More Government Agencies Filing Lawsuits Against Public Records Requesters

from the Exhibit-A:-photo-of-extended-middle-finger dept

Gritted-teeth lip service to freedom of information laws continues in the public sector. If stonewalling and/or outrageous fee demands aren't enough to dissuade requesters from seeking documents, more and more government agencies are deploying Plan C.

Government bodies are increasingly turning the tables on citizens who seek public records that might be embarrassing or legally sensitive. Instead of granting or denying their requests, a growing number of school districts, municipalities and state agencies have filed lawsuits against people making the requests — taxpayers, government watchdogs and journalists who must then pursue the records in court at their own expense.

The lawsuits generally ask judges to rule that the records being sought do not have to be divulged. They name the requesters as defendants but do not seek damage awards.

All well and good no damages are being sought, but what happens to the requesters-turned-defendants? The records they originally sought might have been had for little to nothing, in terms of out-of-pocket expenses. But now, thanks to the actions of government agencies, they're obliged to rack up expenses fighting the lawsuit, or otherwise cede the battle to the government and never get their hands on the requested records.

Those deploying this tactic say there's nothing wrong with proactive lawsuits against records requesters. According to these entities, the courts can make the best determination whether requested records are eligible for release.

But they're wrong.

Records requesters have the option to sue when records are denied and the court can make the determination then. This leaves the power in the hands of the people, who can choose whether or not they want to make the time/money investment of filing a public records lawsuit. If they succeed, the government can be forced to pay their legal fees.

Skipping this step puts the burden solely on the requesters. They have to front their own legal costs and, because the government is the moving party, they have zero chance of recouping legal fees even if the court finds in favor of the records requesters.

If nothing else, the tactic greatly increases the delay between the request and the delivery of records. In newsworthy cases, the preemptive lawsuit option can least put some time and distance between government misconduct and records revealing the misdeeds. It's nothing more than a low-risk cheap shot that that makes a mockery of public records laws.

Fortunately, the AP reports, changes are being made to public records laws to prevent the government from engaging in these transparency-thwarting efforts.

In Michigan, the state House voted 108-0 earlier this year in favor of a bill that would make it illegal for agencies to sue public records requesters. The proposal came in response to a county’s lawsuit against a local newspaper that had sought the personnel files of two employees running for sheriff. A judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying the county had to approve or deny the request.

The documents, ultimately released days before the election, showed that one of the candidates had been disciplined for carrying on an affair while on-duty in 2011. That candidate lost.

But there are only a couple of exceptions to the rule. And the bill in Michigan has yet to be signed into law. For the most part, the government only risks some reputational damage when suing records requesters. Most don't have much to spare, but are more than willing to part with it if it means keeping the public in the dark.

Filed Under: chilling effects, foia, lawsuits, public records, transparency

California's Top Court Says Cops Have To Hand Over Automatic Plate Reader Records

from the no-more-hiding-behind-abused-exceptions dept

The EFF and ACLU have achieved a victory in an acronym-heavy public records case. The California Supreme Court has ruled the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) will have to turn over data acquired by their automatic license plate readers (ALPRs).

Both entities tried to keep these records from the EFF and ACLU by claiming every single one of the millions of plate records were "investigatory records," exempt from disclosure under California's public records law. This apparently included the millions of "non-hit" records never utilized in any LAPD/LASD investigation. With the plate readers collecting 1.5-2 million records per week, they were basically arguing every driver passing by an ALPR was under investigation.

That's not how the state's Supreme Court sees it [PDF]. The "investigatory records" exemption pertains to targeted, ongoing investigations. The public records law cannot be stretched to cover indiscriminate mass surveillance.

Accordingly, we hold that real parties’ process of ALPR scanning does not produce records of investigations, because the scans are not conducted as part of a targeted inquiry into any particular crime or crimes. The scans are conducted with an expectation that the vast majority of the data collected will prove irrelevant for law enforcement purposes. We recognize that it may not always be an easy task to identify the line between traditional “investigation” and the sort of “bulk” collection at issue here. But wherever the line may ultimately fall, it is at least clear that real parties’ ALPR process falls on the bulk collection side of it.

The court also says the fact that the database of records is routinely searched during current investigations does not make everything in it immune from public records requests. If the law were interpreted this way, all it would take to exempt every one of the millions of plate records from disclosure would be the inclusion of a targeted plate in every batch of ALPR records requested.

The law enforcement agencies also claimed any release of the data would harm law enforcement interests, supposedly by giving criminals the info they needed to avoid plate readers. The Supreme Court finds this far less persuasive than the lower court did.

The trial court appears to have placed significant weight on the possibility that a criminal could use ALPR data to identify law enforcement patrol patterns. The court did so based on the declaration of LAPD Sergeant Daniel Gomez. In pertinent part, Sergeant Gomez claimed that an individual requesting ALPR data “could use the data to try and identify patterns of a particular vehicle.” (Italics added.) However, Sergeant Gomez also seemed to cast doubt on the likelihood that an individual could do so successfully, explaining that “[u]nlike law enforcement that uses additional departmental resources to validate captured [A]LPR information, a private person would be basing their assumptions solely on the data created by the [A]LPR system . . . .” Nevertheless, we will assume, as the trial court found, that a person could at least roughly infer patrol patterns from a week’s worth of plate scan data.

The problem with this aspect of the trial court’s analysis is that, even assuming patrol patterns can be inferred from ALPR data, there is little reason to believe that this possibility points meaningfully toward “a clear overbalance on the side of confidentiality” with respect to all the records sought. (Michaelis, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1071.) For one thing, fixed ALPR scanners are just that—fixed— so concerns about patrol patterns are inapplicable to the data they collect. For another, the record does not appear to indicate that knowledge of where law enforcement officers were during a particular week is a reliable guide to where they will be at some precise moment in the future. The trial court did not find, for example, that real parties conduct law enforcement in the same way that they might operate a bus service—moving from point to point at particular times on particular days, never deviating to attend to other business or emergencies. We are not aware of substantial evidence that would have supported such a finding.

The court, however, does find one thing to be concerned with, and it's an issue the LAPD/LASD generally doesn't take into consideration until they're being asked to hand over bulk collection records: privacy.

Although we acknowledge that revealing raw ALPR data would be helpful in determining the extent to which ALPR technology threatens privacy, the act of revealing the data would itself jeopardize the privacy of everyone associated with a scanned plate. Given that real parties each conduct more than one million scans per week, this threat to privacy is significant. We therefore conclude that the public interest in preventing such disclosure “clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of” these records.

This means the ACLU and EFF will end up with the data they seek, but in anonymized form. It's unclear at this point how this will be anonymized, or if the data, in its abstracted form, will show anything interesting. And there's still more discussion to be had on remand before the ACLU/EFF can actually take possession of the one week of ALPR data they requested. But it's still a significant precedent -- one that narrows the scope of an often-abused public records exemption.

Filed Under: alpr, automatic license plate reader, california, california supreme court, la, lapd, lasd, license plate readers, public records, transparency
Companies: aclu, eff

Officers With Personal Body Cams Taking The 'Public' Out Of 'Public Accountability'

from the purchase-the-new-Axon-CYA! dept

America's largest sheriff's department is rolling towards an accountability train wreck. Despite years of discussing the issue, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department still has no cohesive policy on body cameras, nor has it taken steps to outfit its officers with the devices.

This less-than-ideal situation is being made worse by deputies purchasing their own body cameras with personal funds.

An estimated 20 percent of Los Angeles County's 10,000 deputies have bought cameras for themselves, according to the county's inspector general. Sheriff Jim McDonnell concedes some deputies have their own cameras but disputes that as many as 2,000 wear them on duty.

Whatever the number, not a single frame of any video from these cameras has ever made it into the public domain.

And therein lies the problem. Body cameras owned by law enforcement officers serve zero public purpose. Any recordings remain the personal property of the officers, who can delete and edit footage as they see fit. The only footage likely to make its way into the hands of the sheriff's department are recordings clearing officers of wrongdoing.

While it may be possible to subpoena this footage for civil suits and criminal prosecutions, there's no guarantee the footage will arrive unaltered, or even arrive at all. Personal body cams are unlikely to be bundled with unlimited storage. Footage will be overwritten often (depending on how heavily the camera is used while on duty) and remains in the control of officers, rather than the department and its oversight.

As is pointed out in the AP article, the use of privately-owned body cameras contradicts DOJ guidance on the matter. A 2014 DOJ report noted private cameras on public employees is an all-around bad idea.

"Because the agency would not own the recorded data, there would be little or no protection against the officer tampering with the videos or releasing them to the public or online," the report said. "Agencies should not permit personnel to use privately owned body-worn cameras while on duty."

The LA sheriff's department makes this worse by allowing the practice to continue without official policies on body camera use. Even the barest minimum of discipline for deleting footage is impossible, as the department is powerless to take action against deputies who vanish away footage containing alleged misconduct.

The head of the local law enforcement union pretty much says the only people benefiting from personal body cameras are the officers that own them.

"It's really a personal preference," [union president Ron] Hernandez said. "The guys we have spoken to have said they thought it would be beneficial for them. They see the value in covering themselves."

Sorry, but that's not what body cameras are for. They may provide evidence clearing officers of misconduct, but body cameras aren't there to create law enforcement highlight reels. While it's great some officers may find the cameras useful for clearing themselves of charges, they are public employees, not private entities engaging in personal enforcement of laws. The footage should be as public as their positions. But this will never happen if their employer is unwilling to craft a solid body cam policy that addresses private ownership of cameras.

As it stands now, the department is allowing its existing policies on evidence handling to act as a stand-in for its non-existent body camera policy. According to these rules, all evidence must be held for two years and turned over on request to the sheriff's department. Supposedly, this will encompass privately-held body camera footage. But it would be much better for body cam evidence to be stored on site where it's immediately accessible and less prone to tampering.

Body cameras are already problematic. They have the potential to be great tools of accountability, but this has been continually stunted by legislators and law enforcement agencies, many of which have done all they can to keep this footage out of the public's hands. In this case, the LASD's lack of forward momentum on the camera front has turned a portion of its workforce into sole proprietors with badges, guns, and a collection of home movies starring residents of L.A. County.

Filed Under: accountability, body cameras, la, los angeles county, personal body cameras, police, public records

Months Later, VP Mike Pence Ready To Turn Over Private Emails, Explain What An AOL Account Is

from the as-transparent-as-he's-forced-to-be dept

Months after he left office to become Trump's running mate, former Indiana governor Mike Pence is finally releasing emails from his personal AOL accounts. This sort of thing would normally be reserved for only the wonkiest of public records wonks, but the Trump campaign spent a great deal of time deriding Hillary Clinton for using a personal email account to handle official State Department email.

It's slightly more of a big deal, thanks to Pence's efforts to keep these emails from becoming public. He went to court late last year to protect the content of certain emails from being released. Pence's lawyer actually argued the court had no business telling the governor's office what can and can't be redacted. So much for the idea of checks and balances.

As the result of multiple requests and multiple lawsuits, Pence is now releasing most of what [his lawyer says] is contained in his AOL accounts.

Pence attorney Karoline Jackson said in a recent email to the state's legal counsel that “a complete electronic production of state records" from Pence's time as governor had been delivered to the state as of June 23.

The office of Pence's successor, Gov. Eric Holcomb, said the records consist of state-related emails from two AOL accounts Pence used as governor.

"Our office is now in the process of reviewing the records, and we anticipate being in a position to provide copies of records that are responsive to pending (public record) requests soon," Holcomb spokeswoman Stephanie Wilson said.

So, according to his own spokespeople, Pence will finally be complying with the state's public records law. Not that he didn't try to be a dick about it.

Previously, Pence had only provided some of his AOL emails to the state, and those he did provide were in paper form, making them difficult to search.

Fortunately for those requesting the emails, the new, full batch will come in electronic form, which will greatly assist them in finding the contents they're interested in. According to the WHAS11 report, there are more than 50 open records requests targeting Pence's AOL emails.

While this doc dump will result in far more transparency than Pence is used to, there are still some concerns about what's being withheld. Rather than have his former office review the emails before turning them over to requesters, Pence had his private lawyer take a look at them instead. That's not really the way things are supposed to work for public officials. This will make redactions and withheld documents more difficult to challenge, as there's another layer -- a non-government layer -- of vetting separating requesters from their requested documents.

There's also a good chance whatever's being looked at is incomplete. Public officials who use private email for official business are supposed to forward all work-related emails to government servers for storage. At this point, there appears to be no indication Pence has done that. Instead, a privately-employed lawyer has been picking through what's left in two private AOL accounts and everyone involved is claiming, without supporting evidence, they're living up to the letter and spirit of Indiana's open records laws.

Filed Under: emails, foia, mike pence, public records, transparency

Journalist Sues FCC For Hiding Details About Its Alleged, Phantom DDOS Attack

from the calling-your-bluff dept

You might recall that when John Oliver did his latest piece on net neutrality, the FCC's comment system ground to a halt under the load of viewers pissed to realize that the FCC is trying to kill popular consumer protections protecting them from buffoonery by the likes of Comcast. But the FCC then did something odd: it claimed that a DDOS attack, not HBO's hit show, resulted in the website's issues. A statement issued by the FCC proclaimed that extensive "analysis" by the FCC had led the agency to conclude that it had suffered the attack at roughly the same time Oliver's program had ended:

"Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDos). These were deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial cloud host. These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC."

The problem: security experts saw no evidence that claim was true in publicly available logs, and saw none of the usual indicators preceding such an attack. And the FCC ever since has been bizarrely cagey, refusing to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting its claim. The FCC was subsequently prodded by several Senators as to the nature of the attack, but the FCC still refused to share any real data, despite agency boss Ajit Pai repeatedly, breathlessly insisting he would be a stalwart defender of transparency at the agency.

And when Gizmodo recently filed a FOIA request for anything regarding the nature of the attack, the FCC first released seventeen pages of nonsense, before admitting it had no documented "analysis" proving an attack as previously claimed. When additional websites began to point out that the FCC's behavior here was a little odd, the agency sent out a strangely-punchy press release lambasting news outlets for being "irresponsible."

So what's really happening here? The unsubstantiated journalist guess du jour is that the FCC bizarrely made up a DDOS attack in a feeble attempt to downplay the "John Oliver effect" in the media. "We weren't inundated by millions of people angry that we're killing popular consumer protections solely to the benefit of Comcast," this narrative suggests, "we were unfairly attacked!" The fact that there never actually was a DDOS attack would go a long way toward explaining the Trump FCC's subsequent inability to provide any evidence supporting the claim, even under pressure from Congress.

Hoping to flesh this theory out a bit, journalist Kevin Collier last week filed a lawsuit against the FCC (pdf) not only demanding more data on the agency's supposed DDOS attack, but also urging the FCC to provide some insight on what it's doing to address the wave of bogus, bot-produced anti-net neutrality comments flooding the agency's website in recent months:

"Collier said his records request was prompted by the FCC’s “weird and cagey” inclination to obscure details about the incident. “The fact that they gave Gizmodo such a runaround in its own request for internal ‘analysis’ of the attack just goes to show this,” he said. “I want to know the full story.” Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, told Gizmodo last week the FCC’s actions raised “legitimate questions about whether the agency is being truthful when it claims a DDoS attack knocked its commenting system offline.”

Again, the refusal to address fraudulent anti-net neutrality comments being made at the FCC website (like the one made in my name), combined with the FCC's bizarre, phantom DDOS attack, has many believing the FCC is actively engaged in an intentional, amateurish attempt to downplay the massive backlash to their assault on net neutrality. And while it's entirely possible the FCC is just being non-transparent and generically stupid here, if it can be proved the agency actively lied about a DDOS attack then covered it up simply to downplay the immense unpopularity of its policies, the inevitable lawsuits against the agency in the wake of its final vote to kill the rules could get very interesting.

Filed Under: ddos, fcc, foia, kevin collier, public records

Massachusetts State Police Take $180 From Records Requester; Refuse To Turn Over Records

from the taking-your-cake-and-eating-it-too dept

The police department of the largest city in the US often tops the list of public records villains. According to FOIA requesters, the NYPD manages to out-stonewall notoriously recalcitrant entities like the NSA, FBI, and CIA. Not far behind the NYPD, however, is the entire state of Massachusetts.

This state has the worst public records laws in the nation, with 19 pages of exemptions -- almost one-third of its 60-page public records statute. Various state entities have done things like withhold documents on a 63-year-old murder case, citing the "ongoing" nature of an investigation with zero leads and several dead suspects. Officials have also claimed the state's SWAT teams are private entities, out of the reach of public records requests. The state's lawyers have previously argued the state laws -- as crippled as they are -- hand over too much power to constituents.

But possibly nothing beats the Massachusetts state police. Investigative Reporters and Editors handed the agency its "Golden Padlock" award in 2015 for being the most secretive agency in the nation. The agency does far more than stonewall requesters. It sets up astronomical paywalls between requesters and their records.

IRE notes the $42,750 and $62,220 fees handed to the Boston Globe for the log of its public records requests and records of crashes involving police cruisers, respectively. IRE also mentions that a Bay State Examiner reporter was told to pay a $710.50 “non-refundable research fee” for an estimate of another fee to obtain copies of internal affairs reports.

MuckRock records requester Andrew Quemere wasn't hit with a huge fee for his records request. He was asked for $180 up front before the state police would respond to his request for records. But then the state police decided to keep its records… and Quemere's money, too.

After pocketing $180 in fees for a public records request, the Massachusetts State Police (MSP) turned around and attempted to convince the state supervisor of public records that the agency didn’t have to turn the records over.

Quemere was searching for records on marijuana possession enforcement, attempting to see if the MSP were still busting people for pot after voters had approved legalization but before the law took effect. He made this request last December. At first, the MSP tried to argue all the records were exempt from disclosure, citing a criminal records statute which forbade the disclosure of suspects' and arrestees' names and other personal info.

Quemere pointed out this information could be redacted before the docs were released to him. The state's Supervisor of Records agreed with Quemere and told MSP to release the redacted records. The state police then asked Quemere for $180 to cover the review and redacting costs: 7.2 hours @ $25/hour.

Quemere crowdfunded the fee and sent MSP the check. That's when the state police went from less-than-responsive to entirely unresponsive.

I raised the money through a crowdfunding campaign, and MuckRock sent the MSP a check on March 1. However, the MSP never turned over the records or even acknowledged receiving the check. On March 31, I asked the MSP if they had received the check, but the agency did not respond.

Quemere filed another appeal, hoping to at least find out where his money was, if not his requested records. The state supervisor again ruled in favor of Quemere and noted the state police claimed the records would be ready in ten days. Guess what didn't happen.

Instead, Glenn Rooney, an MSP lawyer sent the supervisor of records an email on April 28th in which he again argued that the reports were exempt under the CORI statute. Rooney wrote that the CORI statute allows agencies to withhold records in their entirety, and there is no obligation for them to redact records protected by CORI. He further argued that the MSP could not release the records because someone could use police logs to identify the arrestees.

Nearly a month later, Quemere filed his third appeal. And for a third time, the state records supervisor overruled the state police and told the agency to hand over the records.

I wish I could tell this has now been resolved but a visit to the request page shows the state police still have yet to turn over the requested records, much less give Quemere an expected due date. As it stands now, there's a ton of unproductive correspondence from the state police uploaded and an expected completion date of "none."

Filed Under: foia, massachsetts, police, public records

Judge Smacks NYPD For Its 'Gotcha' Tactics In Forfeiture Public Records Lawsuit

from the you're-the-worst dept

New York's court system is finally pushing back against the NYPD's refusal to provide better accounting of its forfeiture programs. Late last year, the NYPD informed people requesting information on seizures it had no way of compiling this data for them. Its $12 million software -- meant to provide "cradle-to-grave" tracking of seized property -- apparently couldn't handle routine inquiries about seizure totals.

When the NYPD did decide to talk about its forfeiture operations, it used incomplete and misleading numbers. It claimed to have forfeited only around $12,000 in 2015, something miles away from the $69 million estimate of seized cash-on-hand others had cobbled together using info the NYPD had managed to turn over. According to numbers the NYPD said its software couldn't compile, the department had generated $6 million in revenue in 2015 alone.

The Bronx Defenders, a group of public defenders, has been trying for nearly four years to force the NYPD to turn over documents related to its forfeiture programs. The NYPD has a few of these, including an unofficial program that turns personal belongings into "evidence" upon arrest and forces those with dismissed charges or acquittals to jump through a number of time-consuming and expensive hoops to reclaim their belongings -- which include things like cellphones, cash, credit cards, and prescription medication.

The NYPD's refusal to cooperate with the Bronx Defenders' FOIL request has led to a lawsuit. The city moved to have it dismissed, but Judge Arlene Bluth doesn't see much merit in the NYPD's arguments. Or actions.

Displeased by what she described as the New York City Police Department’s “troublesome” litigation tactics, a judge advanced a lawsuit that asks what happens to millions of unclaimed dollars seized in civil forfeitures.

[...]

Rejecting a motion to dismiss the case in Manhattan Supreme Court, Judge Arlene Bluth accused the NYPD and its former Commissioner Bill Bratton on Friday of playing games to avoid disclosures.

In the dismissal of the city's motion, the judge criticizes the NYPD for its constant claims its software can't provide the information the plaintiffs are seeking. The plaintiffs have pointed out they don't need aggregate data. They're willing to take raw data, copies of original documents, or whatever else might allow them to get a better handle on the forfeiture programs the NYPD doesn't want to discuss. The NYPD, however, keeps pointing at its expensive (but apparently worthless) PETS (Property and Evidence Tracking System) software and shrugging.

The judge points out [PDF] that the NYPD has pushed the Bronx Defenders into a catch-22 in hopes of keeping this information from being made public.

Respondents have effectively changed their argument from stating that no responsive documents exist to insisting that producing the information would be too burdensome. This argument directly relates to a troubling assertion by petitioner that respondents refused to confer with petitioner about the way in which these records are kept. 21 NYCR 1401.2(b)(2) requires the records access officer to "assist persons seeking records to identify the records sought, if necessary, and when appropriate, indicate the manner in which the records are filed, retrieved or generated to assist persons in reasonably describing records." It is obvious that it would be necessary to assist a petitioner seeking records from a database under the complete control of the agency and a database not available for public use.

Otherwise, petitioner is forced to make requests without any knowledge of the capabilities of the database. That is what has occurred here. Respondents do not directly contest this point in their reply to the cross-motion and simply assert that they have no duty to solicit additional information about the requests. While that might be true, there is a difference between soliciting more information and assisting the requestor in reasonably describing the records sought especially, where, as here, the records are kept on a specialized database.

In other words, the NYPD is claiming requesters must know all the nuances and intricacies of a database they're never allowed to access. If they don't, then the NYPD is under no obligation to assist them in any way. This is a common government tactic and not solely limited to the NYPD, although this agency has been referred to as worse than the FBI, CIA, and NSA when it comes to FOI responsiveness.

Judge Bluth goes on to state the NYPD's actions have been, at best, disingenuous.

The record before this Court shows that respondents have only now, more than two years after petitioner's FOIL request, attempted to describe the ways in which these records are kept. This type of "gotcha" litigation tactic is especially troublesome in a FOIL proceeding where petitioner does not have access to the database containing the requested information. Respondents' claims about the burdensome nature of producing individual invoices clearly demonstrates the purpose of assisting a requestor--it is consistent with the spirit of FOIL to let a requestor know how records are kept so that the petitioner can conform requests to receive the information sought and try to avoid unduly burdening an agency.

The NYPD has long shown it has no interest in following the letter of FOIL law, much less its spirit. For requesters, this means the path to responsive documents often leads through home team courtrooms. It's a trip not many are willing to make and the NYPD knows it.

Filed Under: foia, forfeiture, nypd, public records

Fourteen Years After Being Sued, Bureau Of Prisons Finally Settles FOIA Lawsuit

from the Forever-Litigation dept

A little less than two years ago, we covered Prison Legal News' FOIA lawsuit against the Bureau of Prisons. While we're aware litigation is seldom a swift process, PLN's ongoing lawsuit was particularly epic: twelve years after filing its initial requests for records covering a period from 1996-2003, the DC Appeals Court reversed the lower court's decision in favor of the US BOP and instructed it to order the government to hand over the requested records to PLN.

Two years after that ruling -- fourteen years after PLN sued -- the government is finally settling the case. The government Taxpayers will be paying out nearly a half-million dollars for more than a decade of government stonewalling and obfuscatory litigation.

From the decision [PDF]:

1. The parties do hereby agree to settle, compromise and dismiss the above-entitled action under the terms and conditions set forth herein.

2. Since Plaintiff filed Civil Action No. 05-01812, Defendant agency has produced material Responsive to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request originally filed by Plaintiff; Plaintiff is satisfied with that production.

3. Defendant agency shall pay Plaintiff a lump sum of $420,000 in attorneys' fees and costs in this matter pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(e).

Despite the Appeals Court finding the BOP misused FOIA exemptions and engaged in wildly-inconsistent redactions, the settlement from the government comes with a "this isn't our fault" stipulation.

This Stipulation and Dismissal shall not constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Defendant or Defendant agency or the United States or their agents, servants, or employees, and is entered into by both parties for the sole purpose of compromising disputed claims and avoiding the expenses and risks associated with further litigation.

If the government was really interested in "avoiding the expenses" of further litigation, you'd think it would have settled this case sometime during the last ten years. But the government wasn't interested in ending its litigation. It only decided to settle when it became apparent it wasn't going to win the case. Litigating further would have subjected it (or rather, US taxpayers) to an even larger legal fee payout.

This is how hard the government is willing to fight to keep public records out of the public's hands. Understandably, it was in no hurry to hand out evidence of crimes committed against prisoners by BOP employees, but power is supposed to be tied to accountability. The BOP doesn't care much for accountability or transparency. Since it has unlimited resources and time, engaging in a legal battle whose length rivals that of the War on Terror is no big deal. Only when faced with an inevitable loss did it finally concede, and its concession comes with "this isn't a concession" boilerplate attached.

Filed Under: bop, bureau of prisons, foia, lawsuits, public records

Taser/Axon Separating Defense Lawyers From Body Camera Footage With License Agreements

from the how-badly-do-you-want-this-evidence? dept

Taser Inc.'s quiet takeover of evidence generation and storage -- through extensive body camera offerings -- was put on public display when the company rebranded as Axon. The company was willing to give away cameras in exchange for something far more lucrative: software licensing and footage access fees in perpetuity.

Axon even nailed down a choice URL: Evidence.com. This is the portal to law enforcement body camera footage stored in Axon's cloud -- the real moneymaker for Axon. The cameras are just the gateway drug.

But much of what's stored at Evidence.com could be considered public records. Much of what's stored there could also be subject to discovery by defense attorneys during criminal proceedings. But no one asked defense attorneys if this arrangement worked for them. It was enough that it worked for cops.

Defense attorney Rick Horowitz has a problem with contractual agreements he's being asked to sign when attempting to gain access to records regarding his client. Instead of handing out files, prosecutors are handing out URLs. To obtain the records he needs, Horowitz is forced to use Axon's portal… and sign agreements with Axon before he's allowed to access anything. (via Simple Justice)

[I]n the case of Evidence.com, such access does come from Axon. In fact, I have so far been prevented from obtaining the discovery in my juvenile case. Why? Because I refused to sign the license agreement with Axon to obtain access to their—not the city, county, or city and county’s, but Axon’s—website.

Why did I do that? Because, among other things, The “Evidence.com Terms of Use” require me to promise certain things I will not promise. I can’t find a link to the Terms of Use online—there are links to a Master Agreement that apparently whoever purchases the use of the system signs, and to some kind of user manual (which I haven’t yet read)—so I saved the Evidence.com Terms of Use I was asked to sign here.

The first thing that draws one up abruptly (again, aside from the fact that law enforcement is ignoring the law by disseminating juvenile records to Axon in the first place) is this:

"You consent to Axon’s access and use of the Account Content in order to….improve Axon’s Products and Services. In addition, for content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (“IP Content”), you specifically give us the following permission: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, irrevocable, royalty-free, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use any IP Content that you post on or in connection with the Services (IP License)."

The EULA may be boilerplate, but the situation is anything but normal. Horowitz doesn't care much for the fact that Axon's storage of court records and discovery documents is controlled solely by Axon by forcing users to waive a great deal of their rights in exchange for access.

But it's even worse in this case, which involves a juvenile. California law provides extensive protections for the privacy of juveniles -- even those accused of crimes. But these appear to have been ignored by every law enforcement agency that agreed to do business with Axon. These are also being ignored by Axon, which treats all uploaded footage equally. It doesn't meet California's privacy standards -- a problem that only seems to concern those defending juvenile arrestees.

[N]either Evidence.com, nor Axon—not even in its prior incarnation as “Taser International,” for that matter—are listed in WIC 827 as lawfully able to receive, or disseminate, juvenile records. No corporation is.

[...]

This is problematic not just because it means that law enforcement officers, and complicit District Attorney Offices—and, by the way, defense attorneys who signed up for the service, and thereby not only acquiesced, but agreed to give up certain rights regarding their clients’ data, too—have ignored the law. It is also problematic because, so far as I know, the courts are unaware of this. At least, I hope the courts are unaware of this, because if they are aware of this, that means that the courts have also sanctioned ignoring the laws of the State of California as pertains to juveniles.

If you don't agree to a third party's terms of service, you don't get access to records that belong to the public. This isn't just stored camera footage stashed away in Axon's cloud. It's evidence that's supposed to be handed over to the defense. It's evidence that's supposed to be presented in court by prosecutors. It's public records of public employees' interactions with the public. It's a lot of things that shouldn't be tied up by a EULA that demands users give up some of their rights to access public records.

And if this seems to have been handled badly in regards to California's privacy laws, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Axon is everywhere. Axon/Taser has locked down a majority of the body camera market. Its cloud storage and footage access front end is the moneymaker that allows it to lock down even more of the market by giving law enforcement free cameras subsidized by perpetual access and licensing fees. All of this is being agreed to with almost zero input from the public, which is now being forced to play by Axon's rules if it wants to access public records and court documents.

Filed Under: body cameras, license agreements, public records
Companies: axon, taser

'Backdoor' Search Of FBI Records Helps Parents Learn How Local Cops Killed Their Son

from the Texas-gives-bad-cops-free-rides dept

This long Austin American-Statesman investigative report details apparent police brutality as discovered by parents who were kept in the dark by local cops about how their teenaged son actually died. It all started with their 5'4" 110-lb. 18-year-old suffering through a bad acid trip while hanging out with friends. It ended in the hospital with their son brain-dead, on life support, and the arresting agency unwilling to say anything more than their son had suffered a "head injury."

To the law enforcement agency, it's just another in-custody death. To the parents of Graham Dyer, it's long-delayed closure to a chapter kept deliberately unfinished by the law enforcement agencies who took Dyer into custody and returned him to his parents more dead than alive.

In Texas, the system is stacked against victims of police misconduct. State law, upheld by court decisions, make it almost impossible to mount a lawsuit against law enforcement officers. Courts are generally receptive to law enforcement claims and extremely hesitant to strip officers of immunity, no matter how egregious the apparent civil rights violation. This situation is made much, much worse in Texas where documents needed to propel a lawsuit past a judge's first reading often can't be obtained from the law enforcement agency holding them.

State law says a police agency isn’t required to turn over records for incidents that don’t result in a conviction. Graham, who’d been charged with assaulting a police officer after the confrontation, had died before his case could be litigated. So, the department reasoned, his records were confidential. Asked to weigh in on the dispute, then-Attorney General Greg Abbott agreed the Mesquite police could refuse the Dyers’ request.

The most important part of this paragraph is two words in the last sentence: "could refuse." The law does not forbid departments from handing over this information. It simply gives them a legal excuse not to. The Mesquite PD could have closed this tragic chapter in the Dyers' lives, but doing so would have guaranteed a lawsuit. So, it withheld the records, ensuring the officers involved in Graham Dyer's death remained free of accountability. It continued to deny release of the record, citing "ongoing investigations" that apparently involved one dead "suspect" and another arrestee, who had only been charged with public intoxication.

Faced with this hurdle, the Dyers approached the FBI, asking it to investigate Graham's death. It performed an investigation, but informed the couple it could not find enough evidence to move forward with a federal civil rights lawsuit on the couple's behalf. But it did open a door for the Dyers to obtain the evidence the Mesquite PD wouldn't release.

Using the federal Freedom of Information Act, in early 2015 Kathy asked the FBI to turn over any records it had accumulated in its investigation of Graham’s death in Mesquite. That fall, police videos of the fatal evening started arriving.

The recordings are disturbing. Graham's parents haven't watched them, on the advice of their lawyer. (All images below a screengrabs from the video posted at the Statesman.)

There was, for example, the image of a Mesquite police officer standing with his foot on Graham’s head.

There was the image of Graham in the backseat of the police cruiser, his hands and feet bound — yet also unseatbelted or otherwise restricted — in obvious distress, hurling himself about the car. And then the ghostly image of a police officer’s hand with a Taser stun gun appearing in the camera frame, shocking Graham on the leg.

And then, pushing him on his back and shocking him again — this time directly, and apparently deliberately, in his testicles. And Graham screaming silently as the electric shock to his genitals appeared to be repeated.

The Statesman has also released 24 seconds of audio from the arrest. It contains just enough to add even more horror to the images above. It contains the tortured screams from the 18-year-old as he is tased by an officer. It contains another disheartening scream from Dyer, who was suffering through a bad LSD trip at the time of his arrest: "Where the fuck am I?" And, disturbingly, it contains an officer's brutal statement as he tased the bound teenager: "Motherfucker, I'm going to kill you."

That officer was correct. The Mesquite PD did kill Graham Dyer. It killed him to save him from himself, according to the PD.

“A Taser was deployed in an effort to control decedent, prevent escape and prevent him from injuring himself,” the city stated in court documents, adding the officer had been aiming for Graham’s leg and it was dark.

The PD also killed Dyer with indifference. By the time Dyer arrived at the jail, he was in terrible shape. But to the five officers on the scene, he was just a piece of inconvenient meat.

The videos of Graham as he was delivered to the jail also seemed at odds with the police department’s explanation of what occurred. According to the agency’s in-custody death report, upon arriving at the jail Graham had still needed to be placed in a special restraint chair “until the jail personnel noticed he was having labored breathing.”

Yet the video the Dyers received from the FBI depicts Graham lying limp on the sally-port floor after being lifted out of the cruiser. As he tries to raise his head, one of the officers pushes it back to the ground.

Records show it would be more than two hours before an ambulance was called.

The Dyers can finally move forward with their lawsuit. The presiding judge says the evidence obtained -- no thanks to the Mesquite PD -- shows they have a plausible civil rights claim. The PD obviously hoped its public records exemptions would keep the Dyers from successfully suing it, much less actually finding out what happened that night.

The government, far too often, insulates the worst of its employees against the public that's entrusted it with power. In many ways, the system is deliberately designed to push citizens towards resigned acceptance of abuse by authority figures. The courts, meant to be a check against government power, have been far too compliant for far too long. The end result is the ugliness above where no one in a position of power will do anything to assist constituents until forced to. And they'll will follow this up by doing as possible to deter future acts of violence and brutality. The cops involved in this arrest -- and every government official that's assisted in erecting a wall between police and accountability -- should take a good, long look at the terrorized teen captured by the police cruiser's camera and see if they still feel comfortable with their decisions.

Filed Under: fbi, graham dyer, police, public records