Immediately after the fatal shooting Chief Jackson gives details to the public of the incident defending the actions of Officer Wilson
Immediately after the fatal shooting Chief Jackson gives details to the public of the incident defending the actions of Officer Wilson
This report was produced after SLCPD said they had a report but it was exempt from Missouri's Sunshine Law and FPD said they had no report. It was produced when I first challenged Lt. Burk, Commander of SLCPD's Central Records Division, with the law showing that Incident Reports were public record and that the claimed exemption applied only to the Report of the Investigation that would be triggered only after the Incident Report were filed.
The Report, more problematically, clearly shows that it was not created until after my request for the record. Clearly this is not the report that they claimed, a week before, was exempt based on an open-investigation exemption that does not actually exist in Missouri Law.
Immediately after SLCPD played this sleight of hand game with the state's Public Records Law Ferguson did the same. It now had a report, contrary to the original claim, but it too contained no useful information - again just date, time and location.
But to the world's amazement the Report they produced contained no valuable information beyond the date, time and location of the Incident. Despite the law clearly requiring it to contain a brief statement of the facts of the incident and what the officer did.
Following up on these productions I began a series of strategic public records requests to test the veracity of their claims by showing that - in addition to violating the very statute that they claimed they relied upon to determine what must be reported in the Report (610.100) - the report, or lack thereof, violated the Department's Policies on Reports as well as was inconsistent with their practice of filing such reports.
Neither Department was now as forthcoming with records or faithfully complying with the records law. A series of emails from both agencies were intended to delay production, and delay is denial, dissuade, and discourage requests, and effectively deny the public the legal access they have a right to with inordinate fees. One request was met with a demand for the advance payment of $35,000. Another set of requests by about fifty individuals received a response, knowing the individuals were not all from the area, that they should come in person and first inspect the records and then while there choose which they wanted and pay for a copy.
All of these are typical games - in what has become an unwritten playbook shared by attorneys for public agencies around the nation, a "how to deny while appearing to comply" guide - of public officials and agencies. Officials who do not approve of the public records law, or the public prying into what they believe is "their" business, and who dare the public to "make them" actually comply with the law. They know most citizens do not have the knowledge or resources to bring them to court to compel compliance. They know the legal proceedings take time and part of their game is won by the delay itself. And they also know that they, personally, are not going to be held responsible - only the agency - and that means the damages will all come from their public budget.
But not all of the requests have been met with effective denials. At least not from the City of Ferguson (St. Louis County has become even more problematic in their defiance of the law).
What has been obtained, however, only reveals further how far these agencies are going to cover-up what happened in the shooting incident and since - and to cover for the officer involved. It implicates others in failing to follow the law and policies with regard to required reports when officers shoot - from the Watch Commander all the way up to the Chief.
See the requests and responses as well as the policies referred to below here at photographyisnotacrime.com - or PINAC: No Incident Report? Where's the Use of Force Report?
This week, in particular, I followed up on an earlier request that I had made. Recognizing that most police departments require that officers file, in addition to an Incident Report, statements pertaining to the Use of Force - when such is the case - I had asked for all Use of Force statements associated with the killing of Mike Brown.
Not long after I filed that request I obtained, also by the public records law, the Ferguson Police Policy on required Reports. Included in this, confirming my premise, was a policy that stated that an officer must file a report whenever they use force.
I thus expected some record in response. But I received an email from Stephanie Kerr, a private attorney whose firm has been hired by the City to perform the duties of City Attorney - a public office which is supposed to assist in ensuring the City is in full compliance with the laws.
Kerr's email stated there were no records responsive to my request for Use of Force statements. Curious. Again - it appeared - that this case was one in which the Department had consciously chosen to cover-up the actions of Officer Wilson rather than comply with their required duties.
When I received another record, however, the Ferguson Use of Force Policy, I decided to follow up and resubmit that request - with a small amendment. This time I would request all such reports, including specifically the F-080 Use of Force Report.
The Ferguson Police policy that I obtained stated, explicitly, that whenever an Officer uses lethal force, as in this case, and when that use of lethal force causes wounds to the victim, then there are additional requirements.
In particular, as explicitly stated in this policy, the Watch Commander on duty the night of the incident was required to file this F-080 Report and that it must then go through the chain of command until ultimately reaching the Chief of Police.
So clearly this report was required and thus perhaps they misunderstood my original request. Even though it did not specify only reports filed by Officer Wilson perhaps they just made an error and assumed that was all I originally sought.
So I submitted the newly revised request including the F-080 Report language. I immediately got a response. Again from Stephanie Kerr.
They also have no F-080 Report.
What we are leaning with these public records requests is important. We are learning the lengths these agencies are going to defy that law. And the lengths they are going to provide cover for their officer. Lengths that include open defiance for both the policies and law that prescribe the duties of not just the officer but the department and the department's superior officers.
The absence of evidence in this case thus is the evidence of absence. And that absence is a significant story in itself. It tells volumes about what is going on within these two police agencies. And it demonstrates that neither of them believe that they must obey the laws that they are entrusted to enforce. And this is the root cause of how and why so many abuses of authority, power and force are leading to so many tragedies on the streets of America - at the hands of our police officers, sworn - we believed - to "serve and protect."
Ample evidence to support the significant loss of public confidence and trust in the nation's police forces.
If you would like to learn more about how to get involved - by exercising your rights to access public records - there is much work to be done and I could use your help in seeking to obtain, under the law, the records we are all entitled to see. Please email me at charliegrapski@pinac.org
Read More
