Lying Cocksuckers (leave well-enough alone)
My father quoted Shakespeare and Kipling, with ease. He
named his first son for Churchill. He was a Jamaican man who was raised
as a Scot. When push came to shove, he abandoned breeding, pretentions
and affectations, and referred to people like these as lying “cocksuckers.”
From: Richard Hylton <rhylton@san.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 8:39 AM
To: 'DOjeda@pd.cityofsacramento.org' <DOjeda@pd.cityofsacramento.org>;
'blennon@pd.cityofsacramento.org' <blennon@pd.cityofsacramento.org>;
'jlight@pd.cityofsacramento.org' <jlight@pd.cityofsacramento.org>
Cc: 'JHarrington@pd.cityofsacramento.org' <JHarrington@pd.cityofsacramento.org>;
'soliveira@pd.cityofsacramento.org' <soliveira@pd.cityofsacramento.org>;
'KLester@pd.cityofsacramento.org' <KLester@pd.cityofsacramento.org>;
'csnyder@cityofsacramento.org' <csnyder@cityofsacramento.org>;
'blouie@pd.cityofsacramento.org' <blouie@pd.cityofsacramento.org>
Subject: Request for Public Records FW: CPE's claim on data integrity
seems as hollow as the CA-DOJ's. And, like the CA-DOJ they do not know what a
Field Interview is, and that the reporting of them is compulsory.
This is a Request for Public Records
Since Center For Policing Equity (CPE) makes lofty but empty
claims about its Data Integrity regime, and vouched for its results
regarding the Sacramento PD, in the face of much evidence to the contrary, I
have taken it upon myself to prove them right, or wrong. Since you are,
as you confess or claim, IT professionals who produce RIPA data, I can think of
no person or persons better suited or able to help me in that endeavour. I say
this fully cognizant of the provisions of the CPRA, which provisions merely
require me to contact an Agency to obtain its records.
With this communication, I have met that obligation. I trust
that you shall agree.
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I hereby
request records, in electronic and machine-readable form, of the following
records for the period for which data was provided to CPE.
- Field Interviews as the term is defined
by the US Department of Justice; to wit:
The field interview is defined as "the
brief detainment of an individual, whether on foot or in a vehicle, based on
reasonable suspicion, for the purpose of determining the individual's identity
and resolving the officer's suspicions concerning criminal activity."
You may find the above definition at https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/field-interviews-and-pat-down-searches
The courts have held that: *In
construing .. disclosure requests, the policy of the CPRA requires the courts
to consider the information that is being requested, not only the precise type
of records that must be provided.* (*Haynie v. Superior Court* (2001) 26
Cal.4th 1061, 1072 (*Haynie*); *Williams v. Superior Court* (1993) 5 Cal.4th
337, 348-349 (*Williams*).) Pursuant to section 6254, subdivisions (f)(1) and
(2), even if a requested record (e.g., an investigatory file) is exempt from
disclosure, a law enforcement agency may be required to produce to the public
the information listed in those subparts (e.g., the "substance" of
complaints or requests for assistance, and any recorded description of the "factual
circumstances surrounding the crime or incident"). (*Williams*, *supra*,
at pp. 360-361.) Please reconsider. Please remove all that data that you
consider of an investigatory nature and provide the following values:
[FieldInterviewNumber]
,[FieldInterviewDateTime] ,[ActivityType] ,[Age] ,[Assignment] ,[Beat]
,[StreetNumber] ,[StreetDirection] ,[StreetName] ,[StreetType]
,[CrossStreetDirection] ,[CrossStreetName]
,[CrossStreetType] ,[City]
,[State] ,[ZipCode] ,[LastName] ,[FirstName] ,[MiddleName] ,[SexorGender]
,[ViolationSection] ,[ViolationType] [BeatName] ,[Race] and any other
disclosable fields.
- Citations
[CitationNumber]
,[CitationDateTime], [Age] ,[Assignment] ,[Beat] ,[StreetNumber]
,[StreetDirection] ,[StreetName] ,[StreetType] ,[CrossStreetDirection] ,[CrossStreetName]
,[CrossStreetType] ,[City]
,[State] ,[ZipCode] ,[LastName] ,[FirstName] ,[MiddleName] ,[SexorGender]
,[ViolationSection] ,[ViolationType] [BeatName] ,[Race] and any other
disclosable fields.
- Arrests
[ArrestIdentificationNumber]
,[ArrestDateTime], [Age] ,[Assignment] ,[Beat] ,[StreetNumber]
,[StreetDirection] ,[StreetName] ,[StreetType] ,[CrossStreetDirection]
,[CrossStreetName]
,[CrossStreetType] ,[City]
,[State] ,[ZipCode] ,[LastName] ,[FirstName] ,[MiddleName] ,[SexorGender]
,[ViolationSection] ,[ViolationType] [BeatName] ,[Race] and any other
disclosable fields.
Prompt access is required for clearly public records.
Delay is allowed only to resolve good faith doubts as to
whether all or part of a record is accessible by the public. That being the
case, access is to be provided “promptly,” not put off for 10 days (Government
Code §6253, subd. (b))[ to underscore this point, subd. (d) states that
“Nothing in (the CPRA) shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or
obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.” And while the 10-day
period is not a legal deadline for producing the records, the date of
production should not lag the 10-day (or, if extended with notice to the
requester, up to 14 days more.)
With regard to your ongoing curiosity
In 1940, Winston received a memorandum that dealt with plans
for feeding large numbers of people if an emergency were to arise. The
memo contained a line “Regional Feeding Centres” That master of language lined
through “Regional Feeding Centres”, and wrote in its stead “Restuarants.” For
what my searchers do, I would like to line through “Public Safety
Professional” and replace that with “Cop.”
I suppose you guys still haven’t found what you are
searching for.
Finally; I wager that there is not one of you, who could
not, in a very few hours, create scripts that lasso all daily activity for each
Officer, using Stops, Arrests, Citations, Search, Property records into
comprehensive stop and almost faultless records (even in my dotage, I could.)
But no-one wants that. Last week I came across a brilliant phrase “police
a playground without any supervision.”
Carry on.
From: Richard Hylton <rhylton@san.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 4:33 PM
To: 'Fay Hylton' <fayvhylton@gmail.com>;
'rhylton749@msn.com' <rhylton749@msn.com>
Cc: 'Amanda (Mandy)' <Amanda.Kamphoefner@sdsheriff.org>;
'Center for Policing Equity (CPE)' <comms@policingequity.org>
Subject: FW: CPE's claim on data integrity seems as hollow as the
CA-DOJ's. And, like the CA-DOJ they do not know what a Field Interview is, and
that the reporting of them is compulsory.
CPE is making the West Coast rounds. Early this month they
did San Diego, last week Seattle, today Sacramento. CPE would have us
believe that because the LEAs do not pay them, their analyses are pure,
unaffected by influence or other pressure. I beg to differ.
Field Interviews are the third most frequent post-stop
action, and CPE has muffed the meaning and purpose of a Field Interview, and
how they affect actions and results. SDPD’s failures to report around 13% of
its Field Interviews, confirmed by SDPD’s own audits, have been cast, by CPE,
as a positive; i.e., as SDPD reporting discretionary things; things not
required by the CA-DOJ, under RIPA. The CA-DOJ is complicit in this perfidy.
That, to me, is disgraceful.
No one rides for free.
From: Richard Hylton <rhylton@san.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 4:05 PM
To: 'jennifercampbell@sandiego.gov' <jennifercampbell@sandiego.gov>;
'vivianMoreno@SanDiego.gov' <vivianMoreno@SanDiego.gov>;
'RaulCampillo@sandiego.gov' <RaulCampillo@sandiego.gov>;
'CouncilMember Chris Cate' <chrisCate@sandiego.gov>;
'monicamontgomery@sandiego.gov' <monicamontgomery@sandiego.gov>;
'CouncilMember Marni von Wilpert' <MarnivonWilpert@sandiego.gov>
Cc: 'mayortoddgloria@sandiego.gov' <mayortoddgloria@sandiego.gov>;
'Nancy Beninati' <Nancy.Beninati@doj.ca.gov>;
'AB953@doj.ca.gov' <AB953@doj.ca.gov>;
'Center for Policing Equity (CPE)' <comms@policingequity.org>
Subject: FW: CPE's claim on data integrity seems as hollow as the
CA-DOJ's. And, like the CA-DOJ they do not know what a Field Interview is, and
that the reporting of them is compulsory.
Actionable analyses and recommendations
CPE’s boast that it provides analyses and recommendations that
are actionable notwithstanding, the disparities that are related to the
Gang Database, which items are fed from Field Interviews, are likely
watered-down. Watered-down because massive numbers of Field Interviews
are not in the dataset that has been reported to the CA-DOJ. That is a
substantial part of the dataset upon which CPE’s analysis and
recommendations are based. Because of that, I request that as you go about
acting on CPE’s analyses and recommendations bear that fact of
shortcoming constantly in mind.
I was taken-aback and appalled that in CPE’s analysis and
recommendations, it was so naïve as to claim (by accepting the SDPD
assertion ) that the reporting of Field Interviews is a discretionary act.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Accordingly, please calibrate
the City Council and SDPD’s actions, which I understand are in process,
while remaining constantly aware of that peculiar CPE shortcoming.
In other words, things are worse than CPE’s analysis and
recommendations makes them seem.
From: Richard Hylton <rhylton@san.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 2:37 PM
To: 'AB953@doj.ca.gov' <AB953@doj.ca.gov>
Cc: 'Nancy Beninati' <Nancy.Beninati@doj.ca.gov>
Subject: CPE's claim on data integrity seems as hollow as the CA-DOJ's.
And, like the CA-DOJ they do not know what a Field Interview is, and that the
reporting of them is compulsory.
Ensuring data quality and
integrity
CPE commits to providing analyses and recommendations that are
actionable and accurate for its law enforcement partners. With the goal of
achieving a high and consistent analytical standard across NJD participants,
CPE employs thorough data quality assurance procedures using documented
protocols.
CPE staff works closely with partner agencies to make sure they
thoroughly understand the data departments provide, and then conducts a
rigorous internal review to ensure the data align with standards used in the
NJD. CPE provides feedback to partner agencies on the ways in which their data
adhere to, or deviate from, the criteria required for NJD analyses. CPE staff
organize and transform the data to ensure that they are both consistent with department
codebooks and meet NJD standards, to the fullest possible extent (creating
consistent definitions of stops and standard categories for race, for example).
Finally, CPE conducts internal quality assurance processes to ensure that
results presented in NJD Digital Reports are accurate.
From: Richard Hylton <rhylton@san.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 2:28 PM
To: 'Nancy Beninati' <Nancy.Beninati@doj.ca.gov>;
'AB953@doj.ca.gov' <AB953@doj.ca.gov>
Cc: 'Center for Policing Equity (CPE)' <comms@policingequity.org>
Subject: Sacramento police release report showing racial inequities in
pull-overs, use of force. https://www.kcra.com/article/sacramento-police-release-report-showing-racial-inequities-in-pull-overs-use-of-force/37150417
Many of these disparities are
worse/higher than I have computed; some substantially so. Perhaps, it is
because I tend to use the gross number of stops as my denominator. Using
action group denominators tend to produce higher disparities when compared to
those computed using overall stops. This is because the over-abundance of
unnecessary or constitutionally-infirm Black stops (the bigger number) dilutes
Black disparities. I may move in the same direction as CPE.
I cannot find mention of the
hot potato, Data Integrity. How is that possible that CPE could not
have noticed something so conspicuous; something that even the DOJ noticed? I may test more of their data.
Happy to see that Hahn does
not seem to claim that disparities are not evidence of bias. I am waiting to see
someone say what racial disparities, in outcomes, evince.
With bated breath I await
CPE’s report on the San Diego
Sheriff.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
The Sacramento Police
Department released a new report Tuesday, breaking down vehicle stops,
pedestrian stops and use-of-force instances in the capital city based on race
and equity.
The report, compiled by the Center for Policing Equity,
also breaks down the racial demographics of the department compared to the City
of Sacramento. Data from 2014 to 2019 is used.
The full report and data
breakdown can be found here.
Here are some highlights
Non-traffic stops
- Black people experienced
non-traffic stops 5.7 times as often as white people per year on average,
and Latinos experienced non-traffic stops 1.3 times as often as white
people per year on average (taking into account the population size of
each group)
- Once stopped, Black people were
59.7% more likely to be searched than white people, and Latinos were 21.5%
more likely to be searched than white people
- Searches of Black people and
Latinos produced contraband less frequently than in searches of white
people
Traffic stops
- Black people make up 13.1% of
the population of Sacramento but made up 38% of all people who experienced
traffic stops
- Latinos make up 28.3% of the
population of Sacramento and made up 23% of all people who experienced
traffic stops
- White people make up 33.1% of
the population of Sacramento but made up 29% of all people who experienced
traffic stops
- Once stopped, Black people were
searched 2.7 times as often as white people, and Latinos were 87% more
likely to be searched than white people
Use of Force
- The total number of
use-of-force incidents per year decreased 27.4% between 2014 and 2019
- Black people were subjected to
force 4.5 times as often as white people per year on average, taking into
account the population size of each group
- Latinos were subjected to force
at approximately the same rate as white people per year on average, taking
into account the population size of each group
How the police chief, activists are reacting
Sacramento Police Chief Daniel Hahn told KCRA 3 he is not
surprised about the racial disparities evident in the report and says this is a
national problem.
"That's why we released everything we released," Hahn
said. "I expect a lot of folks to say, 'I told you so.'"
Berry Accius, activist and founder of Voice of the Youth, said
he is not surprised with the findings either.
"The data has been proven that we have not been making a
mistake when we say Black and LatinX people are targeted here in
Sacramento," Accius said.
Accius is calling for a de-investment into the police
department, with those dollars being reallocated instead to communities and
grassroots organizations.
Hahn said this report by CPE is just one step his department is
taking to improve policing equity. He also asked Stanford University to study
the department's body camera videos to examine relations between officers and
the community. Although he said changing and adjusting laws, training and
policies is vital, the chief said creating a more diverse department is equally
important.
"How do we ensure that we have a department and members of
this department that have a diverse set of experiences that enable them to do
their job in our entire city?" Hahn told KCRA 3.
The report shows nearly 70% of the department is white, whereas
only 33% of Sacramento citizens are white.
"If you poll the African American community, which we do,
their impression of law enforcement is different than other communities,"
Hahn said. "Until we change that, we are going to struggle with African
American officers coming into our department."
To help bridge the gap, Hahn says he will continue implicit bias
and diversity trainings for recruits in the academy as well as active police
officers, and will continue improving community policing.
Comments
Post a Comment