Note: The total number of responses shown to a given request is lower than the number of agencies receiving the requests because auditors sometimes were not given an explanation for why a request was not satisfied.

The Oral Request to Police and Sheriff’s Departments

1. Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest of commander or senior officer:
The most frequent response (almost 43 percent of departments) was to send the requester elsewhere for the record, which was made available by about 17 percent of the departments. Just over 23 percent otherwise showed no awareness of what a Form 700 was.

2. Crime information on any burglaries, armed robberies or sexual assaults November 1-15:
The most frequent response (almost 40 percent of departments) was to make some information available. But almost 11 percent said the requested information was not public, and another almost 15 percent said the request would have to be made to another (absent) officer or to another department altogether.

3. Crime report specifics omitted from the information presented:
The audit did not ask the names of sexual assault victims, which are presumed by law to be confidential. But exactly half the reports made available failed to name the victims of the other specified crimes: burglary and/or armed robbery.

4. Arrest information on any persons apprehended for the crimes specified November 1-15:
Information was produced by slightly fewer than 25 percent of departments. More frequent bases cited for non-disclosure included that the information was confidential (almost 16 percent); that the information was unknown to the department official, and another officer must be contacted (almost 10 percent); that no documents existed responsive to the request (8 percent). Another 8 percent of departments made no response at all.

5. Arrest report specifics omitted from the information presented:
The age and sex of the person arrested were not mentioned about 27 and 22 percent of the departments, respectively. Sixteen percent of the departments presenting arrest listings failed to mention the charges the person was being held on.

The Written Request to Police and Sheriff’s Departments

6.Thirteen percent of the departments refused to accept the auditor’s request letter.

7. The record of asset forfeiture fund distribution was made available by almost 36 percent of the departments. Another almost 16 percent of departments made no response at all, and still another almost 10 percent stated they had no documents responsive to the request.

8.Statistical data on complaints about officers were presented by almost 40 percent of departments. Another almost 15 percent of departments made no response at all, and still another almost 14 percent stated they had no documents responsive to the request.

9. The salary schedule for peace officer positions was made available by almost 47 percent of departments. Another 13 percent made no response at all.

10. Actual earnings information for (unidentified) officers was said to be confidential by almost 32 percent of departments. Another 15 percent made no response at all, but still another 15 percent made the information available.

11. Worker’s comp claims made by (unidentified) officers were said to be confidential by more than 42 percent of departments. Another 14 percent made no response at all, but still another 10 percent made the information available.

12. Second job (outside employment) information for (unidentified) officers was said to be confidential by almost 43 percent of departments. Another almost 15 percent made no response at all, but still another 10 percent said that no documents existed responsive to the request. Only 6.5 percent (12 of 184 departments) made the information available.

13. The most recent death in custody report was provided by almost 29 percent of departments. A similar percentage (almost 28) responded that no such documents existed, apparently meaning they had had no deaths in custody. More than 13 percent of departments made no response at all.

14. The employment contract for the department’s commanding officer was not provided by more than 28 percent of departments because no such document was said to exist, apparently referring to police chiefs with no personal contract and (elected) sheriffs. Such contracts were provided by almost 25 percent of departments. Almost 14 percent made no response at all.

15. The media relations/public information policy statement statement was made available by more than 52 percent of departments. But almost 15 percent made no response at all.

16. The fee charged for making copies of crime reports to victims was made available by almost 52 percent of departments. But 14 percent made no response at all.

The Oral Request to CHP Area Offices

17. The information on citations for reckless driving wNovember 1-15 was made available when requested orally by only 5 of 32 offices (15.63 percent). Other offices stated various reasons for nondisclosure, including 3 that maintained the information was confidential. Of the 5 offices that disclosed, 3 failed to list the time and date of the citation.

18. The information on arrests for DUI November 1-15 was made available when requested orally by only 7 of 32 departments (21.88 percent). Other offices stated various reasons for nondisclosure, including 5 that maintained the information was confidential. Of the 7 offices that disclosed, all failed to list the driver’s occupation, the location where the person arrested was being held, and the time and manner of release.

The Written Request to CHP Area Offices

19.Six of the 32 offices (18.75 percent) refused to accept the auditor’s request letter.

20. Requests for information on the actual earnings of, worker’s comp claims made by, and second jobs held by individual (unidentified) officers, as well as death in custody reports, were not made available at the time of this report (January 9, 2007). Of those 26 offices that did accept the request letter, the most that was said by the CHP general counsel to some auditors was that some unspecified information would be made available on or before January 10, 2007 — more than a month after the letters were left at the area offices.

21. Numerous agencies demanded disclosures by the requester as a condition for providing access to information. Just over half (51 percent) of sheriff’s and police departments required the auditor to provide his or her name or even picture identification; 39 percent required a statement of purpose for the information; almost 27 percent demanded to know the person’s affiliation or employment; and 20 percent insisted that a form be filled out. Ten departments (5.43 percent) imposed all four requirements.
As for CHP area offices, almost 49 percent required name or identification and purpose; more than 34 percent required affiliation; more than 12 percent required a form, and three offices imposed all four requirements.

Awareness of the Audit

Some departments — we cannot be sure how many — learned of the existence of the audit either on December 4 or shortly thereafter. Participating journalists expressed concern that this awareness would undermine the reliability or fairness of the findings, in that the aware departments would strive to be much more responsive than they would otherwise have been, in order to avoid an unfavorable mention. All that we can say at this point is that the overall results — an average F plus — do not seem to suggest a wave of agencies striving to stay on their best behavior.

The dry summaries in the Findings give little sense of just how wrong — often absurdly wrong — the agencies could be to earn their average F plus grade. We encourage those interested to read the anecdotal narratives written by the journalists and filed at the end of many of the agency-by-agency reports in the online database. The following is but a brief sampling, and begins by saluting five agencies that provided rare relief from the depressing norm.

Police/Sheriffs

Dixon Police Department (A-)
This agency received the highest of all the scores (94) and was described by the auditor as pleasant and helpful. Only 6 points were deducted for timeliness, but for such a small department, the performance was very impressive.

Newark Police Department (B-)
The city attorney who responded to this request on behalf of the police department wrote an excellent and timely letter explaining what would be made available and what would not and why, and helpfully requesting clarification on a few of the items. His response was the perfect example of what is intended in the CPRA in Government Code Section 6253.1, which states:
(a) When a member of the public requests to inspect a public record or obtain a copy of a public record, the public agency, in order to assist the member of the public make a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances:
“(1) Assist the member of the public to identify records and
information that are responsive to the request or to the
purpose of the request, if stated.
“(2) Describe the information technology and physical location in
which the records exist.
“(3) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for
denying access to the records or information sought.

Shasta County Sheriff (B+)
This agency was generally very helpful and agreeable. It received the highest score of all sheriff s’ departments (the sheriff’s office in Pico Rivera earned a flat zero).

Walnut Creek Police Department (B)
This auditor noted how very helpful and professional the agency personnel were throughout her contact with them.

Seaside Police Department (B+)
This agency charges only ten cents per page for crime victims’ reports — the same amount it charges for all other copying. Many other departments charge relatively high fees for crime victims’ reports despite the “direct cost of duplication” limit in the CPRA).

Sacramento County Sheriff (F-)
This agency contact required our auditor’s social security number as a condition for making his request, explaining that the officer needed to check the auditor for any outstanding warrants in case he should be arrested on the spot. This agency also refused to release any crime and arrest information for the requested period, stating that only information on events in the last 24 hours was public.

Woodland Police Department (F)
This agency contact indicated that the department shreds crime information after a certain period of time (the information we requested was for the immediate month prior).

El Cerrito Police Department (B)
Agency contact implied that she could locate the auditor, even though only his first name and phone number were provided.

Berkeley Police Department (F-)
The personnel that our auditor contacted on the day of the audit were not helpful at all. They seemed very confused and ultimately refused to accept any part of the auditor’s request. The department then denied that any auditor had visited.

Oakland Police Department (F-)
The auditor was sent on a “wild goose chase” throughout the department and ultimately could not find anyone willing to take any part of his request.

San Jose Police Department (F-)
This agency has a records “window” that is only open during limited, and irregular, hours. Our auditor was turned away because she was not there at the right time (even though she was there during regular business hours for the department as a whole).

San Mateo Police Department (F-)
This agency contact probably gave out the most misinformation of all the agencies that we could detect in these narratives. She said that the department only releases information on a need-to-know basis. She also told the auditor that they are not allowed to keep arrest information for more than 7 days because they are not allowed to “track people.” ID was required to view crime statistics (how many incidents in a given period of time, etc.), but the auditor would also have to pay $50 to view these statistics. Ultimately, the agency contact refused to accept the written request.

Half Moon Bay Police Department (F)
This agency contact required that the auditor make separate written requests for each item he sought, with an explanation in each one about what he would be using the documents for.

Pleasanton Police Department (F-)
This agency required proof from our auditor that she was a reporter in order to view the requested documents.

Banning Police Department (F-)
This agency contact was said to be very rude and unhelpful with our auditor. She raised her voice at him a number of times when he asked clarifying questions.

Beaumont Police Department (C)
This agency contact told the auditor that they needed her identification because they track who makes requests.

Colusa Police Department
High copy fees: $5 first page, $1 each additional page.

Napa County Sheriff (F-)
Agency contact told auditor that he would need to seek approval from the Board of Supervisors in order to gain special permission to see crime and arrest information. She added, “We’re not like the public library where one can check out records to pore over.”

Grover Beach Police Department (C+)
Chief’s secretary denied that the chief had to file Form 700. According to city policy, he does have to file.

Pico Rivera Sheriff’s Station (F-)
This agency wouldn’t proceed with processing the auditor’s request without a written request that identified the auditor.

Arcadia Police Department (F-)
This agency contact didn’t believe the auditor when she (finally) identified herself as a reporter. The agency contact demanded to know the name of the auditor’s supervisor in order to call the paper to verify her employment.

Pasadena Police Department (F-)
This agency contact laughed at the auditor when she explained what a Form 700 was, as if scoffing at the idea that the information contained in this document might be public.

Coronado Police Department (D+)
There was a stamp on the crime information provided to our auditor that read, “Controlled copy. Restricted PC 11142-11143. Not for third party release.”

Cotati Police Department (F-)
This agency tracked our auditor back to her newspaper with only a first name and cell phone number. It is unclear how (or why) it did this.

CHP

North Sacramento(F)
Written request accepted and passed along to the main office on behalf of the auditor.

Main(F)
Records, it said, are not kept at the main office. Requests must be made at local offices.

South Sacramento(F-)
Written requests must be made directly to main office in Sacramento. Request not accepted.

San Bernardino (F)
Citation information is not public information “until it is adjudicated”. Auditor was referred to the district attorney and courts.

Dublin(F)
DUI information was called confidential. Written request was rejected

Conclusions

1.  Many if not most California policing agencies fail the open government obligations that they share with other public agencies so radically that it is hard to view them as part of the same public universe.

2.  Those obligations are to know the rudiments of the California Public Records Act and to treat unfamiliar citizens who request information with at least the same readiness to provide it as is granted to journalists, without demanding identity and other disclosures that are neither sanctioned by the law nor explained by innocent need. In this audit the most common experience was that the requester was required to provide his or her identification, purpose and/or affiliation, but then left the department or office empty-handed, and at best waited one or more weeks to learn whether any information would be forthcoming at all.

3.  Most information was not forthcoming. Ironically, the only requests made in the audit of sheriff’s and police departments that led more than half of them (52 percent) to provide access was for copies of the department’s public information policy and of its fee policy for copies of crime reports for victims. CHP offices at this writing (January 9) have yet to provide any information.

4.  Another common pattern was that the departmental clerk or spokesperson, instead of taking the responsibility for assembling records requested by the auditor — all of which dealt with the department’s own operations or personnel — sent the auditor to other departments of the city, county or CHP bureaucracy in search of the information. In such cases it seems likely that the audited department already had copies of the information or could easily obtain it.

5.  Until the results have been sifted more carefully it is impossible to say whether legislation is in order to correct these striking failings. Legislation cannot compel common sense, courtesy or a sense of professionalism and responsibility, whose presence in most of these departments would have made so much difference.

6.  But training is clearly in order. Whatever departmental or CHP leaders may know, those who deal directly with the public far too often not only do not know the California Public Records Act and related laws, but what is worse, do not appreciate how misinformed they are. Such a confident fund of false facts, combined with a mindset that too often considers the questioning stranger a potential threat to be probed rather than a citizen to be helped, is seldom the fault of those it afflicts. Most literally do not know any better. But that will be of little comfort to the baffled if not intimidated person who is turned away knowing only that his or her name has been filed as someone asking questions.

7.  Sheriffs, police chiefs and CHP officials whose officers earned embarrassing grades in this audit have two choices. They can reflexively deny, dispute or dismiss the findings, or they can accept that there must be room for improvement and schedule training accordingly. The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training either has a program for such purposes or if not, it should. Californians Aware, which last October gave free remedial training to almost 200 state agency employees after two audits earlier in the year, is ready to do all it can to make its next police agency audit more successful for the departments that are checked.

8.   Not every public counter person or full-time press information officer needs deep training in the public information law. But they — and those who influence them — do need to be disabused of a handful of legal myths and cleared of a few edgy attitudes that get in the way. Procedurally, they also need to know whom to turn to when they get an unfamiliar request, to make sure that a reasonable response process is set in motion and understood by the requester before he or she leaves the office.

9.   CPRA stands not for the California Press Relations Act but the California Public Records Act. The fact that citizens may not cite the law as often as journalists do does not mean they have no rights under it. The have the same rights as any newspaper or broadcaster. Their questions deserve at least as much respect. They are not suspects and should never be treated as if not trusted. If they are distrusted, why should they trust in return?