A public-information request that I filed related to the Latin Kings in Greensboro a year ago is still not completed, but it's not the city's fault — the US Attorney's Office told them to stop providing public records related to the case.
On Nov. 1, 2012, the City spokesperson Donnie Turlington informed me that, "This week, we received a notice from the US Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina instructing the City not to release any further documents related the Latin Kings request. The information has been filed with the Court Under Seal and is not permitted to be released."
My understanding, based on conversations with the city and police department, was that the information would be available after the trial concluded. After Latin King leader Jorge Cornell and others were sentenced in August, I immediately asked for the information again. Defendant Russell Kilfoil (King Peaceful) is scheduled for sentencing on Oct. 9 (it was postponed), so I figured I may have to wait a little longer, but today, Greensboro Police Attorney Jim Clark provided an update on the situation:
"As you may have heard about, the US Attorney’s Office has still been working on matters related to the case (I’m thinking about the article I saw last week concerning the trial transcripts in the case). The US Attorney’s Office tells me that sentencing is set for October 9 and both Jorge Cornell and Ernesto Wilson have appealed. The US Attorney’s Office also said that it is possible that some of the court’s rulings regarding the admissibility or relevance of the grand jury records will be at issue in an appeal, and therefore the case is not finally disposed. For that reason, the restriction on grand jury information is still not lifted as yet. The AUSA will be revisiting this matter and we might get additional guidance from them on this matter within the next few weeks. If we do, I will pass on that information to you."
A request filed around the same time for similar information was also halted at the same time. Elements of the information revealed in the public documents were used by the defense team in the trial last fall.
I responded with clarifying questions and will post updates if necessary.
Showing posts with label jim clark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jim clark. Show all posts
City responds to questions about public records, noise callers
The city of Greensboro and YES! Weekly have been going back and forth about public records for a while now, discussing what qualifies a public information especially in the wake of our cover story about police surveillance of activists. We've been going back and forth about whether the names of people filing noise complaints is public record. Who cares? We think it's worth knowing if all the calls complaining about Greene Street club are coming from just one or two people. Plus if it's public record, the city would be required to release it.
To try and sort things out, our news editor Jordan Green and Greensboro/Guilford County reporter Eric Ginsburg sat down with City Attorney Mujeeb Shah-Khan, Police Attorney Jim Clark and City spokesperson Donnie Turlington on June 10. One of the topics for discussion: Why did the police department release the name of a 911 caller to us in the Sebastian Village case but not the names of people who called about Greene Street, even though both were noise complaints?
After reviewing the state's general statutes governing public records (available here, specifically C and D), we reached some areas of agreement. North Carolina Press Association lawyer Amanda Martin told YES! Weekly that the names are a matter of public record according to the statutes, but after careful review of the ordinance with Clark and Shah-Khan, I am pretty confident that they're accurately interpreting the statute.
While the names of the callers don't have to be released, it will become public record in this case once it is given to Greene Street's lawyer as part of the discovery for pending litigation between the city and the club over the noise ordinance. Until then, the city's hands are tied. YES! Weekly requested a copy and the city agreed to release it unless the court issues a protective order (which seems unlikely).
We also agreed that the statute specifically protects the identity of "complaining witnesses" using 911, and that if a complaint came to the city through another avenue (as they sometimes did prior to the noise debate last year) it is public record. The city is currently reviewing our request to see if complaints came in outside of the 911 system.
As for the discrepancy in when the city provided a caller's name: At the time, Shah-Khan said sometimes "the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand is doing," but after Clark went back and reviewed what happened, he provided a more detailed explanation on Monday. Below is the full text of his response, and the emphasis is mine.
"I have looked at the matter, and what I found is that Susan Danielsen released the name mistakenly. At the time of your earlier PIRT request for 911 information coming from noise complaints, Susan reached the same conclusion that you did – that G.S. 132-1.4 did not apply to reported civil violations. Since this was a new situation, and Susan believed that she was very clear about her understanding of the statute, she released the information in good faith. The legal question of applicability of G.S. 132-1.4 as it related to noise calls was not settled, as it had not been addressed by an interpretation from any attorney in the City Attorney’s Office. Susan understandably viewed the disclosure as a simple, routine matter. However, as we discussed, the applicability of G.S. 132-1.4 needed to be considered, which required a legal interpretation. Susan acted in good faith to comply with the City’s procedures for routine release.
As soon as the the results of our inquiry about noise complaints about Greene Street outside of 911 calls and the names made available in the discovery are public, we will publish them. Stay posted.
To try and sort things out, our news editor Jordan Green and Greensboro/Guilford County reporter Eric Ginsburg sat down with City Attorney Mujeeb Shah-Khan, Police Attorney Jim Clark and City spokesperson Donnie Turlington on June 10. One of the topics for discussion: Why did the police department release the name of a 911 caller to us in the Sebastian Village case but not the names of people who called about Greene Street, even though both were noise complaints?
After reviewing the state's general statutes governing public records (available here, specifically C and D), we reached some areas of agreement. North Carolina Press Association lawyer Amanda Martin told YES! Weekly that the names are a matter of public record according to the statutes, but after careful review of the ordinance with Clark and Shah-Khan, I am pretty confident that they're accurately interpreting the statute.
While the names of the callers don't have to be released, it will become public record in this case once it is given to Greene Street's lawyer as part of the discovery for pending litigation between the city and the club over the noise ordinance. Until then, the city's hands are tied. YES! Weekly requested a copy and the city agreed to release it unless the court issues a protective order (which seems unlikely).
We also agreed that the statute specifically protects the identity of "complaining witnesses" using 911, and that if a complaint came to the city through another avenue (as they sometimes did prior to the noise debate last year) it is public record. The city is currently reviewing our request to see if complaints came in outside of the 911 system.
As for the discrepancy in when the city provided a caller's name: At the time, Shah-Khan said sometimes "the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand is doing," but after Clark went back and reviewed what happened, he provided a more detailed explanation on Monday. Below is the full text of his response, and the emphasis is mine.
"I have looked at the matter, and what I found is that Susan Danielsen released the name mistakenly. At the time of your earlier PIRT request for 911 information coming from noise complaints, Susan reached the same conclusion that you did – that G.S. 132-1.4 did not apply to reported civil violations. Since this was a new situation, and Susan believed that she was very clear about her understanding of the statute, she released the information in good faith. The legal question of applicability of G.S. 132-1.4 as it related to noise calls was not settled, as it had not been addressed by an interpretation from any attorney in the City Attorney’s Office. Susan understandably viewed the disclosure as a simple, routine matter. However, as we discussed, the applicability of G.S. 132-1.4 needed to be considered, which required a legal interpretation. Susan acted in good faith to comply with the City’s procedures for routine release.
Since then, of course, the City Attorney’s Office has researched the matter and given its advice, which as you know is that 911 caller identities are confidential for the reasons we explained during our meeting about a week ago. With this in mind, we believe the earlier mistaken disclosure was inadvertent, and we also think that it is very unlikely to have negative consequences for the parties involved or the caller.
Thank you for meeting with us and giving us a fair opportunity to explain our reasons and analysis for why the information must be withheld. Frankly, we’re quite often frustrated ourselves, when it comes to the application of State laws concerning confidentiality. We frequently run into times where more information available to the public would help put to rest fears concerning the lack of openness in GPD or government operations in general. However, to the extent such disclosure conflicts with State laws, we are bound to follow the law as best we understand it.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know! Hope you had a great weekend.
Best regards, Jim"
No drones for Greensboro Police Department
 |
| Clark talking about problems with the noise ordinance |
A few weeks ago at a meeting about Greensboro's noise ordinance, Clark remarked about the difficulty of measuring decibel levels in a "sound shadow," which is created by amplified noise emanating from a rooftop (think Greene Street club and Center Pointe, at least until the club puts a grill in).
Clark didn't say anything about drones, but his comment about hovering rattled around in my head for a while after the meeting. Is Greensboro considering drones to monitor big public events, handle noise complaints, look for stolen vehicles or anything similar?
Other cities have toyed with the idea of drones, with some like Seattle abandoning plans after concerns about surveillance. Campus police at the University of Alabama in Huntsville are even getting drones to monitor the college. I figured it was unlikely here, but not far-fetched, so I asked if the department had looked into, discussed or done anything about drones. Turns out the department has talked about it, but there are no plans in the works.
"We don't currently have drones and are not forecasted to get any," police spokesperson Susan Danielsen said via e-mail. "We do think they would be helpful in searching for missing persons."
 |
| Screenshot from the News & Record |
A link to the poll results is no longer live on the newspaper's website. The poll was a sidebar on the homepage of the paper's site.
Greensboro to revisit noise ordinance
SynerG, Action Greensboro's young professionals' organization, held a meeting yesterday to discuss the noise ordinance and issues with its first year of implementation. Councilwoman Nancy Hoffmann (above), City Manager Denise Turner Roth and Police Attorney Jim Clark explained what the city has done and outlined why council will revisit the issue at its June 18 meeting.
Though the ordinance is citywide, discussions yesterday (and last year when the ordinance was revised) focused on the battle between downtown clubs — namely Greene Street — and downtown residents — namely Roy Carroll and the inhabitants of his Center Pointe condos.
Kurt Collins, below left, said yesterday that he moved out of downtown because of excessive noise. Clark said that during the noise ordinance debacle last year the city mostly heard from club owners and their supporters but that residents remained mostly silent on the issue. That has changed in the past year, he said, as more downtown residents have contacted the city.
We will have more detailed reporting on the noise ordinance coming soon. Stay posted!
VIEW: Documents for proposed Greensboro security ordinance
Here is the full security plan manual and proposed security ordinance that would impact entertainment venues in Greensboro. The issue has not gone before city council yet and the ordinance has been modified as recently as this week. Both documents were provided by Greensboro police attorney Jim Clark, who helped draft them.
For more details, pick up a copy of the latest issue of YES! Weekly or read the article online, entitled "clubs owners question proposed security ordinance."
For more details, pick up a copy of the latest issue of YES! Weekly or read the article online, entitled "clubs owners question proposed security ordinance."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)