Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/48188741/SF-DA-response-to-KALW-Radio
Timestamp: 2016-12-08 12:58:29
Document Index: 14869523

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6252', '§ 6255', '§ 67', '§ 6255', '§ 954', '§ 2018', '§ 6254']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCrn AND CouNTY OF SAN FRANcIscoGEORGE GAscON District Attorney
OFFICE OF THE DIsTRIcT Arrom’JEY
Paul Henderson Chief of Administration
DIRECT DIAL: E-MAIL:
VIA EMAIL Au Winston au .winstongmail .com RE: January 24, 2011 Record Request Dear Ms. Winston: I am writing in response to your public record request, received by the District Attorney’s Office via email on January 24, 2011. You requested the following:
All findings letters or reports for officer-involved shootings completed by the San Francisco County District Attorney office from the beginning of 2000 to the date of this Public Records Act h Request (January 24 201]).
Under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, a “public record” is broadly defined to include “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency, regardless of the physical form or characteristics.” (Govt. Code § 6252(e)) If the department has no records responsive to the specific request, the department has no duty to create or recreate one. (Id.) We do not have any responsive documents for your request regarding reports for officer involved shootings. Also, we do not release information in our investigatory files. Providing any such records would thwart our primary duty of protecting public safety and would undermine the deliberative process. (Rivero v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. App. 4th 1048.) Like any prosecutor’s office, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office is entrusted by the public to investigate and prosecute crimes and to help victims of crime. We would be prohibited by the law and our duty to the public from providing you with the information you seek. We include a detailed legal explanation of our position below.
The District Attorney’s Office is uniquely positioned as both a state and local officer. In 1998, the Supreme Court of California concluded that, while a California district attorney has attributes of both a state and local officer, a California district attorney acts “on behalf of the
state rather than the county in preparing to prosecute crimes and in training and developing policies for prosecutorial staff” (Pitts v. County of Kern, 17 Cal. 4th 340, 356-66.) In reaching
its conclusion, the Supreme Court specifically cited Article V. section 13 of the California Constitution, which states that “the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. The Attorney General shall have direct supervision over every district
850 BRm1rr STREET, THIRD FLOOR SAN FRANCIsCo, CALIFoRNIA 94103 RECEPTION: (415)553-1752. FACsIMILE: (415) 553-9054
office...” (Id. at 357.) The court also attorney.. .in all matters pertaining to the duties of their relied upon California Government Code Section 12550, which provides, “The Attorney General has direct supervision over the district attorneys of the several counties of the State[.]”
In 2004, the California Supreme Court underscored these principles in Venegas v. County ofLos Angeles and further emphasized: “[W]e concluded in Puts that, when preparing to prosecute and prosecuting crimes, a district attorney represents the state, and is not considered a policy maker for the county. We similarly concluded that a district attorney does not represent the county when training staff and developing policy in the area of We stated that “[nb meaningful criminal investigation and prosecution. analytical distinction can be made between these two functions [i.e. prosecuting crime on the one hand, and training/policymaking regarding criminal investigation and prosecution on the other]. Indeed, a contrary rule would require impossibly precise distinctions.” (32 Cal. 4th 820, 832) (citation omitted). Therefore, according to the California Supreme Court, the District Attorney is a state actor when he or she investigates, prosecutes, prepares to prosecute, trains and makes related policies. The Sunshine Ordinance cannot require the District Attorney of San Francisco to disclose any information that would impact any of these statewide duties. Your request falls squarely into the District Attorney’s duties as a state actor. The Legislature has defined the process of engaging in discussions in developing a cohesive policy as the deliberative process. (See Cal. Gov. Code § 6255; see also Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325.) The Legislature has also indicated that documents created during the deliberative process should not be produced in response to a Public Records Act request because production would have negatively impact the creation of sound policy. (Id.) The Legislature has also indicated that information that compromises public safety or concerns pending investigations should not be produced pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Cal. Gov. Code § 67.54(f).) At the local level, San Francisco Administrative Code sections 67.21(1) and 67.24(d)(l) through 67.24(d)(l)(6) forbid the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office from jeopardizing public safety by providing documents that would jeopardize criminal investigations. This includes both open and closed criminal investigations. In all aspects of our work, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office acts with integrity and a commitment to serve the public. Like any prosecutor’s office, we are entrusted by the public to investigate and prosecute crimes, and to help victims of crime; in all that we do, these remain our most sacred obligations. The San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.21(1) and sections 67.24(d)(1) through 67.24(d)(l)(6) forbid the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office from jeopardizing public safety by providing the documents you seek. Since the information you seek would potentially reveal sensitive information and office work product, the Office cannot compromise public safety by providing this information to you. (Rivero v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. App. 4th 1048, 1050.) Our position is supported by the California Supreme Court’s decision in Bruce v. Gregory (1967) 65 Cal.2d 666, 676, which held that:
The rights created by [predecessor statutes to the Public Records Act] are, by their very nature, not absolute, but are subject to an implied rule of reason. Furthermore, this inherent reasonableness limitation should enable the custodian of records to formulate regulations necessary to protect the safety of the records against theft, mutilation, or accidental damage, to prevent inspection from interfering with the orderly function of his office and its employees, and generally to avoid chaos in the record archives. The ruling in Bruce has been extended to records requests under the Public Records Act. (Rosenthal v. Hansen (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 754, 761.) Additionally, California courts have ruled that the District Attorney’s Office should not produce materials that would interfere with the Office’s deliberative process and negatively impact our duty to protect the public. (Gov. Code § 6255; see also Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325; Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469.) In addition, other privileges apply to the requested documents, including but not limited to their status as both attorney work product and official records. (Code of Civil Proc. § 954; Code of Civil Proc. § 2018; Gov. Code § 6254(k).) If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me directly. information is provided above. Sincerely, My contact
SF DA response to KALW Radio by ali_winston658 viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedLSTD-203 Midterm Exam Answersby salamauwayPress Releaseby Scott CobbVindication Is The Key With Criminal Defense Attorneyby scandalouscage831LSTD 203 Midterm Exam Solutionby mikeGlenn Funk statement on AG investigationby TNdigitalPost-Conviction Deputy District Attorney Media Release-4by mary engIrvine Dui Lawyerby bath2giantBLANK Problem One Synthesis Chart (SUPP & TWEN)-2by deshani Paxton Case Letter to Collin County Commissioners Courtby CahnmanDAASNY Mollen to AG Schneiderman 7 16 2015 FINALby Matthew Hamilton2014-09-13 State of Israel v Rotem (1074-02-13) - request for immediate action by National Public Defender Attorney Yoav Sapir to ensure Defendant Rotem's rights מדינת ישראל נ רותם (1074-02-13) - בקשה לפעולה מידית של הסניגור הציבורי הארצי עו"ד יואב ספיר לאבטחת זכויותיו של הנאשם רותםby Human Rights Alert, NGOCanons 6 and 7 Bar Examination q@Aby Sayeret MatkalFrom Chris Stoufflet <Chris@Stoufflet.com> to LZ <Lawjzimm@Yahoo.com> Date Sat, Octby Chris Stoufflet20091001_Suthersby Circuit MediaRAPE COPS TACOPINA GANGLAND Red Hot NY Lawyer Tacopina Gets Big Chill Fromby truthratProposed] Declaration of Factual Innocence Under Penal Code Section 851.8 and Orderby Bobby DearfieldMarch 2010 AGH Rulingby avalanche50Attorneys Oath of Admission to the Florida Barby Richard CharmanUnited States v. Smith, 158 U.S. 346 (1895)by Scribd Government DocsHiring a Criminal Defense Lawyerby LibertyBell Law GroupFlorida Bar Complaint Steven Lakeby Neil GillespieThe Trials of the Honorable F. Darcyby NicoPaneloLegal Ethics reportby Rhett Mark EblahanThe Lawyer as Counsel de Oficioby Francis Gillean OrpillaVernon E. Goodson v. C. C. Peyton, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, 351 F.2d 905, 4th Cir. (1965)by Scribd Government DocsStatement from two San Bernardino County supervisors on S.B. County corruption probeby The Press-Enterprise / PE.comHB 1010 TESTIMONYby PixelPatriotReading Response 4by Sarah ColegroveSimilar to SF DA response to KALW RadioLSTD-203 Midterm Exam AnswersPress ReleaseVindication Is The Key With Criminal Defense AttorneyLSTD 203 Midterm Exam SolutionGlenn Funk statement on AG investigationPost-Conviction Deputy District Attorney Media Release-4Irvine Dui LawyerBLANK Problem One Synthesis Chart (SUPP & TWEN)-2Paxton Case Letter to Collin County Commissioners CourtDAASNY Mollen to AG Schneiderman 7 16 2015 FINAL2014-09-13 State of Israel v Rotem (1074-02-13) - request for immediate action by National Public Defender Attorney Yoav Sapir to ensure Defendant Rotem's rights מדינת ישראל נ רותם (1074-02-13) - בקשה לפעולה מידית של הסניגור הציבורי הארצי עו"ד יואב ספיר לאבטחת זכויותיו של הנאשם רותםCanons 6 and 7 Bar Examination q@AFrom Chris Stoufflet <Chris@Stoufflet.com> to LZ <Lawjzimm@Yahoo.com> Date Sat, Oct20091001_SuthersRAPE COPS TACOPINA GANGLAND Red Hot NY Lawyer Tacopina Gets Big Chill FromProposed] Declaration of Factual Innocence Under Penal Code Section 851.8 and OrderMarch 2010 AGH RulingAttorneys Oath of Admission to the Florida BarUnited States v. Smith, 158 U.S. 346 (1895)Hiring a Criminal Defense LawyerFlorida Bar Complaint Steven LakeThe Trials of the Honorable F. DarcyLegal Ethics reportThe Lawyer as Counsel de OficioVernon E. Goodson v. C. C. Peyton, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, 351 F.2d 905, 4th Cir. (1965)Statement from two San Bernardino County supervisors on S.B. County corruption probeHB 1010 TESTIMONYReading Response 4Prime InterviewAbbott Opinion No. 967SF DA response to KALW Radio