Petition for release of info and FOIL info

mysterymom7

Former Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
680
Reaction score
31
Petition for SCPD release of info on SG:
www.change.org/petitions/suffolk-county-ny-police-department-release-information-regarding-the-disappearance-of-shannan-gilbert


SCPD FOIL request:
http://apps.suffolkcountyny.gov/police/foilframe.htm

Note: You will have to give your name and email address to receive an email with a link to the form.

--------------
You will find a drop-down menu which you will select "other". The information needs to be listed in as much detail as possible according to law. An example of a request for this case:

911 call from SG, * The Fairway, Babylon, NY 11702, apx 4:51 am

911 call from GC, ** The Fairway, Babylon, NY 11702, apx 5 am

911 call from BB, ** The Crescent, Babylon, NY 11702 , apx 5:22 am

Any/all police or incident reports, witness reports, DD5's, and supplemental reports from May 1, 2010, apx 5:30 am to present in regard to the investigation concerning SG, redacting only information that would violate State Statutes

ME report on SG December 2011

List of Items received from any executed Search and Seizure Warrants in regard to SG, including, but not limited to, those conducted on JB and CPH, as well as any phone records that were reported from both JB and CPH from April 1, 2010 until December 31, 2011, and/or those records received at a later date pertaining to any executed warrants conducted

NY State Law info on FOIL rights:
www.dos.ny.gov/coog/Right_to_know.html
 
what would you like me to do?

If you could, sign the petition. If/when you have time, file a FOIL request. The more who do, the less likely the SCPD will keep the info from us all. You just have to be ok with giving your true identity in the request.
 
The FOIL request I sent will need to be answered by Oct 26. I will keep you all posted.
 
So, if I don't hear back in, what is it. twenty days about mine, then I appeal?
 
If you could, sign the petition. If/when you have time, file a FOIL request. The more who do, the less likely the SCPD will keep the info from us all. You just have to be ok with giving your true identity in the request.

Just to add...if you sign the PETITION, you have the option to hide your identity and, if you are on facebook, you have the option to share with your FB friends so they can sign also....If they so chose.
 
Just an FYI, if you file a FOIL request, you will get an automated email response of receipt. It will say that it may take 12-15 months to respond to your request. Don't fall for it. If you don't hear anything before 20 business days, you can file an administrative appeal. If you don't hear back within 10 business days, you can file a court appeal.
 
So, if I don't hear back in, what is it. twenty days about mine, then I appeal?

If you got the email of their receipt today, you should also hear back by Oct 26. I'm in the process of writing a sample administrative appeal to make it easy for those here who have chosen to send a FOIL request. Since not everyone has the time to do the legal research, I'd be more than happy to share what I've learned/written.
 
Good luck with it, but I think it's a slam-dunk that requests for something like this get rejected based on Section 87 2. (e) i. - "interfere with law enforcement investigations".

http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/foil2.html#s87

Quite the contrary. Quick Example:

Bly v. City of Yonkers, Supreme Court, Westchester County, March 17, 2009 - -

Involved request for records concerning 1952 murder of labor leader that "was never solved, and the murder investigation remains open." Request was denied "in its entirety" based on section 87(2)(e)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). Court emphasized an agency's responsibility to meet the burden of proof, stating that: "While there is precedent for delaying disclosure of police reports until the completion of a pending law enforcement investigation or prosecution of criminal charges, the Court finds that under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondents have failed to articulate sufficient reasons why the requested documents are exempt from disclosure", citing Gould and rejecting a "blanket" denial of access. Respondents' "justification of the claim to exemption consists mostly of conclusory and generalized policy concerns." See also Markowitz regarding burden of proof.

Gould, Scott and DeFelice v. New York City Police Department, 653 NYS2d 54, 89 NY2d 267 (1996) --

Police department's complaint follow-up reports, "DD5's", were withheld in their entirety and Department claimed that police officers' memo books or activity logs were not agency records. Court of Appeals reversed and held that DD5's are subject to rights of access conferred by the Freedom of Information Law and that memo books are agency records. Agency required to review records in their entirety to determine which portions, if any, may justifiably be withheld. Additionally, the Court rejected suggestion that records are exempt because they are "nonfinal"; found that "factual data", a phrase it construed broadly, within such documentation must be disclosed.

Legal Aid Society v. New York City Police Department, Supreme Court, New York County, NYLJ, October 22, 1998 --

Citing Gould, reiterated that the Criminal Procedure Law does not preclude defendants from using FOIL and found that the Police Department "has consistently failed to adhere to its dictates." Denials of access did not refer to specific contents of records and agency staff apparently did not review records prior to denying access. Petitioner sought class certification because each applicant for records "receives the same denial", and court held that "this is one of those rare cases where the continued and obvious resistance on the part of government officials to follow the mandate of the law makes class certification appropriate." Agency in denying access must state "with factual particularity how and why" an exception applies; the rationale for delays in responding to requests must be "explicitly explained".

Bannon v. New York City Police Department, Supreme Court, New York County, September 8, 1997 --

Since agency did not make DD5's available for in camera inspection and the papers did not contain a detailed analysis of their contents, court granted the petition following redaction of information identifying witnesses; held that other aspects of the records, i.e., those involving investigative techniques, must be submitted for in camera review prior to withholding.

Blanche v. Winn and Constantine, Supreme Court, Cayuga County, September 17, 1990 --

Petitioner requested various records, many of which had been destroyed or were not maintained by respondent agencies, which were "under no duty to maintain these files, nor to reconstruct them..."; Court upheld denial of certain forensics reports under §87(2)(e)(iv), victim's phone under §87(2)(b) and certain items of clothing because they were not "records"; was granted access to police reports often redaction names and addresses of victim and victim's mother, an evidence inventory list, a victim's statement under Civil Rights Law, §50-b, as well as sperm samples be provided and State Police investigative report "which does not reveal non-routine investigative techniques which would aid anyone in detection", following deletion of identifying details.
 
I've spent many hours researching the FOIL laws (in NY) for those who wish to employ their current statutory freedom of information. I check my facts before posting information as fact. I wouldn't waste my time or the respected time of fellow members. Is there a chance of denial? Sure, but I'm going to exhaust all reasonable efforts to see this through. This is why I'm already in the process of writing an administrative appeal, so if the other members choose to continue with an administrative appeal (which I foresee as HIGHLY likely) as well, I will have done the exhaustive work to be sure that their appeals are within the legal scope. If anyone else here wants to double check my research, I would be happy to point those individuals in the direction of the information (I've posted a couple) I have come across. I haven't just gone through the positive outcomes of FOIL requests in the case law, but have read and made note of those requests that were dismissed and the reasons for them.

Like I said, I'm still working on organizing the important information and plan to share my findings.

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. It may not be the intention of the author, but it is how this reader perceives those comments. IMO, we have a common goal here. The truth. For these women, a man, and child whose lives were taken away from their families.
 
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. It may not be the intention of the author, but it is how this reader perceives those comments.

I'm the person who asserted that FOIL was the proper avenue for your request (after someone else said they wouldn't have jurisdiction). Nowhere have I said that the request is not allowed or laughable. I'm also telling you that the request will be rejected because of Section 87 2. (e) i., and you've proved me correct by citing cases where precisely that happened. Those cases were won by Petitioners on appeal (presumably with the aid of counsel), and I didn't make any reference to the appeals process. So your perception of personal offense is entirely unfounded.
 
I'm the person who asserted that FOIL was the proper avenue for your request (after someone else said they wouldn't have jurisdiction). Nowhere have I said that the request is not allowed or laughable. I'm also telling you that the request will be rejected because of Section 87 2. (e) i., and you've proved me correct by citing cases where precisely that happened. Those cases were won by Petitioners on appeal (presumably with the aid of counsel), and I didn't make any reference to the appeals process. So your perception of personal offense is entirely unfounded.

I wrote this as a preclude on this thread based on the comments I received on the other thread this topic was discussed. It wasn't directed towards you. It was your comment that sparked this, but again, not solely directed toward you.

As far as the cases I've cited, it shows more than just a slam dunk loss. Gould's case is cited many times in reference to a denial with regard to police reports and information. The collective references show that a "detailed" reasoning for asserting Section 82(e)(i) is required. It is very likely the SCPD will make reference to that law, and it is very likely that an administrative appeal will need to be filed. If it goes to the lower court of appeals, I'm prepared for that as well as taking it to the Supreme Court if need be. There's reason to believe that this request isn't off the charts. The exception of certain information can be redacted and the SCPD will have to honor that especially if a judge orders it.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
823
Total visitors
1,006

Forum statistics

Threads
589,938
Messages
17,927,928
Members
228,007
Latest member
BeachyTee
Back
Top