SCPD Covering Up False Police Report From Councilmember Mike Rotkin?

In late August, Councilmember (and former Mayor) Mike Rotkin (who is also on the Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union) attempted to have me arrested for entering a general ACLU meeting with a sign. The meeting was publicly announced and open to the community--according their own posting on indybay.org and information given out by phone a day before the meeting. The sign I was carrying asked why the ACLU was not challenging the Santa Cruz Sleeping Ban (as the L.A ACLU has).

In response Rotkin physically blocked our path, tried to grab our signs, and threatened us with eviction by the police. He then apparently filed a false police report claiming we were "disrupting" the meeting (which had loud music playing and included 50-75 people milling about). Police from two different departments (SCPD and UCSC) showed up but declined to arrest us, noting we had the right to be there, Rotkin's opinion notwithstanding.

Though somewhat shellshocked, we entered the meeting and distributed some of our literature, though our activities were significantly chilled by Rotkin's actions. I also believe other ACLU members were negatively influenced by his behavior and false report.

I believe that Rotkin intentionally filed a false police report with the intention of intimidating us into either leaving or abandoning our first amendment right to have a sign in a publicly announced meeting open to the community. This kind of behavior is criminal, of course, but the likelihood of the D.A. prosecuting a sitting Councilmember for harassing an activist in this member is about as high as Mayor Ryan Coonerty moving to suspend the Sleeping Ban during freezing winter weather. I.e. zero and dropping.

In order to document Rotkin's report, I sought a copy of the "incident recall"--the specific dialogue between the dispatcher and the complainant and police officers responding, indicating what the nature of the complaint was, who made it, etc.. In September, Trisha Husome supplied me with a censored (i.e. "redacted") report.

In December I sought an unredacted (i.e. uncensored) report and the following correspondence has resulted.

I have received no unredacted report or explanation received as of the date of this writing.


ORIGINAL PUBLIC ACT REQUEST THAT GOT A CENSORED REPORT

> From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 7:49 AM
> To: Trisha Husome
> Subject: RE: Public Records Act for August 26 detailed incident recall (TH)
>
> Santa Cruz Police Department
> Santa Cruz, CA
> Attention: Tricia Husome
>
> Dear Tricia,
>
> Hi. I'm looking to view a copy of the detailed incident recall of any SCPD
> activity at 100 Shaffer Rd. on August 26, 2007 between 2:30 PM and 5 PM on or
> around a public meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union....
>
> Thanks for your help in this matter.
>
> Robert Norse (423-4833)
>

> Mr. Norse,
>
> The document you requested on 09-09-07 regarding 100 Shaffer Road, occurring
> on 08-26-07, has been placed at the front desk for pick-up. Payment of
> $1.00 was applied to your $35.00 deposit paid for an unrelated request.
> The $1.00 cost is paid in full. Processing of this request is now
> completed.
>
> Trisha Husome


REQUEST FOR AN UNCENSORED REPORT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 1:52 PM
> To: Trisha Husome
> Cc: Jhond Golder
> Subject: Public Records Act request
>
>
> Santa Cruz Police Department
> Santa Cruz, CA
> Attention: Tricia Husome
>
> Trisha:
>
> I need another copy of the 8-26 Incident Recall of the incident at 100
> Shaffer Road which you sent me several months ago.
>
> If you do any redacting, please indicate specifically why you are doing
> so--that is, per the Public Records Act, specify the category of information
> that is being denied.
>
> I include our prior correspondence on this request for your information.
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
>
> Robert Norse (423-4833)
>
>

>
>

TRISHA HUSOME REFUSES TO PROVIDE AN UNCENSORED REPORT

> Subject: RE: Public Records Act request
> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:53:04 -0800
> From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
> To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
>
> Mr. Norse,
>
> California Government Code section 6254(f)(2)identifies that information
> which must be disclosed with regard to requests for police assistance. Any
> information redacted from the document previously produced is information not
> mandated for disclosure under that section.
>
> The cost for an exact duplicate of the document previously provided is $1.00.
> Upon notification of your agreement to pay the fee, I will place the document
> at our front desk for pick-up and will notify you, by email, that I have done
> so.
>
> Trisha Husome
> Records Manager
> Santa Cruz Police Department
> 420-5874



I REQUEST A SPECIFIC EXPLANATION AS REQUIRED BY LAW

From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 3:32 PM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: Bob Patton; Jhond Golder; Peter Scheer; Kevin Vogel; Robert Aaronson; Don Regan; Don Zimmerman
Subject: Public Records Act request: confirming fee and requesting unredacted report



Trisha:

Thanks for your reply.


Section 6254(f) that provides: "state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information (i.e., the information identified in Section 6254(f)(2)), except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation."

Unless there is an ongoing investigation involving this particular report, I request a full unredacted copy of the report.

I agree to paying the requisite fee.

Is it still SCPD policy not to make reports available for viewing at the window unless a few is paid, incidentally?

Thanks for your help,

Robert Norse
(427-3772)


TRISHA AGAIN STONEWALLS

Subject: RE: Public Records Act request: confirming fee and requesting unredacted report
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:01:32 -0800
From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com

Mr. Norse,

Per my response dated December 10, 2007, all information mandated for disclosure under section 6254(f)(2) GC has been provided. As mentioned previously, an exact duplicate can be provided.

Trisha Husome
Records Manager


I CITE THE SPECIFIC CODE SECTIONS INVOLVED AND ASK WHICH ONE SHE IS APPLYING; I ALSO ASK WHETHER THE SCPD IS INSISTING THE PUBLIC PAY BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO LOOK AT PUBLIC RECORDS

From: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
To: thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
CC: jhond [at] comcast.net; pscheer [at] earthlink.net; donzim [at] aol.com; davebeau [at] pacbell.net; policeauditor [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us; dregan [at] santacruzsentinel.com
Subject: Again Requesting Specific Reason for Non-Disclosure of Redacted Section of previously requested Publ
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:49:57 -0800

Trisha:

Thanks for your response.

Your last e-mail advises me that you are refusing to provide me with an unredacted copy of my Public Records Act for the incident recall of 8-26-07 on 100 Shaffer Rd. on August 26, 2007 between 2:30 PM and 5 PM on or around a public meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union.

You cite Section 6254(f)(2) which allows redaction to protect the names of victims of a number of specified crimes--and only those specified crimes.

6253 (c) states "the agency shall promptly notify the person the request of the determination and the reasons therefore." Which specific provision of Section 6254(f)(3) are you citing (i.e. which victim incident or alleged crime) does your non-disclosure allege?

You may choose between Sections 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75. Please specify which section applies.

Have you determined that the reporting party is a victim of a crime? If so, what crime?

Additionally, are you claiming there is an on-going investigation or not?

Also, I'm sure your aware that under Section 6253.1(a)(3), you are obliged to provide suggestions for any practical basis for overcoming objections to any of the information sought.

Thanks for your help again,

Robert Norse
(423-4833)


TRISHA DECLINES TO RESPOND I RENEW MY REQUEST WITH A FORMAL COMPLAINT TO HER SUPERIOR, DEPUTY-CHIEF VOGEL, THE SANTA CRUZ GRAND JURY, AND THE POLICE AUDITOR, AS WELL AS INFORMING THE SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL, VARIOUS ATTORNEYS, AND THE CALIFORNIA FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION
‏
From: Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 12/25/07 10:45 PM
To: Tricia (SCPD) Husome (thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us)
Cc: Kevin Vogel (kvogel [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); lioness [at] got.net; David Beauvais (davebeau [at] pacbell.net); Rico Thunder (thespoon [at] thespoon.com); Ray Glock-Gruenich (grws [at] baymoon.com); Shanna McCord (smccord [at] santacruzsentinel.com); Terry (!) Messman (tmessman [at] afsc.org); Peter Scheer (pscheer [at] earthlink.net); Bob Arenson (policeauditor [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); Don Regan (dregan [at] santacruzsentinel.com); grandjury [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us; Don Zimmerman (donzim [at] aol.com)

Trisha:

On December 10th I sent you a renewed Public Record Act request, seeking an unredacted copy of an incident recall from last August (described below).

On December 13th, you declined to meet that request or suggest ways of facilitating it, as provided for by the Public Records Act. You also declined to specify the specific code section under which you were refusing to provide an uncensored copy of a Public Record to which I am entitled, or to clarify whether there was an on-going investigation (which would legitimately exclude the record from public view).

On December 14th I renewed my request, specifically reminding you of the sections of the Public Records Act which allow redaction and again requesting you specify which section applied and whether an investigation is in progress.

We are nearing or past the 10-day deadline since the Public Records Act was filed and you have not responded. Please advise me if you need more time, and if so, why.

Otherwise, please follow the law and respond immediately.

Additonally, I have not heard back from you as to whether it is currently SCPD policy to require the public to pay to see records that I understand are public and should be available for inspection without charge. Please clarify whether this is your current policy, as I requested in my December 10th letter.

Thanks,

Robert Norse
(423-4833)

P.S. I am forwarding a copy of this to your superior Deputy-Chief Vogel--which I ask him to treat as a formal complaint in the event that I do not hear from you within the next day or two.



MORE BACKGROUND ON THE ROTKIN'S ARREST-THE-SIGN POLICE CALL, THE SANTA CRUZ ACLU, AND THE SLEEPING BAN

ACLU of Southern California Wins Historic Victory in Homeless Rights Case
http://www.aclu.org/rightsofthepoor/housing/25070prs20060414.html

Activists ask ACLU to help end sleeping ban
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/18443532.php?show_

Rotkin Responds to the ACLU Scandal: Signature Hypocrisy of Phoney "Progressive" Politics -
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/08/18446314.php


BACKGROUND ON SCPD RECORDS MANAGER TRISHA HUSOME'S PAST BEHAVIOR IN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUESTS

A Torturous Tale of Seeking Public Records from the SCPD
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/23/18449208.php?show_comments=1#18449209