Court Says Recording Of Public Interaction Involving Police Officer Not A 'Confidential Personnel Record'

Legal Issues

from the screw-the-people-that-pay-our-salaries dept

The city of Eureka, California loves its cops but hates it citizens. How else can you explain its two-year legal battle to keep police camera footage out of the public’s reach?

The North Coast Journal has been fighting with the city for the release of dash cam footage of an arrest of a 14-year-old that led to criminal excessive force charges. The city had argued that no footage was accessible via public records requests, an idea the appellate court found ridiculous.

So, for two years, it fought against transparency and accountability, funding its fight with taxpayers’ money while working in opposition of their interests. Now, taxpayers are on the hook for the paper’s legal fees as well. The backstory is this:

After criminal charges were dismissed, the Journal submitted a California Public Records Act request in August of 2014 asking for a copy of the video — a request the city denied, citing the discretionary exemptions for police investigative files and personnel records. In November of 2014, the Journal filed a petition in juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code 827, which carves out a process for members of the public to access juvenile court records, which are generally considered confidential.

In May of the following year, after reviewing the arrest video, [Superior Court Judge Christopher] Wilson granted the Journal’s request, finding the public interest in seeing the footage outweighed any privacy concerns and ordered the video released. The city then appealed, arguing that Wilson erred in his interpretation of the law and was allowing the Journal to circumvent state laws severely limiting access to confidential police officer personnel records — a series of statutes known collectively as Pitchess.

[Attorney Paul] Boylan countered that the video simply wasn’t the kind of record that would be protected by Pitchess, as it captured public employees carrying out their publicly entrusted duties on a public street and was not something generated by an internal affairs investigation or a disciplinary proceeding.

That was the city’s argument: that any footage captured by police cameras could be withheld under these public records law exemptions. It actually claimed that dash cam footage was a “confidential personnel record.” The court pointed out that all a camera does is capture footage of incidents and interactions. Even if used in disciplinary proceedings, the footage is not, in and of itself, a disciplinary record.

And yet the city continued to fight. It petitioned the state Supreme Court to depublish the lower court’s decision so it couldn’t be considered precedential. It wanted a standalone opinion that pertained to a single requested recording, not something that could be used to force it hand over more footage more often.

Maybe it’s not fair to say Eureka hates its residents. Maybe it just thinks its law enforcement officers are more deserving of its effort and spent funds. But nothing about its fight suggests it’s at all interested in either a better police force or a better relationship with the people paying for its opacity efforts. Government entities already have a plethora of exemptions available to keep info out of the hands of the public.

Claiming video of a public encounter involving a public servant is somehow a “confidential record” is completely asinine. Fortunately, the state Supreme Court has refused its petition, which will save taxpayers the expense of funding yet another attack on their own transparency interests.

Filed Under: california, confidential, eureka, foia, police, public records, recording

Bill Cosby's Lawyer Tries To Silence Journalists Covering The Cosby Rape Allegations

Free Speech

from the lost-his-bluster dept

In case you haven’t read the news reports, Bill Cosby is having a terrible, no good, very bad few weeks. Ever since Hannibal Buress, a fellow comedian, brought up the fact that Bill Cosby has been accused of sexual assault and rape an incredible number of times, details of the accusations have been making headlines and formerly silent women have come forward with new accusations of their own. The pudding guy, on the other hand, has been remarkably silent on the matter, even as a Netflix special and a scheduled network sitcom are being sidelined as the controversy grows. In the midst of all this, one would think Mr. Cosby would be out there telling his side of the story. He isn’t. His lawyers, on the other hand, have been quite active, but most of their work has been in the arena of making sure that nobody’s side of the story gets out. In addition to blasting one of his alleged victims, who claimed her publisher nixed part of her book that detailed her allegations against Cosby, that letter to Buzzfeed from Cosby’s attorneys makes some barely-veiled threats.

Because you can confirm with indpendent sources the falsity of the claim that my client’s lawyers allegedly pressured the publisher to kill the story, it would be extremely reckless to rely on anything Ms. Dicknson has to say about Mr. Cosby since the story about the publisher is false…If you proceed with the false Story when you can check the facts with neutral independent sources who will provide you with facts demonstrating that the Story is false and fabricated, you will be acting recklessly and with Constitutional malice.

It goes on and on in that fashion. It’s worth noting that the neutral third parties the lawyers are insisting Buzzfeed rely upon are the same publishers that allegedly conspired with Cosby’s lawyers to pull the rape allegation from the book. So… yeah, not the most independent of choices, I don’t think. In any case, attempting to muscle journalists in any situation probably wouldn’t reflect well on their client, but doing so when Cosby is remaining completely silent on the matter, beyond the occasional attempt to intimidate journalists himself, really doesn’t look good.

Add to all of this the always laughable claim at the top of the letter sent to Buzzfeed:

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL NOTICE

PUBLICATION OR DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED

And you can tell that they mean business because they used all caps. Too bad this is a statement equal parts meritless and futile. As Marc Randazza notes, the proper responses to that disclaimer all involve vulgarity.

No. Wrong. Jesus Hello Kitty Christ on a Rocket-Powered Toboggan, NO! It is NOT confidential. You CAN disseminate it.

Here is why: I JUST FREAKIN’ GAVE THIS LESSON, WILL YOU PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION????

That link he provides is a nice overview of why the confidentiality disclaimer is complete horseshit. In that rundown he highlights the futility of the disclaimer, since it’s ultimately reproduced when the recipient goes ahead and publishes the letter anyway. It lets any reader know not only that you’re the kind of lawyer who will make a false claim, but also that you don’t really want your actions to be known publicly, indicating that there’s something underhanded in all of this.

Which there is. Several women have now come forward at this point with claims of rape against Bill Cosby. You can choose to believe they’re all lying if you like, but attempts to muzzle the press aren’t going to get Mr. Huxtable very far, I fear.

Filed Under: bill cosby, confidential, defamation, intimidation, lawyers, rape, streisand effect, threats
Companies: buzzfeed

CIA Snags Confidential Whistleblower Communications Sent To Congress

Failures

from the protection-in-name-only dept

The government seems unable (and unwilling) to differentiate between whistleblowers and “insider threats.” “Dissatisfaction with US policies” would seem to be a trait inherent to whistleblowers, but that’s right up there at the top of the list of warning signs for insider threats. The FBI claimed it had this whistleblower/threat problem sorted out, abelit in the worst way possible: requiring whistleblowers to “register” in order to avoid being caught in the “insider threat” dragnet. But no one can get any details out of the agency as to how “registering” whistleblowers encourages whistleblowing, much less how the FBI handles these registered whistleblowers. When asked, agency officials simply walked away from the conversation.

The CIA is no better, apparently. McClatchy DC reports that the agency intercepted protected whistleblower communications.

The CIA obtained a confidential email to Congress about alleged whistleblower retaliation related to the Senate’s classified report on the agency’s harsh interrogation program, triggering fears that the CIA has been intercepting the communications of officials who handle whistleblower cases.

The CIA got hold of the legally protected email and other unspecified communications between whistleblower officials and lawmakers this spring, people familiar with the matter told McClatchy. It’s unclear how the agency obtained the material.

The agency obviously has ways to dig into protected emails from other government agencies, even if it can’t seem to navigate its own internal email system. This news is troublesome enough, but the timeframe of the interception makes it worse. According to McClatchy, this was obtained during the CIA’s unauthorized “investigation” of Senate staffers over documents related to the (still unreleased) “Torture Report.”

So, while the CIA was digging through the Senate’s computers, it was also taking a look at whistleblower-related correspondence.

Somehow, according to these people, [CIA Inspector General David] Buckley obtained the email, which was written by Daniel Meyer, the intelligence community’s top official for whistleblower cases, to the office of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading whistleblower-protection advocate. The Senate Intelligence Committee also learned of the matter, said the knowledgeable people.

After obtaining the email, Buckley approached Meyer’s boss, I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the 17-agency U.S. intelligence community, in what may have constituted a violation of the confidentiality of the whistleblowing process, they said.

This indicates the proper channels for whistleblowing are inherently (and quite possibly, purposefully) leaky. There’s no true protection here, not when the agency being called out can access supposedly protected communications. Kevin Gosztola at Firedoglake says this is a side effect of the “Insider Threat” program’s reach.

[T]he interception probably occurred because it was caught by the “Insider Threat” program. The program was adopted throughout government in the aftermath of military whistleblower Chelsea Manning’s disclosures of hundreds of thousands of previously classified documents to WikiLeaks.

McClatchy has exposed the “Insider Threat” program as a system that is sweeping in its capabilities. Any “unauthorized disclosures of any information, not just classified material,” can be targeted. It encourages federal employees and contractor to be suspicious of each other and watch for “high-risk persons or behaviors.” Failure to report on suspicious activity could result in penalties. Plus, the program equates leaks to the media with espionage.

The program keeps profiles of “Disgruntled Employees” and “Insider Threats.” What is there to stop officials from using these profiles to target whistleblowers?

Most whistleblowers are “disgruntled” employees. No one blows the whistle because they’re happy with their employer’s activities. Intelligence agencies, in particular, are primed for overreaction after Edward Snowden’s leaks. Gosztola quotes James Clapper’s plans for maintaining near constant surveillance of those granted security clearances.

“What we need is — and this is, I think, pretty much recognized — is a system of continuous evaluation where when someone is in the system and they’re cleared initially, then we have a way of monitoring their behavior, both their electronic behavior on the job as well as off the job to see if there is a potential clearance issue.”

The NSA and CIA see whistleblowers as “threats,” no matter if they fit the government’s lofty ideal or not. When a CIA official snags protected whistleblower communications, he’s simply protecting the agency’s operational security, assets, etc. — whatever justification fits.

Clapper talks a good game about protecting true whistleblowers (i.e., not Snowden, Thomas Drake, etc.), a definition that really shouldn’t be left to the Director of National Intelligence to decide — not with his track record. “True” whistleblower cases would be provided confidentiality safeguards, according to Clapper, although his statements don’t specify how these would avoid the dragnet cast over those with security clearances. In this case, the CIA’s protections — whatever they were — completely failed.

The interception of Meyer’s email would also fall into the category of “such cases” [protected confidential whistleblowers] and apparently the safeguards do not work because the person alleging retaliation was exposed to further retaliation from CIA leadership.

The more defenders of the intelligence community claim there are “proper channels” for whistleblowing while condemning the actions of Snowden and Manning, the more evidence emerges that the proper channels are completely useless. Given this, walking out the door with a hard drive full of documents seems like the sane plan.

Filed Under: charles, chuck grassley, cia, confidential, daniel meyer, david buckley, mccullough, official channels, torture report, whistleblower