Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
CALIFORNIANS AWARE,
16
17
18
19
20
Petitioner/Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BALDWIN PARK,
Respondent/Defendant.
21
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.:
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDATE, INJUNCTIVE AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT WITH
EXHIBITS A THROUGH H.
[Cal. Govt. Code Section 6250 et seq.]
22
23
24
25
26
Government Code section 6250, et seq. (CPRA) and the California Constitution,
27
Article I, Section 3.
28
-1VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
and declaratory relief under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1060
and Government Code sections 6258 and 6259. In this verified Petition, Petitioner
alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
6
7
1.
Civil asset forfeiture has recently been the subject of much controversy.
2.
Recently, the Drug Policy Alliance has published a report entitled Above
8
9
10
the Law: An Investigation of Civil Asset Forfeiture in California. A true and correct
11
copy of the Report is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The report identifies numerous
12
13
14
documents submitted to the Justice Department, and failure to retain records related
15
16
17
3.
18
enforcement program that authorizes the sharing of federally forfeited property with
19
participating state and local law enforcements agencies that directly participate in an
20
21
22
4.
However, before a local law enforcement agency can share in the forfeited
23
property, it must submit a form known as a DAG-71. A true and correct copy of a blank
24
25
26
27
28
5.
State and local law enforcement agencies are required to retain all
Equitable Sharing Program and their receipt and expenditure or use of shared cash,
proceeds, real property, or tangible personal property, including but not limited to
Forms DAG-71, Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification forms, accounting and
bookkeeping documents, logs and records, bank records and statements, and audit
6
7
6.
Californians Aware became aware that when these forms were requested
by local law enforcement agencies that participate in the program, many agencies were
either denying access to the forms, or failing to respond to the request at all.
10
7.
11
12
requests to local agencies for copies of the DAG-71 forms, including the agencies
13
identified in the Drug Policy Alliance Report. One such request was submitted to
14
Baldwin Park. However, Baldwin Park has failed to provide the forms or respond as
15
required by the CPRA. Therefore, Californians Aware brings this suit to obtain a court
16
17
THE PARTIES
18
8.
19
Petitioner/Plaintiff
CALIFORNIANS
AWARE
(Petitioner
or
20
CalAware) is, and at all times mentioned in this petition has been, a 501(c)(3) non-
21
profit public benefit corporation organized under the laws of California, governed by a
22
23
mission includes the promotion and defense of the principles of open government. Its
24
offices are located at 2218 Homewood Way, Carmichael, CA 95608. As such, CalAware
25
has a beneficial interest in Respondents performance of its legal duties under the
26
CPRA.
27
28
-3VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
9.
City) is a local agency as defined by Government Code 6252(a), and is, therefore,
(City Council). The Citys main office is located at 14403 East Pacific Avenue,
7
8
9
10.
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure sections 1085 and 1060 and Government Code sections 6258 and 6259.
10
11
11.
12
of Los Angeles and the acts and events giving rise to the claims occurred, in part, in the
13
County of Angeles.
14
15
16
12.
17
California Public Records Request to the City (the Request) via email.
18
correct copy of the Request is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The request sought
19
copies of the DAG-71 forms for every asset forfeiture initiated by the police department
20
A true and
21
22
13.
On July 30, 2014, Mr. Francke received an email from Rosa Caballero, an
23
Administrative Clerk for the City. A true and correct copy of that email is attached
24
25
Vivian Olivas, Records Supervisor for the Baldwin Park Police Department, responding
26
to the Request. A true and correct copy of the Citys response is attached hereto as
27
Exhibit E. The response failed to provide copies of the requested documents, and
28
simply responded that the forms are available through the U.S. Department of Justice
-4VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
http://www.justice.gov/jmd/afp/03foiainfo/index.htm.
3
4
14.
After receiving the response, Mr. Francke checked the website provided
information.
7
8
15.
Caballero objecting to the Citys response. A true and correct copy of Mr. Franckes
10
email to Ms. Caballero is attached hereto as Exhibit F. In his email, Mr. Francke
11
stated:
12
13
14
15
Moreover, the CPRA does not allow agencies to deny a request simply
because the information may also be located with another agency.
16
17
18
19
20
21
16.
Mr. Francke did not receive a response from the City to his January 15th
17.
email.
22
23
24
to the Citys response. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
Moreover, the CPRA does not allow agencies to deny a request simply
because the information may also be located with another agency.
Therefore, please provide me with the requested records or a statement
of legal justification for declining to do so no later than Friday, February
13. For additional information, please refer to our original request,
which is also attached.
6
7
8
9
10
11
18.
Caballero, stating that she no longer handles CPRA requests. A true and correct copy
of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit H. In her email, Ms. Caballero states that
Ive copied Ms. Russell, Chief Deputy City Clerk. She will respond to you at her
earliest convenience.
12
13
14
19.
Mr. Francke never received a response from Ms. Russell, or anyone else
at the City.
15
16
17
20.
Even though the original request was made approximately ten months
18
CAUSE OF ACTION
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22.
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
retained by the City, and are, therefore, deemed to be public records pursuant to
17
18
19
25.
20
Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall within 10 days
from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or
part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the
agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the
determination and the reasons therefor.
21
22
23
24
26.
25
26
27
28
-7VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
(1)
The need to search for and collect the requested records from field
facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office
processing the request.
(2)
(3)
(4)
27.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection
14
15
16
28.
The City has failed to respond as required by the CPRA and has
17
obstructed the production of these public records, thereby violating Government Code
18
6253(d).
19
20
29.
21
one protected by their State Constitution. The California Constitution, Article 1, Section
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Petitioner has
requested copies of unredacted, disclosable public records from the City, but City has
refused to provide access to those public records. The only plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy left to Petitioner is the relief provided by Government Code 6258.
8
9
10
11
12
31.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
32.
21
22
33.
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
34.
the parties regarding the Citys responsibility to disclose records under the CPRA.
4
5
6
35.
The City has a ministerial duty to perform according to the laws of State
7
8
9
36.
Petitioner has an interest in having the laws executed and public duties
enforced and, therefore, has a beneficial interest in the outcome of the proceedings.
10
11
12
37.
Petitioner has a clear, present, and legal right to the Citys performance of
13
14
15
38.
The City has a present legal duty and present ability to perform its
16
17
18
39.
The City has failed to perform its ministerial duties as required by the
40.
CPRA.
19
20
21
22
23
41.
Therefore, this Court should find that the records requested by Petitioner
24
are disclosable public records and that City has violated the CPRA by refusing to
25
release these records, and should order the City to immediately release unredacted
26
27
28
-10VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
VERIFICATION
(C.C.P. 446 and 2015.5)
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Joseph T. Francke
-!1VERIFICATION
Exhibit A
Prepared By:
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Figure 2A: Byrne-JAG grant awards to state and local law enforcement agencies FY 2005-2014
11
Figure 2B: Federal equitable sharing payments to law enforcement agencies FY 2001-2013
11
Figure 3: Standard of proof required for government to prevail when owner contests forfeiture
18
18
19
19
20
20
20
21
Figure 10: Top 10 cities in California per capita DOJ federal forfeiture revenue FY 2006-2013
22
Figure 11: Total federal forfeiture revenue of 10 most populous cities in California and select L.A. County
cities FY 2006-2013
22
26
31
Acknowledgments
37
2
drugpolicy.org
Executive Summary
This sweeping report reveals the troubling extent to
which local law enforcement agencies have
circumvented California state law standards, including
taking property without first convicting someone of a
crime and keeping the proceeds for their agencies.
The report identifies numerous breaches of
federal forfeiture rules, including budgeting
future forfeiture revenue, failure to submit
forfeiture expenses to third party auditors,
unaccounted-for expenditures in documents
submitted to the Justice Department, and failure
to retain records related to asset seizures.
Key Findings:
This report identifies seven key areas of concern related
to civil asset forfeiture practices by California law
enforcement, contrary to requirements under state and
federal law:
1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
4
drugpolicy.org
Key Recommendations:
Based on the findings of this report, what has proven
effective in other states, and the broader debate in the
media and the Capitol about the efficacy and fairness of
civil asset forfeiture practices, the Drug Policy Alliance
(DPA) recommends a number of solutions to address
the most egregious violations of law. Given the
pervasive and destructive nature of the problems
associated with civil asset forfeiture in California, DPA
Finding
Recommendation
Place the burden on the government to prove the property owners consent
or knowledge of the crime leading to the seizure of property.
Raise the standard of proof police need to seize assets.
Call on the California DOJ to develop and implement new training on asset
seizure guidelines and curriculum.
5
drugpolicy.org
Introduction
6
drugpolicy.org
New Data Analysis Shows Revised Department of Justice Forfeiture Policy Would
Stop Only a Fraction of Seizures, Arlington VA.: The Institute for Justice,
February 12, 2015.
4 S.2644, H.R.5212 and H.R.5847.
3
7
drugpolicy.org
6 Blumenson, Eric and Eva Nilsen, Policing for Profit: The Drug
Wars Hidden Economic Agenda, University of Chicago Law Review 65,
(1998): 35-114.
7 Ibid.
8 Williams, Marian, Jefferson Holcomb, Tomislav Kovandzic and Scott
Bullock, Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture, Arlington
VA.: The Institute for Justice, 2010.
8
drugpolicy.org
Ibid.
Ibid.
15 http://endforfeiture.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/HolderPolicyChangeImpactOnePagerijlogo.pdf
16 All quotes of David Smith in this report from interview by author,
December 2014.
17 Miller, Mitchell, Lance Selva Drug Enforcements Doubled-Edged
Sword: An Assessment of Asset Forfeiture Programs, Justice Quarterly
11, (1994): 313-335.
18 McDonald, Douglas and Kenneth Carlson, Abt Associates Inc., Federal
Sentencing in Transition, 1986-90, Special Report, Washington D.C.:
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992.
13
14
9
drugpolicy.org
19
10
drugpolicy.org
28
30
11
drugpolicy.org
12
drugpolicy.org
All quotes of Jim Roberts from interview with author, June 2012.
Blumenson and Nilsen..
13
drugpolicy.org
45
46
49
14
drugpolicy.org
7) Attempts at Reform
California
As far back as the late 1980s, some in law enforcement
recognized the inherent potential for abuse associated
with forfeiture. The asset seizure laws are very broad,
giving considerable latitude. If this latitude is abused, the
courts or the legislature will certainly impose reforms,"
predicted Lieutenant Edward Tunstall of the Orange,
California Police Department in 1989.55
It wasnt long before scandals materialized, prompting
reform bills in state capitols and Washington, DC.
Within a year of Lieutenant Tunstalls warning, news
emerged that L.A. County Sheriffs Department
narcotics officers were helping themselves to cash and
property seized in raids. Sherriffs Sergeant Robert
Sobel, a 19-year veteran who commanded a narcotics
unit, testified that officers stole $60 million in cash in
1988 and 1989 alone.56 In all, 12 narcotics deputies were
convicted.57
Then, on the morning of October 2, 1992, 30 officers
from seven local, state and federal agencies raided the
ranch of millionaire Donald Scott in Ventura County.58
The multi-jurisdictional team included agents from the
L.A. County Sheriffs Department, LAPD, National
Guard, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service,
California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, DEA, even
two researchers from NASAs Jet Propulsion Lab. They
were acting on a tip from an informant that Scott was
growing pot.
Hearing intruders burst through his door, Scott
grabbed his .38. Moments later, two sheriffs deputies
shot and killed him. Agents scoured the property and
found no drugs.
In its investigation, the Ventura County District
Attorney found that, prior to the raid, agents had
discussed the possibility of seizing the 200-acre property.
The DA concluded that the team of officers, which
50
in envelopes, bags, and lockers. The police chief estimated that most
of the money found would be returned to the owners because it was
not properly seized.
55 Tunstall, Edward, Managing the Changes in California Narcotics
Enforcement Brought About by Asset Seizure Laws Command
College Class VIII, Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST),
Sacramento, California 1989.
56 Reich, Kenneth and Victor Merina, Ex-Sergeant Sentenced, Alleges
Misconduct Los Angeles Times, April 13, 1993,
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-04-13/local/me-22275_1_robertsobel.
57 Ibid.
58 Office of the Ventura County D.A. Report on the Death of Donald
Scott, March 30, 1993. http://www.fear.org/chron/scott.txt (all facts
cited about the raid and the report from this source)
15
drugpolicy.org
National
Meanwhile, the abuses of forfeiture in California and
elsewhere prompted calls to reform federal forfeiture
law. Republican Congressman Henry Hyde and
Democratic Congressman John Conyers filed reform
bills in 1992 and 1993. It would take years until those
reforms saw the light of day with the signing of the Civil
Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA).
While CAFRA provided some remedies,63 it did
not address punishment without conviction, the
profit motive, or equitable sharing.
Webb, Gary, The Forfeiture Racket, San Jose Mercury News Aug-Sept.
1993.
60 Benson, Bruce, Escalating the War on Drugs: Causes and Unintended
Consequences Stanford Law Review 20, No.2 (2009): 293-359
61The California state forfeiture report for 2013 reports a total of 3,293
forfeiture cases completed in 2013. The total value of those forfeitures
was $28,130,455 for an average of $8,542.50 per forfeiture. To
compare the average value of state forfeitures in 2013 and 1992 in
constant dollars, the value of $8,542.50 in 1992, was obtained using the
Bureau of Labor Statistic's inflation calculator
(http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/asset_forf
/2013_af/af.pdf
62 All quotes of John Burton from interview by author, November 2014.
59
16
drugpolicy.org
8) Equitable Sharing:
Undermining Forfeiture Reform
California law is not alone in how it seeks to limit abuses
associated with civil asset forfeiture.
72
Hyde
17
drugpolicy.org
18
drugpolicy.org
Profit Motive
For their part, veteran state and local law enforcement
officers agree that the greater share of proceeds available
to police is a factor motivating departments to pursue
forfeitures federally rather than via state law. The city of
Baldwin Park in L.A. County has among the highest
levels of per capita federal forfeiture in California. Over
the last 10 years for which complete records are
available, the city collected 69 times more money from
federal justice department forfeitures ($4,557,591) than it
did from state forfeitures ($66,284.17).
We use federal forfeiture, says Baldwin Park Police
Captain David Reynoso, Its just more beneficial to us.
The 25 year-veteran and former supervisor of the
departments narcotics unit also points to the fact that
many of the seizures stem from federal narcotics cases.
Kent Shaw is the former chief drug enforcement officer
in California and the current Deputy Director of the
Division of Law Enforcement at the California
Department of Justice. Shaw says there are several
reasons for the growth in equitable sharing in California.
He cites the financial advantages police departments get
from pursuing forfeitures cases federally. Typically
under the federal route, all things being equal, theres
about an 80 percent return on any forfeiture vs. the state
level its only about 50 percent.79
Shaw also points to greater overall law enforcement
cooperation between federal, state and local law
enforcement in the wake of September 11, 2001, which
has led to more collaboration in drug cases. Theres
been a greater push, particularly in the intelligence world,
to share information, to work more cooperatively, says
Shaw. Anytime you have more federal agencies working
in conjunction with local agencies, theres probably a
greater likelihood that those cases will be adopted by the
U.S. attorneys office.80
19
drugpolicy.org
Budget Cuts
This growing awareness by law enforcement of the
financial advantages of federal forfeitures combined with
increased collaboration with federal agencies has come
at a time of growing fiscal hardship for police
departments in the state.
California and its municipalities faced dire economic
straits in the mid-2000s, which led to cuts to state and
local law enforcement. The States Bureau of Narcotic
Enforcement was eliminated, along with state funding
for many task forces.
In a number of cities identified in this report,
forfeiture revenue spiked immediately after police
budgets were cut.
Figure 6: After several years of considerable growth, the
Beverly Hills Police Department budget82 was cut by
almost $4 million in fiscal year 2010. The next year the
departments federal forfeiture revenues, more than
quadrupled. The citys DOJ equitable sharing income
went from $7,637 in FY 2007 to $2,292,323 in FY 2011.
Figure 7: Irwindale collected virtually no federal
forfeiture revenue through much of the last decade, a
time when police budgets were on the rise. Since fiscal
year 2009, General Fund appropriations for the police
have been cut in three out of five fiscal years.
Meanwhile, the police department has significantly
increased its forfeiture revenue.
Figure 8: After steady increases over several years, La
Vernes police budget was cut in fiscal year 2010. The
following year, La Vernes federal forfeiture income
nearly quadrupled.
20
drugpolicy.org
83
21
drugpolicy.org
These cities stand out not only for the large amounts of
federal forfeiture revenue they collect relative to their
size, but also in terms of absolute forfeiture revenue.
84
The comparisons between the forfeiture revenue of these cities and the
LAPD, and the police forces of some of Californias most populous
cities encompass forfeiture revenue from both Treasury and Justice
Department equitable sharing.
22
drugpolicy.org
23
drugpolicy.org
3e. Supplanting
89
90
24
drugpolicy.org
Ibid, p. 183
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ri/projects/esguidelines.pdf, p. 28
Correspondence and conversation between author and Baldwin Park
City Attorney, November, 2014.
25
drugpolicy.org
Figure 12: Frequent Breaches of Federal Forfeiture Regulations: Nine-City Score Card
98
All quotes of David Reynoso from interview with author, July 2014.
26
drugpolicy.org
101
27
drugpolicy.org
108
28
drugpolicy.org
forfeiture.113
29
drugpolicy.org
124
30
drugpolicy.org
Key Findings
Baldwin Park participated in 565 seizures between 2008
and 2013, far outpacing the other cities in this
investigation.126 This occurred as the size of the police
departments full-time staff was cut 18% between 2007
and 2013.
The city has failed to submit its forfeiture revenue
expenditures for auditing, as required by federal DOJ
regulations, every single year since at least fiscal year
1998. This represents over $5 million worth of
unaudited spending.
Key Findings
While the Justice Department stipulates that cities are
not to view equitable sharing as an alternate source of
funding, in Beverly Hills vast increases in forfeiture
revenue have coincided with big budget cuts.
After several years of considerable growth, general fund
appropriations for the Beverly Hills police
department budget were cut by almost $4 million in
fiscal year 2010. The next year the departments
federal forfeiture revenues, more than quadrupled.
31
drugpolicy.org
Addendum 4: Irwindale
Addendum 3: Gardena
Key Findings
Irwindales municipal budgets contain no record of
asset forfeiture revenues or expenditures. This
amounts to $800,783 in revenue and $410,429 in
spending undocumented over 5 years.
Key Findings
While the federal government warns that forfeiture
should not be seen as a means to generate revenue,
money from seizures spiked following consecutive
budget cuts. In fiscal year 2009 the police department
collected $102,638 from DOJ forfeitures. Following
back to back cuts to the police budget in FY 2010 and
2011, DOJ equitable sharing revenue grew to reach
$1,886,075 in 2012 an 18-fold increase over
3 years.
Prior to FY 2010, Gardena failed to abide by the
federally mandated annual audit of how it spends its
forfeiture revenue.
32
drugpolicy.org
Key Findings
46% of La Vernes federal seizures between 2008 and
2013 were conducted without a warrant the highest
of any city in this investigation.
33
drugpolicy.org
Addendum 6: Pomona
Key Findings
Pomona recorded the second highest rate of
warrantless DOJ seizures (39%), between 2008 and
2013.
Pomona anticipated future forfeiture revenue, the
amounts ranged from $1,618,017 to over $3 million.
The city appropriated more money from its forfeiture
fund than it has in reserve placing added pressure on
police to raise revenue by seizing cash. Every year
the Pomona police department was able to seize
sufficient money to make up for the over-commitment
of forfeiture funds in its budget.
In FY 2005 the city appropriated $1,817,288 from the
forfeiture fund, but the fund only had $1,519,563 in it.
In FY 2006 the city appropriated $1,246,196 more from
the forfeiture fund than it held in reserve.
In FY 2007 the citys appropriation from the forfeiture
fund exceeded what was in the fund by $603,754.
In FY 2009 the city appropriated $1,426,072 from the
forfeiture fund $830,422 more than was in the fund.
In FY 2010 the city appropriated $528,126 more from
the forfeiture fund than it held in reserve.
Key Findings
Asked why South Gate has some of the highest per
capita asset forfeiture revenue in California, a senior
member of the citys police force responded that the city
has always had an emphasis on drug enforcement, there
is so much drugs here, adding we dedicate an unusual
amount of people to narcotics enforcement.
34
drugpolicy.org
Addendum 8: Vernon
Key Findings
Vernon doesnt report forfeiture revenue or
expenditures in its annual budgets. This despite the
fact that until 2010, Vernons own budgetary guidelines
stipulated, the budget includes authorized expenditures
and estimated revenues of the General Fund, Special
Revenue Funds and Capital Projects Funds. Vernons
budgets contain such data on some special revenue
funds, but not federal forfeiture revenue. In the period
reviewed by this report, this represents over $1,000,000
in police revenue not documented in the citys
budget.
Vernon was nearly disincorporated in 2010 in the wake
of scandals involving municipal finances and elections. A
2012 audit by the state auditor faulted Vernon, finding
the citys budget process lacks transparency and that
the budget failed to include figures required by the Citys
own charter. Forfeiture revenues and expenditures are
also absent from the financial accounts the city submits
to auditors as part of its Comprehensive Annual
financial Report.
Contrary to federal guidelines, Vernon reported
anticipated future forfeiture revenue in its budget in
fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
35
drugpolicy.org
Key Findings
According to federal guidelines forfeitures should not be
regarded as a source of income. In West Covina
forfeiture income surged in the wake of budget cuts to
the police department. After growing for several
consecutive years, general fund appropriations for West
Covinas police budget were cut by over $1 million in
FY 2011. The following year, the departments
forfeiture take more than quadrupled. In fiscal years
2011, 2012 and 2013, the police budget was cut a
combined $1,677,134. In that same period, the
department received $5,529,409 from DOJ equitable
Above the Law:
An Investigation of Civil Asset Forfeiture
in California
36
drugpolicy.org
Acknowledgements
37
drugpolicy.org
Exhibit B
39
APPENDIX D:
Form DAG-71: Application for Transfer of Federally Forfeited Property
Date:
Investigative Agency:
Case Number:
U.S. Department of Justice
I.
Asset #:
Seizure Date:
Judicial District:
Case Type:
Adoption:
Joint:
T
w his
.u
sd for
oj m
.g is
ov a
/c va
rim il
a
in ble
al o
/a n
fm lin
ls e
/fo
rm
s
(Check One)
Telephone Number: (
Request Type:
Property Description:
Item
Cash/Proceeds
Purchase of Equipment
Purchase of Vehicles
Yes
No
V. Contribution (If any answer to A thru E is yes, provide details in Part VI):
A.
B.
C.
D.
F.
hours
FORM DAG-71
DEC.90
Appendices
E.
T
w his
.u
sd for
oj m
.g is
ov a
/c va
rim il
a
in ble
al o
/a n
fm lin
ls e
/fo
rm
40
Guide to Equitable Sharing
T
w his
.u
sd for
oj m
.g is
ov a
/c va
rim il
a
in ble
al o
/a n
fm lin
ls e
/fo
rm
41
Appendices
T
w his
.u
sd for
oj m
.g is
ov a
/c va
rim il
ab
in le
al o
/a n
fm lin
ls e
/fo
rm
42
Guide to Equitable Sharing
Exhibit C
!
!
Californians Aware
THE CENTER
!
!
July!19,!2014!
!
!
Rosa!Caballero!!
City!Clerk!
City!of!Baldwin!Park!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Public!Records!Act!Request!
Dear!Ms.!Caballero,!
!
Pursuant!to!its!rights!under!the!California!Public!Records!Act!(CPRA),!and!the!California!
Constitution,!as!amended!by!passage!of!Proposition!59!on!November!2,!2004,!Californians!
Aware!is!writing!to!request!that!you!provide!copies!of!the!DAGM71!forms!for!every!asset!
forfeiture!case!initiated!by!the!police!department!for!every!year!from!2003!to!the!present.!!
!
As!you!may!know,!federal!regulations!provide!that!a!participating!law!enforcement!agency!
must!maintain!not!only!a!log!but!also!copies!of!all!Forms!DAGM71!that!have!been!forwarded!
to!the!Department!of!Justice.!
MM!P.26!of!the!Guide&to&Equitable&Sharing&!
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ri/projects/esguidelines.pdf!
!
If!you!do!not!have!the!records!described,!please!inform!me!which!agency!or!official!has!
custody!of!these!records,!and!what,!if!any,!related!records!you!have!that!may!be!responsive!
to!our!request.!
!
As!you!probably!know,!the!following!legal!rules!apply!to!this!request.!
!
Prompt&Disclosure:!Government!Code!Section!6253!(b),!(d)!!
Records!not!exempt!from!disclosure!are!to!be!made!promptly!available.!No!provision!of!
the!CPRA,!including!the!response!periods!noted!below,!shall!be!construed!to!permit!an!
agency!to!delay!or!obstruct!the!inspection!or!copying!of!public!records.!
!
Deadlines:!Government!Code!Section!6253!(c)!states!that!you!are!required!promptly!and!
in!no!case!more!than!10!calendar!days!from!the!date!of!this!request,!to!determine,!and!
inform!me!in!writing,!whether!you!are!going!to!decline!all!or!part!of!the!request,!and!the!
law(s)!that!you!are!relying!on,!unless!within!that!period!you!notify!me!in!writing!that!you!
intend!to!take!up!to!an!additional!14!days!to!make!the!determination!because!of!your!need:!
!
2218 Homewood Way Carmichael, CA 95608 (916) 487-7000 info@calaware.org
!
!
Public!Records!Act!Request!!Californians!Aware!
July!19,!2014!
Page!2!of!2!
!
!
*!To!search!for!and!collect!the!requested!records!from!field!facilities!or!other!
establishments!that!are!separate!from!the!office!processing!the!request;!
!
*!To!search!for,!collect,!and!appropriately!examine!a!voluminous!amount!of!separate!
and!distinct!records!that!are!demanded!in!a!single!request!
!
*!For!consultation,!which!shall!be!conducted!with!all!practicable!speed,!with!another!
agency!having!substantial!interest!in!the!determination!of!the!request!or!among!two!or!
more!components!of!the!agency!having!substantial!subject!matter!interest!therein;!or!
!
*!To!compile!data,!to!write!programming!language!or!a!computer!program,!or!to!
construct!a!computer!report!to!extract!data.!
!
!Your!notice!must!set!forth!the!reasons!for!the!extension!and!the!date!on!which!a!
determination!is!expected!to!be!dispatched.!If!you!determine!that!the!records!requested!!
are!disclosable,!your!written!notice!must!state!the!estimated!date!and!time!when!the!
records!will!be!made!available.!
!
Constitutional&Rule&of&Interpretation:!Article!I,!Section!3!(b)!!
The!California!Constitution!requires!that!the!Public!Records!Act!shall!be!broadly!
construed!if!it!furthers!the!people's!right!of!access,!and!narrowly!construed!if!it!limits!the!
right!of!access.!This!rule!must!be!heeded!in!interpreting!any!exemptions!from!disclosure!
you!believe!to!be!applicable.!
!
Fees:&Government!Code!Section!6253!(b)!!
For!copying!you!may!charge!only!a!fee!covering!direct!costs!of!duplication,!or!a!statutory!
fee,!if!applicable.!The!California!Court!of!Appeal!has!concluded,!The!direct!cost!of!
duplication!is!the!cost!of!running!the!copy!machine,!and!conceivably!also!the!expense!of!the!
person!operating!it.!Direct!cost!does!not!include!the!ancillary!tasks!necessarily!associated!
with!the!retrieval,!inspection!and!handling!of!the!file!from!which!the!copy!is!extracted.!
North&County&Parents&Organization&v.&Department&of&Education,!23!Cal.App.4th!144!(1994).!
!
Thank!you!for!your!prompt!attention!to!this!request.!When!the!records!are!ready!for!!
transmittal,!or!you!have!a!determination!letter!prepared,!please!contact!me!by!return!email!
to!terry@calaware.org!
!
Meanwhile,!please!let!me!know!if!you!need!further!clarification.!
!
Sincerely,!
!
!
!
Terry!Francke!
General!Counsel!
Californians!Aware!
2218 Homewood Way Carmichael, CA 95608 (916) 487-7000 info@calaware.org
Exhibit D
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Importance:
Terry Francke
rcaballero@baldwinpark.com
Response to Public Records Request
Friday, February 6, 2015 12:10:49 PM
Asset Forfeiture Request - Baldwin Park.pdf
ATT00001.htm
PRA Terry Francke I.PDF
ATT00002.htm
High
Terry Francke
General Counsel
Californians Aware
From: Rosa Caballero
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:58 PM
To: 'Terry Francke'
Cc: Alejandra Avila; Vivian Olivas
Subject: RE: Response to Public Records Request
Good afternoon,
Attached for your review is the Citys response letter to your request for records. At this
time your request is considered complete and closed. If you have any questions, please
contact Vivian Olivas, Records Supervisor at 626-813-5230.
Thanks,
Rosa Caballero
Administrative Clerk II
Administrative/City Council
City of Baldwin Park
14403 E. Pacific Avenue
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
Tel: 626-960-4011 Ext. 112
Fax: 626-337-2965
rcaballero@baldwinpark.com
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Importance:
Terry Francke
rcaballero@baldwinpark.com
Supplement to Public Records Request
Thursday, January 15, 2015 12:37:52 PM
Asset Forfeiture Request - Baldwin Park.pdf
ATT00001.htm
PRA Terry Francke I.PDF
ATT00002.htm
High
Good afternoon,
Attached for your review is the Citys response letter to your request for
records. At this time your request is considered complete and closed. If you
have any questions, please contact Vivian Olivas, Records Supervisor at 626813-5230.
Thanks,
Rosa Caballero
Administrative Clerk II
Administrative/City Council
City of Baldwin Park
14403 E. Pacific Avenue
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
Tel: 626-960-4011 Ext. 112
Fax: 626-337-2965
rcaballero@baldwinpark.com
Exhibit G
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Importance:
Terry Francke
rcaballero@baldwinpark.com
Response to Public Records Request
Friday, February 6, 2015 12:10:49 PM
Asset Forfeiture Request - Baldwin Park.pdf
ATT00001.htm
PRA Terry Francke I.PDF
ATT00002.htm
High
Terry Francke
General Counsel
Californians Aware
From: Rosa Caballero
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:58 PM
To: 'Terry Francke'
Cc: Alejandra Avila; Vivian Olivas
Subject: RE: Response to Public Records Request
Good afternoon,
Attached for your review is the Citys response letter to your request for records. At this
time your request is considered complete and closed. If you have any questions, please
contact Vivian Olivas, Records Supervisor at 626-813-5230.
Thanks,
Rosa Caballero
Administrative Clerk II
Administrative/City Council
City of Baldwin Park
14403 E. Pacific Avenue
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
Tel: 626-960-4011 Ext. 112
Fax: 626-337-2965
rcaballero@baldwinpark.com
Exhibit H
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Importance:
Terry Francke
Rosa Caballero
Kelly Aviles
Re: Response to Public Records Request
Monday, February 9, 2015 10:52:37 AM
High
Rosa Caballero
Executive Secretary
Administration/City Council
City of Baldwin Park
14403 E. Pacific Avenue
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
Tel: 626-960-4011 Ext. 112
Fax: 626-337-2965
rcaballero@baldwinpark.com
Terry Francke
General Counsel
Californians Aware
From: Rosa Caballero
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:58 PM
To: 'Terry Francke'
Cc: Alejandra Avila; Vivian Olivas
Subject: RE: Response to Public Records Request
Good afternoon,
Attached for your review is the Citys response letter to your request for
records. At this time your request is considered complete and closed. If you
have any questions, please contact Vivian Olivas, Records Supervisor at 626813-5230.
Thanks,
Rosa Caballero
Administrative Clerk II
Administrative/City Council
City of Baldwin Park
14403 E. Pacific Avenue
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
Tel: 626-960-4011 Ext. 112
Fax: 626-337-2965
rcaballero@baldwinpark.com