Public records requests in backlog
Majority of open requests (5,400) were made to Oakland Police Department — some back to 2014
When people try to obtain public records from the city of Oakland — especially police reports — many probably feel their requests have been tossed into the abyss.
In more than 6,300 cases, the police department and other city offices either haven’t responded to record requests or haven’t supplied all of the sought-after documents, according to a review of Oakland’s NextRequest portal, which pulls all the requests into one place.
The vast majority of open requests — almost 5,400 — were made to the police department, and some have been languishing since 2014. The delay in providing responses and records has prompted two recent lawsuits against the department.
“It’s quite clear there is a systemic problem at the Oakland Police Department, that they are failing to meet their obligations under the Public Records Act on a broad scale — in a systemic way,” said David Snyder, executive director of First Amendment Coalition.
Police spokeswoman Officer Johnna Watson acknowledged the backlog of responses in a statement to this news organization.
She said the police department several weeks ago was authorized to devote seven people to respond to record requests. “With the additional staffing we will focus on reducing the backlog.”
Under the California Public Records Act, government agencies must let people who request documents know within 10 days whether they possesses them, intend to withhold them and, if so, on what legal basis. Agencies can ex
tend the 10-day period another 14 days.
The city receives thousands of requests for public records each year, so providing timely responses can be challenging. The NextRequest portal shows almost 42,000 “closed” requests dating back to 2019, meaning that the city either fulfilled the requests or didn’t have the needed documents. But regardless of why the backlog happens, a public agency’s obligation is to meet the requirements of transparency laws, experts say.
“This is a crucial right that is protected under the constitution,” Snyder said. “When agencies blow it off as the Oakland Police Department obviously does, they are hindering the public’s ability to hold their government accountable.”
Although journalists and lawyers routinely file requests for public documents to dig up information about potential police misconduct or government corruption, many requests are also made by everyday citizens with more personal or focused reasons for seeking information.
For them, the experience can be frustrating, as illuminated in a survey conducted late last year by the city’s Public Ethics Commission. Many of the 879 survey respondents said it was nearly impossible to get copies of their own police reports for insurance claims.
One respondent was robbed in November and needed a police report for an insurance claim but was told it would take a month to provide. Then the due date was changed to a month later, and at the time of the survey nothing had been provided.
Another wrote, “I requested police records to prove that my car was stolen when it received 3 handicapped parking tickets, that was months ago and I still can’t clear the tickets because I have not received the police reports. How was I being ticketed by one city agency while another still had not found my car?”
In describing the city’s “chaotic” process for responding to record requests, another survey respondent wrote, “One city employee basically told us to sue the city because without a (California Public Records Act) lawsuit the city would not respond.”
Such an attitude goes against the spirit as well as the letter of the law, Snyder said.
Delays in accessing police and other records from Oakland appear to be widespread.
More than 64% of those surveyed by the ethics commission said they didn’t receive any response within 10 days, as required by state law, and more than half said they had received no documents or information at all.
Although the backlogged record requests in the NextRequest portal went to many city departments — including for copies of contracts the city had signed with vendors that date back several years — the bulk were made to the police department.
“The police department’s response has been abysmal,” said Sam Ferguson, an attorney who has filed two separate lawsuits against the Oakland Police Department for violating public record laws.
Ferguson is representing two journalists suing Oakland over its refusal to provide records about police misconduct and use of force, among other things.
The other lawsuit he filed last fall on behalf of several freelance journalists and privacy advocates says Oakland police routinely failed to say whether they will disclose the requested records or when. Instead, the department sends out a “boilerplate” response declaring it needs more time and to expect a determination in 30 days, then repeatedly blows past that deadline, according to the suit.
Like Ferguson’s clients, this news organization also has outstanding record requests filed under SB 1421, as well as some filed for part of a series it published about officers with criminal histories. SB 1421 requires cities to disclose records about officers’ use of force, firearm discharges and sustained findings of officer dishonesty or sexual assault.
The Oakland Police Department isn’t alone in delaying responses. This news organization, along with other outlets, has sued departments including the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office and the Richmond Police Department for not complying with the transparency laws.
But Oakland’s problem appears systemic and longstanding, according to city documents.
In 2011, City Attorney Barbara Parker sent a memo to city leaders reminding them of the importance of complying with public record requests, which had increased amid the Occupy Oakland protests a decade ago.
“Unfortunately, despite hard work and good faith efforts by many departments, in a number of cases the city is failing to comply with the California Public Records Act,” Parker wrote.