I’m confused?

Jeremy – the reason I sought clarification from you yesterday was that I was concerned that you have blended or mixed up the internal CO-03-11 with the cyberstalking criminal investigation.   I just wanted to make sure that you understand that they are two separate occurrences and two separate investigations.

Katie

I understand there is the completed internal (CO-03-11).
I understand there were two criminal investigations (2011-10929 and 2011-4803).
I understand there is an ongoing internal (unknown IA number), which is not a public record yet.

Because I have no idea of what is going on with part or whole of the cyberstalking investigations, I requested the public records related to the entire ‘fuddlesticks’ matter, which includes emails that were not included of the criminal or internal investigative files.  Some of these emails should have been included with the criminal investigation file.  One such example is Cyndie Park’s statement in an email that she was not a victim, not offended, nor asked to be named in the criminal case.  That email is pertinent, relevant, and exculpatory evidence directly related to the investigation, yet not part of the investigation.  This one email also directly reflects on the manner and intention of the investigator(s), his supervisor(s) and the entire City of Renton Police Department.

One of the Washington State Public Records Act intentions, as reiterated by a court in one of Washington’s public records act cases, is that providing police records is afforded under this law with the intention that citizens can observe investigations such as this for reasons of public concern.

My only confusion with your email is that it should not make a difference between what we receive in this records request between the cyberstalking criminal investigation or the internal investigation.  We should have received all of both regardless of co-mingling or confusion.

I am hoping that there is no efforts to find loopholes, excuses, or obscure laws to prevent disclosure of any single public record, whether it be to prevent an individual’s embarrassment or embarrassment for any department of the City of Renton. I am hoping that the efforts taken in the records request are to provide all the records requested, as demanded by law.

Plainly, from what I have read in your RCW’s and WAC’s, the law states to give up the public records and be transparent about the records, because if not, the courts will rule favorably against the government when the government attempts to pull the wool over a citizen’s eyes.  Certainly, any internal statements that will be disclosed in depositions or court, either spoken or heard spoken, in that the City of Renton will take every means to release as few records as possible, would have a disastrous effect on a court ruling.

Jeremy