Petition for release of info and FOIL info

[mysterymom7]

Well, since they sent you a word for word copy of what they sent me, you are more than welcomed to use my word for word copy of appeal.

I added this portion at the end:

Public officers law § 87(2)(e)(i.-iv.) states:


(e) are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed,
would:
i. interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial
proceedings;
ii. deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial
adjudication;
iii. identify a confidential source or disclose confidential
information relating to a criminal investigation; or
iv. reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except
routine techniques and procedures;
(f) if disclosed could endanger the life or safety of any person;
(g) are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not:
i. statistical or factual tabulations or data;
ii. instructions to staff that affect the public;
iii. final agency policy or determinations;
iv. external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by
the comptroller and the federal government
It is the duty of the Agency to fulfill its burden of proof that the stated exceptions can be applied to the requested reports.

 

[WINDSOR]

Which they have every right to do.

I'm sorry... I know that your intentions are good. It's just that you cannot expect a municipality to jeopardize the welfare of millions of 911 callers just for the sake of allowing us to hear the 911 calls for SG's case (no matter how valid the reason or argument).

The law is the way it is because the good of the many outweigh the good of the few. Yes it might be in the public's best interest to hear the May 2010 911 calls. However, the price we'd pay to hear them would be an absolute complete meltdown of the confidentiality of the 911 safety net. Good Samaritans should not have to think twice about using the system to report crimes as they are happening.

SEASLUG44,

Every time an official somebody wants to keep something secret they use the same general excuses. I believe each case must be examined and evaluated on its own merits, which I hope the appeals will do.

In this case the only civilian on the 911 call is SG, and she is dead. Hundreds of LE officials have heard the call to no avail. Why would they not want an wider audience to hear it?

People who call 911 and do not want their identity known, do so anonymously. If SG named somebody or alluded to somebody in the call, LE is protecting that person, why?

MOO

 

[Seajay]

How does the news media and documentary programs get the tapes of 911 calls??? Seemed everyone was playing that 911 call Nicole Brown Simpson made that time OJ broke into her home.

I wouldn't believe that Det. Stephan for nothing. No one makes a 911 call, stating someone is trying to kill them and they are calm and not in any type of distress. He's covering for someone or something. Why even come out with that statement unless it was to put out some fire???

 

[truthspider]

No one makes a 911 call, stating someone is trying to kill them and they are calm and not in any type of distress.

Sure it could happen, just unlock that door with the key of imagination and step into an alternate universe created by the narrative of LE. The SCPD is expanding this alternate universe on the fly with lies such as those in the Newsday letter. As to why they are doing it, well as you say they could be covering for someone, or they could be hiding what they know in order to build their case.

 

[WINDSOR]

Sure it could happen, just unlock that door with the key of imagination and step into an alternate universe created by the narrative of LE. The SCPD is expanding this alternate universe on the fly with lies such as those in the Newsday letter. As to why they are doing it, well as you say they could be covering for someone, or they could be hiding what they know in order to build their case.

If LE was hiding what they know to build a case it should have been built by now. So therefore I believe they are covering for someone.

LE has had the tape for two years now. It was the first pieces of evidence to this case they had, before any bodies were found, before any interviews were done, before LE eliminated JB, MP and CPH as POIs.

If there was a case being built it would have resulted in charges by now if LE had critical info from the tapes. LE has no ideas based on the contents of the tapes, and will not release it in case some civilian were to figure it out.

Possibly there is nothing of value on the tape, other than incriminating the 911 system, its response time and how the call was handled.

The sad thing is LE enforcement will probably put more effort into withholding info than solving the case.

If LE is covering for someone, they should remember that people have died, and there is a murderer out there, what ever LE are covering for is not worth any more lives.

MOO

 

[mysterymom7]

If LE was hiding what they know to build a case it should have been built by now. So therefore I believe they are covering for someone.

LE has had the tape for two years now. It was the first pieces of evidence to this case they had, before any bodies were found, before any interviews were done, before LE eliminated JB, MP and CPH as POIs.

If there was a case being built it would have resulted in charges by now if LE had critical info from the tapes. LE has no ideas based on the contents of the tapes, and will not release it in case some civilian were to figure it out.

Possibly there is nothing of value on the tape, other than incriminating the 911 system, its response time and how the call was handled.

The sad thing is LE enforcement will probably put more effort into withholding info than solving the case.

If LE is covering for someone, they should remember that people have died, and there is a murderer out there, what ever LE are covering for is not worth any more lives.

MOO

I gotta say, I was rather surprised I got such a quick response! I wasn't expecting to hear from them until the 26th (last day to respond). I'll take it! That just means the rest of the process can be underway.

 

[LINative13]

Slug - Are you glad this case is going nowhere? Are you happy the calls were not released?

 

[hawkshaw]

I was going to post something but decided I would rather call 911 and chat with them for a half hour. And, so I won't respond to the above trash talk.....lol

 

[Seaslug44]

Slug - Are you glad this case is going nowhere? Are you happy the calls were not released?

Thank you for the insulting questions. Not sure what I did to deserve them.

I have spent over ten times more hours than 90% of the other members (especially including you) doing research to help solve this case.

Please do not confuse me being proud that my knowledge of this case (and the laws that pertain to it) are accurate with some idiotic childish notion that in some way, shape or form that I could ever be actually proud that a cold-blooded psychotic murderer(s) of other people's daughters is still out there on the loose free to kill again at will.

I want more than anyone to see this case solved. Do not hold a grudge againts me because I accurately predicted almost a year ago that this case would go cold or that I am now accurately pointing out that it is simply against the law to release the 911 tapes from the evening that SG went missing.

I did not write the law nor did I vote for the people who did. If you have a problem with it, perhaps you should take it up with your local state officials.

No reason to shoot the messenger.

 

[mysterymom7]

Thank you for the insulting questions. Not sure what I did to deserve them.

I have spent over ten times more hours than 90% of the other members (especially including you) doing research to help solve this case.

Please do not confuse me being proud that my knowledge of this case (and the laws that pertain to it) are accurate with some idiotic childish notion that in some way, shape or form that I could ever be actually proud that a cold-blooded psychotic murderer(s) of other people's daughters is still out there on the loose free to kill again at will.

I want more than anyone to see this case solved. Do not hold a grudge againts me because I accurately predicted almost a year ago that this case would go cold or that I am now accurately pointing out that it is simply against the law to release the 911 tapes from the evening that SG went missing.

I did not write the law nor did I vote for the people who did. If you have a problem with it, perhaps you should take it up with your local state officials.

No reason to shoot the messenger.

I'm not offended by your questioning the FOIL requests. I actually appreciate that you did because it made me dig deeper. So, for that, thanks. I do hope you've taken the time to read through the COOG advisory opinion letters on 911 calls and will clearly see that it is not "illegal", and is actually acceptable according to the law regardless of the way it is written.

 

[PreciousDust]

I'm not offended by your questioning the FOIL requests.

I'm glad you've changed your tune.

Comments to dispute that a FOIL request is not allowed or laughable or will take years, IMO, is a personal offense to the work I've put in to bring resolution to this case.

As long as we're resolved not to get offended when contrary information is pointed out, I'll mention that the cases you cite here....
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8406854&postcount=12"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Petition for release of info and FOIL info[/ame]

...are court cases tried at the New York State Supreme Court, not the results of what happens when someone files an appeal to a rejected FOIL request. That appeal to the SCPD denial will get rejected with the same sort of form letter that you got from the SCPD. To have it ever become "MysteryMom vs. Suffolk County Police Department", you'd need an attorney because, as I mentioned earlier, you'd never be able to do it yourself; no non-attorney would be able to handle the endless motions generated by the defense. As I've also mentioned before, no attorney would take the case pro bono (free of charge) because it's not a civil liberties case. Even if funding the case isn't a problem, it would take years.

It would be great if the SCPD could be forced to release information. As I've mentioned before, I believe the only avenue is to claim (in court) that the SCPD is not actually using the evidence in an ongoing investigation but is instead withholding the evidence to obscure their own malfeasance in some regard.

 

[hawkshaw]

Those folks that live in the area might have seen a recent ongoing story where a 17 month old child was buried in the mother's back yard. The story goes on to say the mother's boyfriend is a 'person of interest'. It also said he is 'not cooperating with the investigation', and has hired an attorney. He looks guilty, doesn't he? What does he need a lawyer for if he has nothing to hide? One might say he is cooperating with the investigation because he has hired an attorney to protect his rights.

Now what am I trying to say? I THINK I am trying to say is the police will release information about a case they shouldn't if it gives them an advantage, otherwise they will not.

There may be nothing unlawful about releasing the tape if the 'names have been changed to protect the innocent' sort of approach. In fact it might help the investigation. Why Det.Stephan thought it was proper to write a letter to Newsday only gives me further cause to wonder. What he really should be doing is make a greater effort to solve the 9/24/03 murder of Peter Ghattas before he moves on to a more difficult case. He might find some of the same characters in both cases......or, maybe he won't.

 

[hawkshaw]

I was minding my business after serving 29 yrs in the NYPD. I retired in 1992. Big fan of the cops that could do no wrong in my eyes. My daughter changed all that when she married her husband, a SCPD cop in 2002. He was arrested for burglary in Suffolk County while working as a police officer, and before they were married.

I started making thousands of posts all over the Internet. The longer I was in to it the more I was horrified what I found that was corrupt in Suffolk County. It is important for you folks to know I really didn't care much where the guilt or innocence fell. I am a realist that only wanted to truth.

I posted an enormous amount on a site called 631 Politics.Com/ Most of it dealt with corruption in Suffolk, mostly about certain members of the SCPD and Thomas Spota. I began to learn to my surprise I had sort of a fan club that looked in on my postings most every day. One ranking public official told me that he has tired of reading my stuff but said it was powerful stuff. Told me his wife is an addict.

Judges read it, lawyers read it, and so do the criminals. Now that has stopped because I have virtually been banned by limiting my access. My 'friends' tell me I am not banned. They are the ones that did it. As soon as I started speaking about those they curried favor from - I was gone......






If any of you folks are interested you can look it up. I posted as ISOM

 

[Seaslug44]

I'm glad you've changed your tune.



As long as we're resolved not to get offended when contrary information is pointed out, I'll mention that the cases you cite here....
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Petition for release of info and FOIL info

...are court cases tried at the New York State Supreme Court, not the results of what happens when someone files an appeal to a rejected FOIL request. That appeal to the SCPD denial will get rejected with the same sort of form letter that you got from the SCPD. To have it ever become "MysteryMom vs. Suffolk County Police Department", you'd need an attorney because, as I mentioned earlier, you'd never be able to do it yourself; no non-attorney would be able to handle the endless motions generated by the defense. As I've also mentioned before, no attorney would take the case pro bono (free of charge) because it's not a civil liberties case. Even if funding the case isn't a problem, it would take years.

It would be great if the SCPD could be forced to release information. As I've mentioned before, I believe the only avenue is to claim (in court) that the SCPD is not actually using the evidence in an ongoing investigation but is instead withholding the evidence to obscure their own malfeasance in some regard.

I totally agree.

The problem that anyone trying to obtain a copy of a 911 recording will run in to is that (just as it is stated in the denial letters just sent to Mysterymom and the others) New York State passed County Law section 308(4) that specifically grants protection to all users of the 911 system to prevent the recordings of their 911 calls from being obtained by the general public or the media;

"Records, in whatever form they may be kept, of calls made to
a municipality's E911 system shall not be made available to or
obtained by any entity or person, other than that municipality's
public safety agency, another government agency or body, or
a private entity or a person providing medical, ambulance or
other emergency services, and shall not be utilized for any
commercial purpose other than the provision of emergency
services."

This NY Times article cited by Mysterymom does a very good job confirming that this consumer protection exists (and why it does);

Your average citizen has little chance of getting access to such tapes even under freedom of information laws, which allow one to apply for documents held by government agencies. Under state law, these requests may be denied, guided by “common sense and the potential for harm that would arise by means of disclosure,” or if disclosure “would be damaging to an individual or preclude a government agency from carrying out its duties.”

Brian Griffin, president of Nassau’s Criminal Courts Bar Association and a former Nassau County prosecutor, said that if people knew that 911 calls were archived for posterity, callers might be discouraged from using the hot line.

NY Times

Mysterymom did a great job researching and linking us to case law studies and legal opinions regarding access to records under the FOIL act. However, not one of the cases or opinions cited actually gives us any legal ground to justify how Suffolk County can ignore New York County Law section 308(4) and release the 911 recordings. Mystereymom quotes this case; http://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f14264.htm as being proof that 911 recordings do not fall under the FOIL act. However, if you read through that case you will discover that the only reason why those particular 911 records are said to be available under FOIL is because the municipality being asked to release them is a TOWN and section 308(4) only applies to COUNTIES.

I'm sorry Mystermom, I've read through every other document that you've cited in your appeal and each one also either does not apply to your request or it actually supports Suffolk County's reason for denying your request. If I am missing something, I appologize. Please repost the link to the caselaw or court document that supports your appeal.

 

[hawkshaw]

IN case you haven't noticed, SG, the 911 Caller is DEAD. Her call to 911, for whatever reason went unheeded. We would like to know the circumstances as to why a police officer didn't promptly respond. We would like to know the nature of her call, i.e., how frantic and compelling her call for help really was. I don't think anyone on the Board would ask for anything that would jeopardize the investigation.

 

[mysterymom7]

I'm glad you've changed your tune.



As long as we're resolved not to get offended when contrary information is pointed out, I'll mention that the cases you cite here....
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Petition for release of info and FOIL info

...are court cases tried at the New York State Supreme Court, not the results of what happens when someone files an appeal to a rejected FOIL request. That appeal to the SCPD denial will get rejected with the same sort of form letter that you got from the SCPD. To have it ever become "MysteryMom vs. Suffolk County Police Department", you'd need an attorney because, as I mentioned earlier, you'd never be able to do it yourself; no non-attorney would be able to handle the endless motions generated by the defense. As I've also mentioned before, no attorney would take the case pro bono (free of charge) because it's not a civil liberties case. Even if funding the case isn't a problem, it would take years.

It would be great if the SCPD could be forced to release information. As I've mentioned before, I believe the only avenue is to claim (in court) that the SCPD is not actually using the evidence in an ongoing investigation but is instead withholding the evidence to obscure their own malfeasance in some regard.

First, I just noticed the thumb down thing on my post. That wasn't meant to be there. I must have accidentally selected that. (I use a tablet to read/post)

Second, I had some time to reflect that it wasn't personal. I'll blame PMS.

I do acknowledge that the cases I've cited were tried in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. What they show is that the 911 calls were eventually released following the necessary redactions. The original decision by the Records Officers was a denial based on the law, but the decisions were eventually overturned by higher courts. It's a process. It doesn't happen overnight. The appeals process is different than the trial courts. It isn't motion after motion. The decision is on the Court, not a jury. The decisions are usually faster than trial court decisions.

My appeal will be sent to the County Attorney. If they deny my request, I can take it to the Civil Court of Appeals. If they deny my request, it goes to the Supreme Court.

I fully understand the process. This IS a civil rights issue (that's what a FOIL is, a civil right). If I need representation, and the NYCLU is aware of the particulars of this case, they may take it on. If not, I can always seek help from an independent attorney.

Either way, the issue at this point in the process is that the SCPD has the burden of proof that their denial is based on the exemptions. They need to make that clear, not me.

 

[Justiceforever]

http://theerant.yuku.com/topic/49751/Gilgo-Beach-killer-arrested?page=2#.UHMdLaNZ5g0 Hawkshaw...I am interested in reading your posts. In fact I stumbled yesterday upon a site called the e rant. Since this is a bit off topic for this thread I will post my question to you in the crock thread cuz thats where misc. stuff goes. If you have the time and inclination to read it and answer my question that would be great. If not thats cool too. Thanks

 

[mcme]

IN case you haven't noticed, SG, the 911 Caller is DEAD. Her call to 911, for whatever reason went unheeded. We would like to know the circumstances as to why a police officer didn't promptly respond. We would like to know the nature of her call, i.e., how frantic and compelling her call for help really was. I don't think anyone on the Board would ask for anything that would jeopardize the investigation.

SCPD did not respond to SG's 911 call because she did not know where she was, and once she mentioned Jones Beach, and her call was transferred to the NY State Police they did not connect GC's and BB's 911 calls with hers until she was reported missing and MP told police where she was. SCPD responded to GC's and BB's 911 calls, not SG's.

 

[hawkshaw]

mcme - thanks for the clarification. But the fact still remains we only know what they are telling us.

I don't know the technical advances in the communication systems that will pinpoint a cell phone call to an Emergency Operator. I would suspect it is operational at this time.

As far as the delayed response to the call I have no particular beef with SCPD on that score. These things happen in all police departments. As far as they not finding SG when they arrived on the scene is just another thing that happens.

I once worked on a shooting case that involved a lot of shooters. It came in the middle of the night. The detectives went out and did the usual thing, i.e., speak to witnesses, who did what and what they did. Two days later a local resident living down the block from the shooting scene went out his back door and found it blocked by a dead body. The supervisor that went out on that call was charged and punished. To this day I cannot understand why he was held liable for not finding a body where there was no indication someone saw him seriously injured. It was obvious somebody in the PD wanted to hurt this man, and so they did.

We can only guess what really happened that night at Oak Beach, we haven't heard the tapes, nor will we ever hear the tapes unless someone is caught and the tape has to be played at trial.

What got my curiosity aroused is when that detective wrote the letter to Newsday and said he heard the tape and SG gave no indication by her voice and demeanor that her life was in peril. Sorry, but that don't play with me. No detective of 25+ years is going to write such a letter to a newspaper unless he was asked to do that. The question is : Why?

 

[hawkshaw]

Appealing the FOIL denial? LOL. good luck. When Martin Tankleff went to the Suffolk Court on a 440 Hearing to get a new trial, he presented 22 witnesses of independent sources that gave testimony he hoped would win him a new trial.

Before the hearings started the defense and Tankleff's supporters knew the 440 would not be granted.

The presiding Judge, Steve Braslow declared the witnesses to be 'nefarious scoundrels' Included in the 22 witness parade was a Catholic priest and two nuns.

The case went to the appellate court and the conviction was set aside.

Forget about getting a fair hearing from a Suffolk judge on an appeal.