TCRP Calls for Release of Police Shooting Report Sealed by Judge
Judge seals Sanders shooting report:Investigation into APD shooting paid for by taxes
By Carla Castaño
A federal judge has sealed a taxpayer-funded independent investigation into the shooting death of Nathaniel Sanders II, killed by Austin police last May.
The 18-year-old was shot and killed by APD officer Leonardo Quintana, who was later reprimanded for not using his police dashboard camera, but was cleared of any wrongdoing in shooting Sanders. Sanders’ parents have filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Austin and Quintana.
Now an independent investigation commissioned by the city – at a cost of $50,000 to taxpayers – will be largely shrouded by the judge’s order.
Federal Judge Sam Sparks agreed with the city’s argument that “unsubstantiated allegations” in the report should not be made public – even though the investigation was funded by taxpayers to find out if there were any improprieties in the internal investigation that followed the shooting.
The Texas Attorney General’s office also support the city’s argument.
In the entire 133-page report, which outlines the strengths and weaknesses behind APD policy leading up to the shooting and the subsequently internal investigtion of it, there are only 28 pages that have not been partially or completely redacted.
And the public will not find out what was hidden after a judge on Tuesday granted the city’s request for a protective order against allowing the redacted information to be revealed.
“They are hiding something, there’s no doubt about it,” said Jim Harrington, Director of Texas Civil Rights Project.
Neither the Office of the Police Monitor, Chief Art Acevedo or City Manager Marc Ott would go on camera – but Assistant City Attorney Cary Grace released this statement:
“The Texas Attorney General agreed with the city’s argument that the information concerning unsubstantiated allegations in the Key Stone report and internal affairs investigation is confidential.”
With page after page blanked out, Jim Harrington with the Texas Civil Rights Project said there can only be one reason.
“The police department is trying to protect itself from scrutiny. That’s what this is about,” said Harrington.
The Austin Police Department has made changes to how it conducts internal investigations since the shooting, and Acevedo released this statement: “Protective Orders are commonly issued in litigation and we have no additional comment to make.”
The City commissioned the report after the Office of the Police Monitor ordered an independent investigation into the internal investigation and the shooting.
What we do know from the Key Point Government Solutions report is that they did find bias in the APD shooting investigation.
Harrington says what is blanked out because of the protective order has to be much more revealing.
“To see the city and the judge hiding this information from the public that we’ve paid $50,000 for in tax payer money I think is almost outrageous,” said Harrington.
Sanders’ parents are alleging in the lawsuit that “APD’s policymakers ratified and approved Quintana’s misconduct… APD has long tolerated the unconstitutional conduct by officers and the disproportionate uses of force against minorities.”
These are claims which, Austin civil rights leaders say, have been long-time issues. They say the protective order signed by federal Judge Sparks chips away at the claims of transparency the City of Austin and its police department have made.
“This raises a lot of doubt about the integrity of both the investigation and what the police have been doing,” said Harrington.
After KXAN informed Harrington about the protective order he said Texas Civil Rights Project will file a lawsuit with the state in an effort to get the full report released.
TCRP DEMANDS THAT POLICE MONITOR RELEASE FULL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT OF NATHANIEL SANDERS’ DEATH
CALLS REFUSAL TO DO SO A “$50,000 CHARADE”
The Texas Civil Rights Project filed a formal request with the City of Austin under the Texas Public Information Act, demanding that it release within ten business days the un-redacted version of the 133-page investigative report done by the City Police Monitor’s office regarding the police shooting death of Nathanial Sanders on May 11, 2009. (Text of letter at bottom of page)
The Monitor’s Office released the report in redacted form on September 30, 2009, promising that it would soon thereafter release the full version, but now refuses to do so.
TCRP Legal Director Jim Harrington said that 42 pages are total blanks in the edited version, 41 pages are half-blank, and any number of pages are partially blanked out.
“That means that more than half of the report is simply whited-out. Moreover, the manner in which the redactions and edits were done means that the report is virtually unintelligible as a whole. The report makes no sense whatsoever. It’s a $50,000 charade.
“When an investigative report is done and then it is hidden from the public through this kind of redaction game, it raises very significant issues about what the City is hiding. More often than not, a deliberate lack of transparency masks unfavorable information. And I suspect strongly that is the case here.”
Harrington also said he was “very disappointed” that U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks had signed an order in the federal lawsuit by Sanders’ family against the City and Officer Quintana, which allowed the City to use the redacted and whited-out version in court records and didn’t require the unedited version to be filed.
“If the First Amendment means anything, it stands for the idea that we, the people, have the right to know what our government did so that we can take appropriate action in a democratic fashion,” said Harrington. “I’m sorry the judge didn’t see fit to abide by that fundamental constitutional principle.”
The report cost $50,000, paid for by taxpayers’ money.
Harrington said that, if the City did not release the full report, TCRP would file suit in Travis County District Court.
TCRP Letter to City of Austin Public Information Officer
Pursuant to Section 552.221 of the Government Code of Texas, we respectfully request that, within ten business days, you provide us a certified and un-redacted copy of the Report of the Independent Review of the Officer-involved Shooting of May 1, 2009, prepared for the Office of Police Monitor and released by that Office on or about September 30, 2010.
We make this request for nonprofit purposes and to serve the public interest. The information requested will be used without charge, including for the purpose of informing others in improving civil society.
We are a nonprofit, tax-exempt foundation, and those whom we assist and represent are low-income people. Therefore, we respectfully request, pursuant to Section 552.267 of the Government Code, that fees will be waived. If you choose not to waive fees and the cost of copying exceeds $25, would you please advise us of the actual costs before making the copies? Thank you.
Please contact me if there are any questions. Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
James C. Harrington
March 20, 2010 by webmin
