Assistant District Attorney David Angel

Assistant District Attorney David Angel
David Angel Compaint PDf

RE: Dear Ms. Phelan,
David Angel Add to contacts Attachment 10:50 AM Keep this message at the top of your inbox
To: Janet Phelan Cc: Michael LeonGuerrero, Rina Myers, Sean Webby
DAngel@da.sccgov.org
Outlook.com Active View
1 attachment (0.4 KB)
Click for Options
David Angel.vcf

Download as zipSave to OneDrive

Dear Ms. Phelan,

I’m sorry if I was unclear in my prior letter. The police report and information contained within the police report is part of the District Attorney’s investigative file and is exempt from disclosure for the reasons, and based on the legal authorities, outlined in my prior correspondence.

Yours,

David Angel

David Angel
Assistant District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
70 West Hedding Street — West Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
DAngel@da.sccgov.org
>>> Janet Phelan <> 2/9/2016 3:13 PM >>>

I requested the police report. I did not request the DA’s investigatory file. You continue to misstate my request.

My concerns should be obvious. Mr. Crittenden is (again) in jail and I am asking for the factual circumstances surrounding the incident.

I have spoken with an investigator in your office and will file a formal complaint, if needs be. If I have to take that step, you can be assured that it will be only be a first step.

Again, here is the section from Kusar that MANDATES THE RELEASE OF THIS INFORMATION:

[3a] The County argues that section 6254, subdivision (f) (1) and (2), authorizes disclosure only of contemporaneous information relating to persons currently within the criminal justice system

“(1) The full name, current address, and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual’s physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.

“(2) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name, age, and current address of the victim, except that the address of the victim of any crime defined by Section 261, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, or 422.75 of the Penal Code shall not be disclosed, the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved.”

PROVIDING THE PENAL CODE UNDER WHICH CRITTENDEN WAS ARRESTED DOES NOT SATISFY THE MANDATES ABOVE.

Janet Phelan

New Eastern Outlook

bcc

Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 14:54:12 -0800
From: DAngel@da.sccgov.org
To: @live.com
Subject: RE: Dear Ms. Phelan,

Dear Ms. Phelan,

The Office of the District Attorney has received three CPRA requests from you concerning Mr. Crittenden. In the first, you requested pending charges against Mr. Crittenden. You were provided with this information. In your second, you requested the investigative reports associated with the pending charges. I declined to release these as these records are exempt from disclosure under the CPRA. I explained the reason for this in the prior letter. Most recently, on 2/1/16 you made a third successive request for information from the District Attorney’s investigatory file. Specifically,in your request you stated: “I am therefore re-requesting the police reports which led to the arrest of Cary Andrew Crittenden on Christmas Day, 2015. I specifically want the exact charges, that is, a statement of the actions allegedly taken by Crittenden which resulted in his arrest. In other words, what did he do that he is now in your jail?”

You have already been provided with the charges facing Mr. Crittenden. The record that you are now requesting, to the extent it is different from the charges, are part of the investigative file. The California Public Records Act states that investigatory files compiled by a law enforcement agency like the Office of the District Attorney are exempt from disclosure under California Government Code Section 6254(f) and pursuant to the official information privilege set forth in California Evidence Code Section 1040(b)(2) and California Government Code Section 6254(k). Further, release of information from the DA’s investigatory file is exempted because release would potentially endanger the safety of persons involved in the investigation and can endanger the successful completion of the investigation. See Cal. Govt. Code Section 6254(f). The California Supreme Court has held that once an investigation has begun, all materials that relate to the investigation, and are thus included in the investigatory file, remain exempt from disclosure indefinitely. See Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 337, 355, 361-362. The Supreme Court stated that the exemption “protects materials that, while not on their face exempt from disclosure, nevertheless become exempt through inclusion in an investigatory file.” Id. at 354; County of Orange v. Superior Court (Wu) (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 759. Accordingly, your request to obtain protected information from the DA’s investigatory file is precluded by the above-mentioned legal authorities.

Accordingly, there are not any responsive records that are not exempt and/or have not already been provided to you previously.
Yours,

David Angel

David Angel
Assistant District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
70 West Hedding Street — West Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
DAngel@da.sccgov.org
>>> Janet Phelan <@live.com> 2/9/2016 2:38 PM >>>

Mr. Angel,

I have been requesting this information concerning the recent arrest of Cary-Andrew Crittenden for nearly a month. I have not received the information requested—information that is mandated to be disclosed per the CPRA and Kusar.

Do you have any intentions of complying with the law?

Janet Phelan

From: @live.com
To: dangel@da.sccgov.org
CC:
Subject: FW: Dear Ms. Phelan,
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 16:08:04 -0600
Direct citation from Kusar, below.

Please release the information I requested. I want the factual circumstances surrounding the crime. I have repeatedly made this clear. It was my assumption that this would be in the police report.

Thank you,

Janet Phelan
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 16:45:57 -0500
Subject: RE: FW: Dear Ms. Phelan,
From: rgrunds@pshift.com
To: @live.com

“Other provisions of this subdivision notwithstanding, state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation:

Re: Dear Ms. Phelan,
David Angel Add to contacts 2/01/16 Keep this message at the top of your inbox
To:@live.com Cc: Michael.LeonGuerrero@cco.sccgov.org
dangel@da.sccgov.org
Dear Ms. Phelan,

In your first CPRA, you asked for charges pending against Mr. Crittenden. You were provided this information along with the docket and next court date. You then made a second request for the police reports. This request was respectfully denied as these records are exempt. That was the subject of my last email.

It appears you are making a third request seeking:

“I am therefore re-requesting the police reports which led to the arrest of Cary Andrew Crittenden on Christmas Day, 2015. I specifically want the exact charges, that is, a statement of the actions allegedly taken by Crittenden which resulted in his arrest. In other words, what did he do that he is now in your jail?”

I will evaluate this and get back to you.

Yours,

David Angel

On Jan 30, 2016, at 4:40 PM, Janet Phelan <@live.com> wrote:

Here are direct quotes from the case, known here as Kusar:

[3a] The County argues that section 6254, subdivision (f) (1) and (2), authorizes disclosure only of contemporaneous information relating to persons currently within the criminal justice system

However, the second paragraph of subdivision (f) requires that the public have access to certain limited kinds of “information” extracted from such records and files. (Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 337, 348, 360-361 [19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 882, 852 P.2d 377].) This information is described in terms which strongly suggest that contemporaneous information is intended. The disclosed information must include (1) the “current address” of an arrestee, (2) the time and date of booking, (3) the location where the arrestee is then currently being held or, if not in custody, the time and manner of release, (4) the amount of bail set, (5) all charges on which the arrestee is being held and (6) any outstanding warrants or parole violations

[3b] We believe that this 1982 legislation demonstrated a legislative intent only to continue the common law tradition of contemporaneous disclosure of individualized arrest information in order to prevent secret arrests and to mandate the continued disclosure of customary and basic law enforcement information to the press.

I am therefore re-requesting the police reports which led to the arrest of Cary Andrew Crittenden on Christmas Day, 2015. I specifically want the exact charges, that is, a statement of the actions allegedly taken by Crittenden which resulted in his arrest. In other words, what did he do that he is now in your jail?

I will expect to hear back from you promptly. Thank you,

Janet Phelan
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 15:28:01 -0800
From: DAngel@da.sccgov.org
To: @live.com
Subject: RE: Dear Ms. Phelan,

Dear Ms. Phelan,
After further research and consulting with County Counsel, I’ve concluded that Santa Clara County Sheriff’s crime report is part of the District Attorney’s investigatory file in docket number C1527283 and is legally exempt from production under the California Public Records Act and California Government Code Section 6254(f). There are sound public policy and individual privacy reasons for this. I’ve read the cases that you provided to me including the County of Orange v. Wu decision, and the Court’s decision in County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar) (1993), and these do not change the analysis that the District Attorney Office’s investigatory file is exempt from production under the CPRA. If you are in contact with Mr. Crittenden, he will, of course, have copies of all these documents. Otherwise, both the law and privacy concerns prevent me from releasing the District Attorney’s investigatory file to you pursuant to the CPRA.

Yours,

David Angel

David Angel
Assistant District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
70 West Hedding Street — West Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
DAngel@da.sccgov.org
>>> Janet Phelan <@live.com> 1/26/2016 2:41 PM >>>
I have not received a reply. Have you reviewed Kusar?

Thank you,

Janet Phelan
541 708-3534

From: @live.com
To: dangel@da.sccgov.org; @live.com
CC: csumida@da.sccgov.org;
Subject: RE: Dear Ms. Phelan,
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:57:21 -0600

I just sent you two more emails concerning this issue. I trust you received them, as well.

Thank you,

Janet Phelan

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:51:59 -0800
From: dangel@da.sccgov.org
To: @live.com
CC: CSumida@da.sccgov.org;
Subject: Re: Dear Ms. Phelan,

Thank you, Ms. Phelan. I will review this.

Yours,

David Angel

On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:12 PM, Janet Phelan <@live.com> wrote:

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/18/588.html

This may provide the citation….

From: @live.com
To: dangel@da.sccgov.org; writejanet@live.com
CC: csumida@da.sccgov.org
Subject: RE: Dear Ms. Phelan,
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:50:46 -0600

I believe that Kusar provides an exemption to 6254 if the person is incarcerated.

Yes?

Janet Phelan
541 708-3534

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 13:40:11 -0800
From: DAngel@da.sccgov.org
To: @live.com
CC: CSumida@da.sccgov.org
Subject: Dear Ms. Phelan,

Dear Ms. Phelan,

On 1/13/2016 you asked for the police reports associated with Mr. Crittenden’s arrest on docket number C1527283. As I’m sure you can appreciate there are significant privacy interests attached to investigative reports. As such it is exempt from the California Public Records Act pursuant to Section 6254 of the Government Code. Accordingly, we cannot provide you with the police reports that you have requested. You can probably get those from Mr. Crittenden or his attorney.

Yours,

May I please have the police report(s) pursuant to this arrest?

Janet Phelan

VISIT OUR OTHER COURTVICTIM SITES

Stay Informed