Recorded Securus Phone Calls and/or Communications Records and Contracts and Supporting Documents - Shawnee County DCA

Robert Teel filed this request with the Shawnee County Department of Corrections of Shawnee County, KS.
Status
Completed

Communications

From: Robert Teel

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Kansas Open Records Act (K.S.A. 45-215), I hereby request the following records:

Please provide:

(1) all (i) audio or visual records and recordings, or (ii) written transcriptions, notes, reports, or memoranda, or (iii) other information, about, in connection with, or of, any and all phone calls, emails, videos, or other communications made or received by detainees or inmates using any Securus phone or communication system, including without limitation the Securus Secure Call Platform or the AdvanceConnect Direct Bill, Traditional Collect, Inmate Debit, Jail Voicemail, Video Visitation, Securus Online, or Secure Instant Email, for any detention facilities operated by you, including without limitation the LEAVENWORTH COUNTY JAIL, and including without limitation records and recordings of:

(a) the content of the communication;
(b) the prisoners’ first and last names;
(c) the phone numbers they called or received calls from;
(d) the date, time, and duration of the calls;
(e) the inmates’ Securus account numbers;
(f) the metadata for the communication;
(g) the recording URL where the audio recordings of the calls can be downloaded; and
(h) any other information collected by Securus or you in connection with such calls; and

(2) all contracts, agreements, correspondence, documents, statements, writings and recordings of every kind (mechanical, electronic, typed or written) by and between the Missouri Department of Corrections or any other law enforcement agency and Securus, including but not limited to, letters, correspondence, memoranda, notes, audio recordings, reports, and transcriptions in the possession of, or subject to the control of you or Securus.

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 3 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Robert Teel

From: Phelps, Tim

Mr. Robert Teel:

The Shawnee County Department of Corrections is in receipt of your faxed Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) request, dated Friday, February 5, 2016 (which is scanned and attached for your reference). This e-mail responds.

Under K.S.A. 45-221(a)(29) expressly intimates that the records you are requesting relating to section (1) of your KORA request shall not be required to be disclosed. That section clearly excludes from required disclosure: "Correctional records pertaining to an identifiable inmate or release". That language is followed with some exceptions to the rule of non-disclosure, none of which exceptions apply to your request. In addition, the primary use this and other local agencies make of the recordings you requested are investigatory, and therefore fall under section (a)(5) and (a)(10) of K.S.A. 45-221 as well.

The Shawnee County Department of Corrections does not have any records that meet the remainder of your KORA request.

This response does not, in any way, limit the right of this agency to make use of additional provisions of KORA as bases not to disclose these records of inmates corresponding with their friends and family.

[cid:image001.jpg@01D1631C.39BF2F80]

From: Robert Teel

Dear Major Phelps,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

KSA 45-211(a)(5) does not apply as none of the recordings or other information requested could in any way reveal the identity of any undercover agent or informant who is reporting a specific crime.

Similarly, KSA 45-211(a)(10) does not apply as it only exempts criminal investigation records and does not apply to recordings or other information requested that are not in connection with any criminal investigation. For example, and without limitation, recordings made for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the detention facility and its detainees and staff have nothing to do with any specific criminal investigation.

As to KSA 45-211(a)(29), it is clear that many of the records requested are not “correctional records pertaining to an identifiable inmate or release…” Specifically, nothing set forth in paragraph (2) of my request is a correctional record pertaining to an identifiable individual.

Further, KSA 45-211(d) provides that if a public record contains material which is not subject to disclosure pursuant to this act, the public agency shall separate or delete such material and make available to the requester that material in the public record which is subject to disclosure pursuant to this act. It also provides that records which are exempt because they pertain to an identifiable individual are subject to disclosure by deletion of the identifying portions of the records.

Your response does not specifically indicate which of the requested items, recordings, or documents your office does, or does not, have possession of or access to, and which parts of the request are being denied as exempt.

In order to avoid needlessly resorting to legal process, please produce all the items set forth in subpart (1) of my request, excluding, redacting, or deleting the identifying portions of the recordings or other items. If you are withholding any items under KSA 45-211(a)(5) or (10), please log, identify, and briefly describe any such recordings, documents, or other items withheld from production on those grounds.

In order to avoid a needless goose chase, please state specifically if your office is in possession of any responsive documents or items set forth in subpart (2) of my request and if so, please produce them. If not, please say so specifically as it pertains to the subpart (2) request.

Finally, please advise if this request has been directed to the proper custodian of the public records as required under KSA 45-218. If not, please state the name and location of the custodian of the public record for the applicable public agency having possession of all contracts, agreements, correspondence, documents, statements, writings and recordings of every kind (mechanical, electronic, typed or written) by and between the Missouri Department of Corrections or any other law enforcement or correctional facility agency or operator and Securus Technologies, Inc. as further set forth in subpart (2) of my request.

Respectfully submitted and requested,

Robert Teel

From: Robert Teel

Dear Major Phelps,

I apologize for two inadvertent errors in my request and/or response. The facility referenced in subpart (1) of my original request should have been the SHAWNEE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER. The reference in the last paragraph of my original request, and the response set forth above, should have been to the Shawnee County Department of Corrections. I am sorry for any confusion my mistake caused.

The original request should have originally read:

Please provide:

(1) all (i) audio or visual records and recordings, or (ii) written transcriptions, notes, reports, or memoranda, or (iii) other information, about, in connection with, or of, any and all phone calls, emails, videos, or other communications made or received by detainees or inmates using any Securus phone or communication system, including without limitation the Securus Secure Call Platform or the AdvanceConnect Direct Bill, Traditional Collect, Inmate Debit, Jail Voicemail, Video Visitation, Securus Online, or Secure Instant Email, for any detention facilities operated by you, including without limitation the SHAWNEE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, and including without limitation records and recordings of:

(a) the content of the communication;
(b) the prisoners’ first and last names;
(c) the phone numbers they called or received calls from;
(d) the date, time, and duration of the calls;
(e) the inmates’ Securus account numbers;
(f) the metadata for the communication;
(g) the recording URL where the audio recordings of the calls can be downloaded; and
(h) any other information collected by Securus or you in connection with such calls; and

(2) all contracts, agreements, correspondence, documents, statements, writings and recordings of every kind (mechanical, electronic, typed or written) by and between the Missouri Department of Corrections or any other law enforcement agency and Securus, including but not limited to, letters, correspondence, memoranda, notes, audio recordings, reports, and transcriptions in the possession of, or subject to the control of you or Securus.

Finally, please advise if this request has been directed to the proper custodian of the public records as required under KSA 45-218. If not, please state the name and location of the custodian of the public record for the applicable public agency having possession of all contracts, agreements, correspondence, documents, statements, writings and recordings of every kind (mechanical, electronic, typed or written) by and between the Shawnee County Department of Corrections or any other law enforcement or correctional facility agency or operator and Securus Technologies, Inc. as further set forth in subpart (2) of my request.

Respectfully,

Robert Teel

From: Phelps, Tim

With the additional information that you have provided, I believe the response of this agency is mostly the same with regard to subpart (1) of your request. While I certainly respect your right to disagree regarding the application of the terms of K.S.A. 45-221 (not 211) to your request, it is not my intent to dispute with you about the legal standard based on opinion. If you have applicable case law that supports your interpretation of the language, I will consider that case law and adjust my response in accordance with it. I am the custodian or records for the Shawnee County Department of Corrections.

Treating your categories in order:

(a) This information is part of our investigative use of the software, and (for those records utilizing a special reporting number) could reveal the identity of an informant, which makes them not subject to disclosure under K.S.A. 45-221(a)(5) & (10). Furthermore, this information is part of the abstract data associated with the audio and/or video that is not required to be released pursuant to K.S.A. 45-219.

(b) These identifiers clearly would constitute a correctional record under 45-221(a)(29), and the exception under that rule would not be a record through Securus, but rather a record from our inmate management system which (if you want that information) will be provided to you once the costs of obtaining and delivering it to you were determined and paid. Furthermore, this information is part of the abstract data associated with the audio and/or video that is not required to be released pursuant to K.S.A. 45-219.

(c) This information is part of our investigative use of the software, and (for those records utilizing a special reporting number) could reveal the identity of an informant, which makes them not subject to disclosure under K.S.A. 45-221(a)(5) & (10). Furthermore, this information is part of the abstract data associated with the audio and/or video that is not required to be released pursuant to K.S.A. 45-219.

(d) This information is part of the abstract data associated with the audio and/or video that is not required to be released pursuant to K.S.A. 45-219.

(e) This identifier would constitute a correctional record under 45-221(a)(29) – since that number is the inmate’s jacket number in the inmate management system – and the exception under that rule would not be a record through Securus, but rather a record from our inmate management system which (if you want that information) will be provided to you once the costs of obtaining and delivering it to you were determined and paid. Furthermore, this information is part of the abstract data associated with the audio and/or video that is not required to be released pursuant to K.S.A. 45-219.

(f) This information is part of the abstract data associated with the audio and/or video that is not required to be released pursuant to K.S.A. 45-219.

(g) Assuming this is something that the Shawnee County Department of Corrections would have any ability to identify, this information is part of the abstract data associated with the audio and/or video that is not required to be released pursuant to K.S.A. 45-219.

(h) I do not believe anything under this section exists, but if it does it is part of the abstract data associated with the audio and/or video that is not required to be released pursuant to K.S.A. 45-219.

Although this request still (mysteriously) includes reference to “Missouri Department of Corrections” (when we are in Kansas), and although we are not part of any law enforcement agency, in the spirit of cooperation, I am attaching an electronic copy of the contracts between Shawnee County Department of Corrections and Securus Technologies (including one that is related to it, though not specifically between SNDOC and Securus), which are the only things in the possession, custody, and control of Shawnee County Department of Corrections that satisfies the terms of subpart (2) of your request.

Finally, I will again reiterate that I reserve the right to raise any additional provisions of KORA that may not have been identified in this response, if those provisions are applicable. If you bring forth some additional legal precedents that require that we provide you the content and abstract information relating to the video and audio recordings of inmates interacting with friends and family, I will consider it. I believe those persons have some reasonable expectation that while the appropriate legal authorities are monitoring those communications for legitimate investigatory and/or criminal or civil court purposes, they would not have a reasonable expectation that the public at large would have access to them. Therefore, while I am altogether in favor of open and transparent government, I believe your request extends far beyond that and the release of that information is not countenanced under the terms of our sunshine laws.

Tim

[cid:image001.jpg@01D163EB.D36CC3C0]

From: Robert Teel

Dear Tim,

First, thank you again for your prompt and professional reply and the attachments responding to subparagraph (2) of my request. The second to last paragraph of your response indicates the three documents you provided (C618-2012 - 8-30-12 -New World Securus interface, C470-2012 06-07-2012, and C126-2014 BCC app 3-20-140 are the only documents that are in your possession. Document C126–2014 is entitled Second Amendment to Master Services Agreement. I just want to double check with you and confirm that you do not have a First Amendment to the Master Services Agreement.

Second, I do apologize again for any confusion created by the mistakes and typos of my correspondence. I have to say, it is no mystery, just my own boneheaded mistakes from rushing. Just to clarify, you are indeed correct that the proper reference should be to KSA 45-221 and not 45-211. In addition, the facility referenced in subpart (1) of my original request should have been the SHAWNEE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER. The reference in the last paragraph of my prior correspondence should have been to the Shawnee County Department of Corrections. Hopefully, that catches all my mistakes and solves the mystery.

Third, it will take me a little time to respond to your request for case law raised by your response to my subpart (1) request, but let me give you my initial reaction.

(1) - K.S.A. 45-221(a)(5) & (10); Informant Identity - Not all of the content of the recordings are with informants. Since informant records have a special reporting number it should be fairly straight forward to identify them and set them aside.

(2) - KSA 45-219; Tapes and Discs - The recordings are not "radio or recording tapes or discs, video tapes or films, pictures, slides, graphics, illustrations". Is the reason for the denial that the digital files constitute "similar audio or visual items or devices"? It is not clear to me that digital files are similar to physical tapes, films, pictures, etc. under KORA.

(3) - KSA 45-229(a)(29); Prisoner Identifiers - KSA 45-221(a)(29)(A) permits disclosure of most prisoner identifiers. If a prisoner's name is not exempt from disclosure under KSA 45-221(a)(29)(A), it is irrelevant whether it is set forth in a record through Securus or in your inmate management system. Nonetheless, I would appreciate it if you would provide me with the costs of obtaining and delivering such record(s) when they are determined.

Point by point summary of reply to subparts (a) through (h):

(a) See reply nos. 1 and 2 above in connection with informant identifiers and tapes.
(b) See reply nos. 2 and 3 above in connection with prisoner identifiers and tapes.
(c) See reply nos. 1 and 2 above in connection with informant identifiers and tapes.
(d) See reply no. 2 above in connection with tapes.
(e) See reply nos. 2 and 3 above in connection with prisoner identifiers and tapes.
(f) See reply no. 2 above in connection with tapes.
(g) See reply no. 2 above in connection with tapes. Securus' software includes the requested URL in its database reporting function.
(h) See reply no. 2 above in connection with tapes.

As to any limits on detainee waivers of confidentiality set forth in your last paragraph, your point is well taken. The right to privacy is an important one. You and I agree that detainees do not generally enjoy a right to privacy while incarcerated — a fact that is emphasized in the course of virtually any communication to people with incarcerated loved ones.

Therefore, to the extent that a public agency chooses to store public records indefinitely, those records are subject to the liberal construction requirements and provisions of KORA and they are subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. I can find no exception based on any vague notions of selective rights to an expectation of confidentiality.

Your response relies on the fact that the goal for recording and monitoring detainee phone conversations is not only to enhance safety, but also to help prevent crimes both inside and outside a facility. To the extent indefinite records retention by a public correctional or law enforcement agency offends Constitutional rights of privacy after such records are determined to be free of intelligence that would aide the institutional goal (in this case safety and crime prevention), that does not appear to be grounds for an exemption from disclosure under KORA.

I appreciate your legal opinion about the liberal reach of my request. I respectfully disagree. The information in these records concern state and federal Constitutional rights of detainees, including without limitation the 4th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and they are of great legitimate purpose to the public.

I will review applicable case law in connection with your reply and respond forthwith. In the meantime, if you have any case law to support your position, I would appreciate it if you would let me know. After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and if in any event we will need the assistance of a court to resolve our differences of opinion we may wish to dispense with fruitless correspondence.

Thank you Tim for your consideration and professionalism. I do appreciate it.

Respectfully,

Robert Teel

From: Robert Teel

Hello Tim,

In response to your request for case authority which may shed light on my KORA request, you may find Wichita Eagle and Beacon v. Simmons, 274 Kan. 194, 50 P.3d 66 (2002) useful. In addition, as I'm sure you are aware, there are numerous KSAG opinions which may be instructive in helping us reach an agreement as to what your office may be willing to provide and, while may not necessarily encompass all the items requested, will assist in my investigation.

I look forward to your reply and the possibility of working together to reach a compromise as to any disagreement we may have over the scope of my request. Thank you Tim. Have a good weekend.

Sincerely,

Robert Teel

From: Phelps, Tim

Good Morning, Mr. Teel:

I read the case you proffered, and I found it to be more in support of non-disclosure than disclosure so I saw no basis to modify my position.

I’m going to seek some additional input from the County Counselor, and if he believes that we should take a different position I will notify you of that fact. I will continue to drive this analysis from the case law and statutory language, but what additional information you have provided to date is insufficient for me to conclude we need to disclose these recordings and the metadata attenuated thereto.

As for the reference to the contract, calling the amendment a “second amendment” was an error on the part of the vendor, there was in fact no “first amendment” to the contract. You have all the contracting documentation between our agency and Securus.

Tim

From: Robert Teel

Thank you for the reply Tim. Without waiving any rights and remedies (all such rights and remedies are hereby expressly reserved), I would like to know if the DOC be willing to provide the spreadsheet for the database which the Securus system provides with a reference simply as to whether or not the calls have been recorded? Perhaps we can reach an interim compromise which would provide some of the information requested and which may (or may not) obviate the need for the rest.

The Securus database contains the following columns:

Site PortLoc Ctry Wireless Dialed# Dest Zone Start Time End Time Dur.(s) Acct# PIN Prepaid First Name Last Name Call Type Call Status Term Cat. BlkReason Priv Wat'd Int'l 3Way VB Amount Taxes & Fees Promo Call Test Call Language Dtmf Detect Dtmf Digits Text2Connect RCF LIVECONNECT Tracking Number 1 Shared 1 Note 1

As a compromise (again without any waiver implied), and in order to address your specific objections without resort to legal process, I request that the spreadsheet database be redacted as to the objectionable identifier(s), and then be produced setting forth the dialed number, the destination zone, the start time, the end time, the duration, the call type, the term category, the amount, the taxes and fees, privilege status, Dtmf detect, Dtmf digits, and whether the call is liveconnect. In addition, I request a record simply indicating whether the call was recorded or not.

In addition, the Kansas 2000 Supreme court case of Cypress Medica v. City of Overland Park [citation omitted] stands for the proposition that an agency must prepare a privilege log like that permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) as part of the burden of proving the claim(s) of exemption. Please provide a privilege log that (1) adequately describes individually the withheld records or information by stating the type of record withheld, date, number of pages and author/recipients; and (2) explains which individual exemption applies to which individual record rather than generally asserting exemptions as to all withheld documents. See also Wichita Beacon v. Simmons previously cited.

Finally, please provide a date and time for any follow up, whether confirming the denial in toto or otherwise, as I will need to proceed to the next step if the Dept. of Corrections position remains unchanged. How does this Friday at 5:00 p.m. Central time sound? Can we agree that if I do not hear from you before then, we will consider the remainder of the request denied and I may then pursue my legal rights and remedies without further notice?

Thank you Tim for your continued consideration and professionalism.

Sincerely,

Robert Teel

From: Phelps, Tim

Mr. Teel:

So that we can close this loop. There will be no additional records or documents that will be provided in response to this request for records. The bases on which we believe that the records are not subject to disclosure are as previously indicated.

Tim

From: Robert Teel

Thank you for clarifying .

Sincerely,

Robert Teel

From: Robert Teel

Hello Tim,

I wanted to check one last time before initiating proceedings to see if the DOC will provide non-investigatory materials with no inmate identifiers, such as emails by and between the DOC and Securus in connection with the administration, operation, and maintenance of the system (i.e., emails referring to problems, complaints, glitches, calls not getting through, recording warning prompts, collect calls, recording of private calls, etc.) and call logs, again with no inmate identifiers.

I have reviewed these types of emails and call logs in other proceedings (in particular the spreadsheet call logs) and see no identifiers and no investigatory function. A letter or email sent to or from Securus is not a correctional record. These emails and call logs could in no way reveal the identity of any informant. If so, any such identifiers or numbers could be redacted.

In short, the materials such as emails about administration, operation, and management of the system, call logs, and the records in the DOC inmate management system which you referred to are not exempt from production under the exceptions you cited (which exceptions, as you already know, I respectfully disagree with). Please provide these materials.

You also had indicated that any records I requested which were, "but rather a record from our inmate management system which (if you want that information) will be provided to you once the costs of obtaining and delivering it to you were determined and paid." Please provide that information and/or materials as well.

If I do not receive these materials on or before the end of the third business day following this email, I will pursue my legal rights and remedies without further notice, including without limitation seeking and obtaining a written finding that the materials were withheld in bad faith and without a reasonable basis in fact or in law as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Nothing set forth herein shall be construed as a waiver of any of the undersigned's rights or remedies under applicable law. All such rights and remedies are hereby expressly reserved.

Respectfully submitted,
Robert Teel

From: Phelps, Tim

Good Afternoon, Mr. Teel:

Every time you write me, you modify the terms of your request in some nuance. This makes it difficult to track what it is that you’re requesting and what it is that I need to be searching out the essential questions to provide a response. For that reason, each of your writings require a different analysis to determine what will be provided in accordance with the provisions of KORA. Therefore, I will assess this writing and provide you a response within 72 hours of your request on the question of what will be provided. I do not, under KORA, have to provide the actual materials to you within the 3-day time period, only a response about whether or not the request will be filled.

After I have a chance to cull through this request, I will let you know whether or not I will require you to litigate a resolution. What I will absolutely not do (without a court order to do so) is provide you with recordings. What I either have and/or will provide you otherwise will only be determined after I have had opportunity to get my head around what you’re requesting. If I have it, and KORA doesn’t protect it from disclosure, I will provide it. If I don’t have it, I’m not going to create it just for your request. Many things that relate to the Securus operation I do not require and do not have as an existing report. If I don’t have it, I’m not going to create it.

I’ll be in touch with a more specific response within 72 hours of my receipt of your e-mail.

Tim

[cid:image001.jpg@01D189BC.488B7110]

From: Robert Teel

Dear Tim,

I disagree. These materials are included in the original request. Rather, I am merely paring it back in an effort to get some sort of good faith response. Again, I apologize for the reference to the "Missouri Dept.of Corrections." Other than that confusion,nothing has changed. Here are the original requests, " (iii) other information, about, in connection with, or of, any and all phone calls, emails, videos, or other communications made or received by detainees or inmates using any Securus phone or communication system."

"(2) all contracts, agreements, correspondence, documents, statements, writings and recordings of every kind (mechanical, electronic, typed or written) by and between the [Shawnee County Sheriff's Office] or any other law enforcement agency and Securus, including but not limited to, letters, correspondence, memoranda, notes, audio recordings, reports, and transcriptions in the possession of, or subject to the control of you or Securus."

This is hardly a change. Let's stop horsing around. Again, without waiving any rights or remedies to other materials, the Securus system produces call logs in the form of a spreadsheet that reflects all calls recorded, included private attorney-client calls. I want those call logs. They hardly need be created. In addition, I want emails and attachments (including the call log) between the agency and Securus, including those discussing the recording of private attorney-client phone calls.

As mentioned, this is an offer of compromise to get the ball rolling without unnecessary resort to legal process which may obviate (or not) the need for additional materials.

If you like we can go through separate requests seriatum. If we need to resort to the courts we can do that too, and I will seek attorneys' fees and costs.

Regards,
Robert Teel

From: Phelps, Tim

Mr. Teel:

Upon reviewing this request further, I will not modify my previous position regarding the records related to the phone calls or video visits.

I have no record of e-mail communications with Securus, as we rarely have such communications and we do not maintain those that we do have.

I have no reports that meet your definitions related to the call logs.

Finally, I will obtain the costs regarding the production of all inmate records from the Jail Management System, based on the wide open time parameters, and get those costs to you. If you wish to provide more precise time parameters, I will pass that information on to the persons who will have to generate the cost analysis.

Tim

From: Robert Teel

Hello Tim,

While I would appreciate an estimate of the costs for the records you have referred to as “inmate records from the Jail Management System,” to the extent they are records described in the exception to the exemption provided under KSA 45-221(a)(29), it does not appear they would be responsive to my request or useful, although it is impossible to tell without seeing one of them. I cannot understand how this information would have anything to do with Securus or the constitutionality of recording detainee phone calls.

Let me otherwise try and make the record clear as I understand it.

First, the DOC is standing pat on its original claims of exemption in toto in connection with any materials other than the 20 pages set forth in the three RFAs you produced;

Second, the DOC is refusing my request to provide information (a log): (a) describing the withheld materials; (b) stating the type of record withheld, the date, the number of pages, and the author/recipients; or (c) explaining which claimed exemption applies to which individual record;

Third, the DOC is refusing to separate or redact non-exempt material from exempt material and provide the non-exempt materials, or is otherwise claiming there is no non-exempt material;

Fourth, the DOC maintains there are no contracts, agreements, letters, emails, correspondence, documents, statements, memoranda, notes, reports, or other writings between the DOC and Securus;

Fifth, the DOC has no records of any emails to or from Securus as they are rare and are not maintained; and

Sixth, the DOC has no reports or access to spreadsheets related to call logs as I’ve requested.

While I’m sure the DOC is more familiar with the Securus system(s) than I am, if it will help I can provide you with a copy of a call log spreadsheet (from another jurisdiction) to which Securus law enforcement clients are provided access. It is the same as I described in my correspondence of February 29, 2016, and to the extent a hard copy is not physically in your possession, it is in electronic format at your fingertips on the Securus system.

To the extent the DOC is destroying email and other correspondence with Securus during the administration of the Securus contract as “routine” or “no longer useful” under the provisions of KSA 45-404 and the records retention schedules promulgated thereunder, I request that practice stop. Inasmuch as it appears this matter is headed to litigation, I request any correspondence (electronic or otherwise) with Securus, or in any way connected with this matter, be treated as evidence, policy related correspondence, and/or associated contract documents and be preserved.

I hope this accurately summarizes where things stand. If I have misunderstood or there will be any supplemental responses, please let me know by close of business on Monday. Otherwise, I will pursue other available rights and remedies without further notice.

Sincerely,
Robert Teel

From: Phelps, Tim

Mr. Teel:

Please see below the exchange I had with the County I.T. Director. Since you provided no more detailed information about our Inmate Management System records, I have taken what you have provided and extrapolated what data points would be required for production, and the timeline (period we have been under contract with Securus Technologies).

If this options is acceptable and you want me to proceed, please provide payment for the records of $96 in the form of a cashier’s check made to the order of “Shawnee County”, and mail it to my contact information below. Upon receipt of the payment, I will direct the County I.T. department to perform the work and produce the results and have them e-mailed to you.

Tim

[cid:image001.jpg@01D1900B.63697270]

Tim,

It looks like we can provide the below in Excel Spreadsheet format in a file that would be under 10MB in size. That would be small enough to email to someone so we wouldn’t have to bother with FTP or hardware transfers. Staff time would be about 4 hours. Since our flat rate is $24/hr for IT staff time for KORA requests the cost would be about $96.

Let me know if you need anything else on this.
Thanks!
Pat

From: Robert Teel

Hello Tim,

Regarding the inmate management system, I cannot tell if it is responsive to the request or not. Does it have any reference at all to phone calls made using the Securus system? If so, it is responsive and I want it. If not, I am entitled to know that as well before wasting resources. Please inform me if it is responsive to the request. I don't want to guess.

Tim, I have obtained the spreadsheet that Securus provides to law enforcement pursuant to open record act requests to other jurisdictions. You have indicated you have no such spreadsheet and cannot readily retrieve it.

I have also read over 2,500 emails regarding the operation of the Securus system for one year provided by another jurisdiction. You have indicated you have no correspondence with Securus. My investigation to date has revealed that potential constitutional violations are endemic to the Securus systems and procedures and I view this as a serious matter.

These and other records for the Shawnee DOC were originally defined in my request. That request has not changed other than to correct a typographical error.

To sum it up. As I understand it you have no records responsive to the request. If the inmate management system is responsive let me know and I will get you payment. If not, let me know that and we will proceed to legal process.

Sincerely,
Robert Teel

From: Robert Teel

Hello Tim,

Payment is on its way. I look forward to following up soon.

Sincerely,
Robert Teel

From: MuckRock.com


To Whom It May Concern:

Please find enclosed a check for $96.00 to satisfy the fee associated with the attached public records request.

Thank you.

From: Phelps, Tim

Good Morning, Mr. Teel:

I have been out of the office for several days, and upon my return I found an envelope that contained a check in the amount of $96.00, together with a printed series of pages that purport to be the totality of your “public records request”. The document is dated April 28, 2016. The documentation that appears to be a representation of our e-mail exchanges related to your records request. Many of these entries, including those dated more recently than the entry of April 6, 2016 (the e-mail that this writing is attached to) were never received by me prior to receiving them in the written format. I have checked all of my e-mail history to confirm that I received nothing from you on April 8 or April 25. I do not suggest that you did not send them, but they never landed in my “Inbox”, and I cannot find them in any other location on the County server.

This is an important point only for the reason that in the text of the purported April 8 writing, you state:

“Regarding the inmate management system, I cannot tell if it is responsive to the request or not. Does it have any reference at all to phone calls made using the Securus system? If so, it is responsive and I want it. If not, I am entitled to know that as well before wasting resources. Please inform me if it is responsive to the request. I don’t want to guess.”

If I had received this e-mail from you on April 8th, I would have told you that the Inmate Management System records that I have identified as being capable of being gathered and sent to you for $96.00 do not have any direct relationship to the Securus system. Those records would indicate who was booked into the facility, and since all inmates booked into the facility are automatically passed onto the Securus software to enable the inmate to use a phone and video visitation account, the listing will allow you to know who was eligible for a Securus account. However, the records will not identify anything related to Securus accounts.

In light of this information, please confirm if you want me to proceed with fulfilling your request or if you want me to return your check and to what address.

Tim.

From: Robert Teel

Hi Tim,

Let me see if I can clear up any confusion on where things stand.

First, I understand you did not receive: (a) my email of April 8, 2016 regarding the inmate management system report; or (b) my email of April 28, 2016 confirming I would be sending payment, but you have them now.

Second. please fulfill and produce any items you believe are responsive to my request, including the inmate management system report I sent payment for. If there are any other responsive materials, please produce them. If not, and you believe your response is complete and in accordance with the KORA, please advise.

Third, while I have been and remain open to conferring with you in order to further the purpose and objectives of the KORA and/or reach a compromise as to any items we may disagree about, it is the agency's burden to respond in accordance with the law. I can't speculate or guess as to what you have or are withholding. Neither can I tell you what to produce or not produce other than to request you provide everything I have asked for.

As always, don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,
Robert Teel

Files

pages

Close