Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Monday July 02 2018, @08:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the css dept.

Judge slams Tacoma for not releasing stingray records

A judge in Washington state has excoriated the Tacoma Police Department for withholding public records pertaining to its use of cell-site simulators, also known as stingrays. Back in 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state sued the TPD on behalf of four community leaders, arguing that the department has not adequately responded to their public records requests concerning the use of stingrays, which included asking for a blank form authorizing its use.

"The [Public Records Act] establishes a positive duty to disclose public records unless they fall within specific exemptions," Judge G. Helen Whitener wrote in her Monday opinion. "This mandates that the City, upon receiving a request for documents, must first do an adequate search and then must produce the documents requested if there is not an exemption. The PRA does not require the City to analyze the reasons why the document is requested or to determine the relevance of the documents requested even if they are blank forms. The blank form taken in context of the other forms may have meaning to the requestor, and it is not for the City to analyze its relevance. To adopt the City's interpretation of the PRA would defeat the broad mandate of the PRA to allow access to public records not covered by and exemption."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by edIII on Monday July 02 2018, @11:45PM (2 children)

    by edIII (791) on Monday July 02 2018, @11:45PM (#701637)

    Actually, if you will note in my response to you, violence is here, and this was not an op-ed, but a group of people talking. Conservatives and Liberals on the panel both agreeing to that sentiment. No real push back that the idea was crazy, but seriously discussed.

    Homeless person saying the world is ending is one thing, a major newspaper putting Civil War on the front of it is another. One deserves more concern.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03 2018, @04:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03 2018, @04:02PM (#701972)

    I've been expecting inevitable chaos for some time.

    Though, realisically, a civil war may not be able to materialize. That's because we have mixed ideologies to the point that distinct groups don't really form. So you will have the neighbor v.s. neighbor chaos that will be total chaos rather than an organized war. Or maybe organization will happen, with the internet, it's possible.

    It would be really nice if we could provide more independence and freedom. You might not agree with everyone else's way of living, but you're much less likely to get into a fight with someone if you don't try to force them to do what you think is the "right" thing.

    That being said, corporations can exert too much power and should be treated differently. We can curtail the power of mega-corporations by enacting more fair contract consent laws, prohibiting arbitration agreements, eliminating trade secrets laws, making NDAs illegal, reducing copyright duration, restricting indemity agreements, prohibitng corporate ownership of corporations, etc.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:43AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:43AM (#702848) Journal

    violence is here

    Not really. There's still high drama over a single death last year.

    Homeless person saying the world is ending is one thing, a major newspaper putting Civil War on the front of it is another.

    Not at all. The latter has no more likelihood or interest in being right than the former.