The key information unknown to us is, was a 911 information request submitted to Montana Highway Patrol? Are they willing to give just the basic information? If not, it may be their policy that if the request is denied, they release nothing.
A request for records/reports from Mineral County is a different situation. It could be that the 911 information is within a report, but it would be a part of an ongoing investigation and therefore denied. As to what type of investigation it is, it's "ongoing" no matter what it's called. Also, many ongoing investigations aren't really titled or divided criminal/non-criminal categories, so that isn't a factor. For example, a Death Investigation could mean lots of things.
In my opinion, if one's position is that the FOIA gives an absolute right to the requestor, then the rights and safety of the witness are not a factor and they would not accept redactions. I think the phone call time/date, Trooper's name, and that the witness said they found things near the river, is already known to the mother. It sounded like, in the council meeting, that the contact information was the issue. The Sheriff was asked why can't we have the information, he answered: "Because if you contact him, you would be harassing a witness". This is just an awful situation, but sometimes understanding how things are done and why can help.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
ARTICLE II. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Part II. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Right To Know
Section 9. Right to know. No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.
Thank you for the well crafted, well thought out, factual and detailed reply.
I have gone back through the thread and reread the transcript of the council meeting.
First this is from a post by
@laurawlms:
"I have requested a transcript of the 911 call under the Montana Public Records Act § 2-6-1001 et seq. I will let you know the Sheriff's response. The Sheriff overseas the 911 call center.
From this I assume the request was made to the Sheriff's Office. Maybe
@laurawlms can confirm this.
This is from the transcript of the council meeting:
On November 16th, 2021, my sister, Laura Williams, submitted a FOIA request for 911 calls placed on July 20th, 2021. This request is pending and the reason given was…the information returned to her was… For criminal investigation, pending criminal investigation or closed criminal investigation and she was informed to submit an additional form: The application of criminal justice information. She had mailed this off and to date, November 26, 2021, there has been no response. 911 calls are public information according to Montana law .To our knowledge Rebekah’s case has never been treated as a criminal investigation. Sheriff Toth continues to label this case as a river accident. If this is a river accident the question to consider here is Rebekah’s case a river accident or is it a criminal investigation? Because the answer determines how the case proceeds.
Nowhere in this portion of AM's presentation does she ask for the identity of the 911 caller or complain that it has not been released to her.
And then this from the meeting:
AM: The driver’s license and the credit card were perfectly laid out. You couldn’t have laid them out better with a ruler. Okay? And the whole thing is that this scenario is; ‘girl rescues dog’. You are not going to take the time to take your driver’s license and your credit card out of your pocket. You’re not going to take the time.
Rebekah wore sunglasses all day long, because of a nevus on the cornea of her eye. So she wore sunglasses all day long. So law enforcement looks at the sunglasses and the hat, discarded, as: she threw them off.
MT: The witness that found it says they picked up the driver’s license.
Woman X, in audience: What witness?
MT: We’re not going to tell you.
Woman X in audience: Exactly
MT: It’s because…you can’t…if you reach out to him, now you’re harassing a witness. We know who he is. We know who the family is. We’re in contact.
It is evident from this portion of the transcript that it was not AM that was pressuring MT for the identity of the 911 caller. Instead it was another woman present in the room. MT raises the issue of harassment with this unidentified woman, not AM.
You have stated above:
"I think the phone call time/date, Trooper's name, and that the witness said they found things near the river, is already known to the mother."
Even if this true, there may be other valuable information that could be learned from a full transcript of the call. Did the caller mention the presence of other people? Did he/she ask the if they knew the owner's of the personal items? Did the caller inform the dispatcher where he/she had searched for a potential owner of the items? These are just examples that illustrate that we really don't know what was said in that 911 call.
I believe the real issue here is a lack of transparency by LE. This is fueling distrust of the authorities by the family and is fostering the impression that they are hiding something from the family and the public. I'm afraid it will probably require a lawsuit by the family to receive the records they are requesting and this is unfortunate as that is a very expensive undertaking. Yes, it's an awful situation.