Tattler Forced to 'Lawyer Up' To Get Public Documents

 New Culture of Secrecy Descends on City Hall

Citizens Wanting Accountability Must Lawyer Up

Public Records Illegally Denied

Emeryville Illegally Disregards California Public Records Act

News Analysis

Over the last eight months, the Tattler has been attempting to get three Emeryville police body worn camera documents due in accordance with the California Public Records Act but the City of Emeryville has been actively fighting the law that requires they hand over the public documents.  After the City said NO, they will not release the video documents, the Tattler obtained the services of a lawyer, prompting the City to announce after eight months, they are finally going to stop fighting and cough up the documents.  In this and other recent fights for public documents illustrates the extent of a growing culture of secrecy at City Hall versus the public’s right to know the doings of their government.  

City Attorney John Kennedy
Not a fan of accountability, he's been a
good fit with the City Council majority.

Fifteen years of Tattler public records request attempts have made it clear that transparency and accountability at Emeryville City Hall have never been as rigorous as they claim they are but a growing ‘next level’ of records denying puts City Hall and its Police Department now squarely into the realm of law breaking.  The new culture of secrecy at City Hall dovetails with a culture of unaccountability among some members of the City Council led by the nabob John Bauters, raising questions about who’s leading whom in Emeryville's governance.

The Records Act is how the Tattler and many other news sites obtain public records to inform stories for public consumption and to the extant municipalities violate the Act, the public will be less informed as a consequence.  The new City Hall obstinacy raises the specter of citizens and the press ‘lawyering up’ if they want transparency and accountability from Emeryville.

On March 3rd 2024, the Tattler first requested the police body worn camera documents of a trespassing event via a Public Records Act Request.  The City has ten days to respond to such requests according to law but Emeryville commonly misses the deadline or ignores the first request altogether.  This has been happening with greater frequency over the last few years and the City did begin by ignoring our March 3rd request.  After nudging, finally, the City responded on March 18th, five days late. However, in their responce, the City Attorney, John Kennedy, invoked a clause granted by the State that municipalities may cite to avoid disclosing requested public documents under the auspices of Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991), case law that posits greater public harm will come by the government disclosing the public documents than is caused by the government not releasing the documents.

The Tattler asked Mr Kennedy to elaborate on his refusal to disclose the documents because the Times Mirror case invocation was improper and we threatened to sue the City in court if we did not get a responce.  Days after that, EPD responded that upon “re-consideration”, they will release the requested documents after all, but the Tattler would have to pay the City of Emeryville $656 for the Police Department to redact sensitive personal information from the videos.  The State of California requires municipalities redact people’s personal information such a social security numbers, phone numbers, addresses and the like.

However, the City of Emeryville is expressly NOT allowed to charge the public for redaction of documents obtained by public records requests as delineated by California Supreme Court case law National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward (2020).  The Tattler notified Emeryville of the 2020 case in a September 13th letter to Mr Kennedy and again threatened to sue if the City didn’t cough up the public documents.  The City finally responded they will hand over the police videos without overzealous redacting (that would also be against the law) and without charging illegal fees on October 3rd, eight months after the first request that ultimately required multiple letters from the Tattler and the retention of an attorney.

Public documents ensconced at City Hall or the police station belong to everyone in the community, they are NOT the sole possession of the government.  The government serves as the custodians of our documents and they MUST surrender them upon request according to California law.  Insofar as this Tattler records request debacle may be emblematic of the new obstinacy at City Hall and among undemocratically minded City Council members, the City has effectively put the citizens on notice that if we want our documents, we’re going to have to ‘lawyer up’ to get them.

The Tattler will report if the City improperly redacts the videos when/if we receive them in October.