Skip to main content

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.

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

 

  1. 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

 

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

Popular posts from this blog

Even More Fatally Flawed And Still Unfit for Purpose or The Great Distraction

Subject: RIPA Advisory Board – More Fatally Flawed and Still Unfit for Purpose   I wanted to wait until I came into possession of the actual 2025 Annual RIPA Report, before writing this, but I found myself between a rock and a hard place. My strongest motivator was fear; fear of reading a newspaper or web-account of the RIPA results or seeing a TV Broadcast that is ruled by lies and/or happy talk. I remember last year too well.  I also feared that, as was the case with the reports from the last few years, the RIPA Report, to which the press has early or immediate access, would not become available to me for several days.  Because of that, I decided to write this.   “Racial Discrimination is an inference that may be drawn from Racial Disparities.” In the absence of other inferences, or plausible explanations, our choices become limited.   There is an abundance of racial disparities to be found in RIPA data. I am unaware of any adverse disparity that has...

Self-Inflicted Wounds are quite useful

April 6, 2014 Richard Hylton 13166 Jane Court San Diego, CA 92129 HyltonRichard@gmail.com By Email On the day that preceded the presentation of Vehicle Stop Data, by the SDPD, an email was circulated with this leading sentence. Update:   After reviewing the year-long   data   on race released by SDPD, there are major differences between what the   data   showed at 8 months versus at the end of 12 months. We don’t know why the numbers are so different (e.g. the number of stops per month fell significantly between January and December), but this underlines the need for a thorough, independent analysis of the   data   that can be communicated to the public. In light of this development, we have updated the ACLU’s comments below. The above was shocking and surprising, since it came from a writer who knew that a significant –some would say dramatic- fall-off in data collection rates had occurred in the fourth quarter. Evidence of the ...

Deception

Background The United States Department of Justice has an opinion and position that is at odds with that of the San Diego Police Department. It holds that: "The guarantee to all persons of equal protection under the law is one of the most fundamental principles of our democratic society. Law enforcement officers should not endorse or act upon stereotypes, attitudes, or beliefs that a person’s race, ethnicity, or national origin increases that person’s general propensity to act unlawfully. There is no tradeoff between effective law enforcement and protection of the civil rights of all Americans; we can and must have both." In 2011, during litigation, Vehicle Stop data for the prior two years was sought. The City of San Diego, in sworn and other statements or filings, denied having any Vehicle Stop Data and convinced the court of that fact. In January 2013 I learned that the City had committed perjury. Following that I obtained and distributed Vehicle Stop...