The Ferguson Coverup

[U]nlawful denial of the records is a civil violation of the law – but the “knowing” violation constitutes a Class A Misdemeanor in Missouri.

On August 12th the ACLU made a public records request under Missour’s Sunshine Law – for the St. Louis County Police Department’s Incident Report of the Officer-Involved Shooting (involving Wilson and Brown).

On August 13th the St. Louis County Police Department responded – DENYING the request – claiming that it was EXEMPT based on a claim that there was an “open-investigation” and that this exempted it.

After which the ACLU filed a lawsuit the next day to compel them to produce the record – and to get other relief. They were followed in this by the National Bar Association in a suit filed on August 18th.

[...]

Last weekend I made a new public records request for that particular Incident Report. I included in that a statement of the law that the Incident Report is NOT the equivalent of the Investigation Report, the latter IS exempt while the investigation is ongoing, the former IS NOT – but is a public record AT ALL TIMES.

[...]

What I was told was a bit disturbing. Their email system had just been brought back up online. And so all the emails from that weekend had “disappeared.” So I stated to the Lieutenant what I requested and then stated that I would send it again – and I would contact all the others to resend theirs. The Department as well as the City of Ferguson have been claiming that emails are not being received because their systems are under attack by Anonymous. But I have seen no credible evidence that this is the cause of the problem.

[...]

I did not hear back from him until about 7 pm that night. He did email me – recognizing he did not deliver as promised – and stated that he could not send the record that day because he had been called out to Ferguson all that day.

On Wednesday, however, he produced it pursuant to my request. I then provided what I received to the ACLU and National Bar Association.

I stated to him that there was a significant set of information – namely the “narrative summary” of the officer about what they were called to, what they found, and what they did – that is glaringly absent.

[...]

Here is the actual statute that is applicable to this – what the Police MUST create, maintain, and produce upon request:

610.100 Revised Missouri Statutes:

(4) “Incident report”, a record of a law enforcement agency consisting of the date, time, specific location, name of the victim and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the initial report of a crime or incident, including any logs of reported crimes, accidents and complaints maintained by that agency;

What is further revealed in the Report released – is that it did not exist when the original request was made and then denied. But - problematic for the official story – is the fact that if no record existed this would have been stated to the ACLU, rather than making the claim (knowingly false – a class A misdemeanor) that it was exempt because of an investigation.

What is also clear from the record as well as my conversations with Lt. Burk – this record of this Incident Report was created in response to my request, rather than at the time of the incident as is normally required, and that it intentionally has been created to withhold the key narrative elements.

(I am inclined to believe an Incident Report DID exist prior to and independent of what has now been produced – and they are playing a game of sleight of hand to avoid giving it to the public.)

[...]

[If] an invocation of the right against providing self-incriminating testimony occurred on the part of Officer Wilson there would, again, have to be a public record to this effect. So I made that request of the Ferguson Police Department. In their response, that there was no such record, they have thus answered the question: No, Wilson has not invoked the fifth amendment.

[...]

And so I have been asking for other records – and I have been gradually getting most of them. Some are not being honestly responded to and I have had to follow up to try and enforce the law with regard to record production. And I will get all of them even if it is necessary to go to court to compel the police to produce them.

  PINAC

Or unless, like so many coverups before them, those records get destroyed.

What we now can state firmly in addition to this is that Ferguson Police also do not have a Use of Force Report that their policies required to be produced – not by Officer Wilson but by the Watch Commander on duty that day.

Ferguson is deliberately violating both the laws and its own policies to prevent any information from being produced and made public that could be used to hold Officer Wilson to account for his actions.

[...]

For even the response that there is no record as requested provides evidence. It is an answer to the question, in this case, did the Ferguson Police Department, including the Chief of Police , follow the law and the Department’s policies?

[...]

[Refusal to release documentation] suspiciously allows Officer Wilson, and the rest of the Ferguson Police Department, to wait until all the evidence against Wilson is discovered and collected, and afterwards to write reports that will neatly fit the evidence.

[...]

In this case, therefore, there is ample reason – in fact actual evidence – for the public to have no faith or confidence in anything these Departments, their officials, or the officers employed therein do or say. And certainly there is no reason to trust that they can honestly and faithfully participate in the process inquiring into and investigating the shooting by Officer Wilson.

  PINAC