rolling records responses are requested (OCAC 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 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 (OCAC 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 (OCAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (OCAC 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 I file complaints.

****** I have no duty to, and I will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, I will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. I 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 for Case# G046620, 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. 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 OCAC 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 - I 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 Orange County agency or official can use the catchall exemption/6255 due to OC Admin Code 67.24(g and i).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
September Baron

Files

There are no files associated with this request.