re: Texas Police Want Uvalde Bodycam Footage Suppressed

quote:

---

What tactics?

---

quote:

---

It’s probably a good time for them to reevaluate their tactics

---

PR strategy so far seems to be working. Run, hide, block, and at the very last moment make it a security concern.

quote:

---

it argues, the footage could be used by other shooters to determine "weaknesses" in police response to crimes.

---

Go frick yourselves, you are paid by the taxpayers to do a job which is to protect and serve and they didn’t do it and children died because of it. Every cop that stood outside that school for almost an hour should have already been fired and should now be facing possible charges because they didn’t do anything.

It’s the state DPS requesting not any of the locals that showed up. They have already been critical of response. There is an active investigation on the cops’ response by Rangers and FBI/Dep of Justice.

I would be ok with a group of people of various politics, independent law enforcement, and so on to just view it for now and verify what should be redacted somehow at least until official investigation on response is finished by Rangers and FBI.


The article mentions marked evidence which I definitely don’t think needs to be released right now. At a minimum just raw footage should be released if anything until investigation completed.

How many state DPS officials were even initially on the scene? Ones arriving later had some in and out of hallway and doing all stuff, but not sure exactly when they arrived. I would think most of what DPS has is part of investigation.

quote:

---

…response to a public records request we filed asking for "photographs and audio as well as video records" recorded by Department of Public Safety officers.

”Revealing the marked records would provide criminals with invaluable information concerning Department techniques used to investigate and detect activities of suspected criminal elements; how information is assessed and analyzed; how information is shared among partner law enforcement agencies and the lessons learned from the analysis of prior criminal activities,”

---

Also that DPS is saying they believe they are exempted at this time not forever but also seeking opinion of AG. It’s not as absolute as title of Vice’s article.

quote:

---

“The Department has located records responsive to your request; however, we believe the records may be excepted from required public disclosure at this time,” a lawyer for the department said. “We are seeking a ruling from the Office of the Attorney General with respect to disclosure of these records, and a copy of our request letter is enclosed.”

---

Many have expressed view that some of the cops should be held accountable, so maybe until investigation complete holding back some or getting approval from AG isn’t that extreme of an idea.

Vice’s title of article including - “Texas Police Want Uvalde Bodycam Footage Suppressed” is a little misleading of what’s in article.

Edit: The DPS responded with what they are doing while as of article posting on June 13th the locals being investigated had not making title even more misleading. Wonder if they responded today

quote:

---

Customs and Border Patrol rejected our request within a day, noting that any body camera footage is part of an active investigation and thus exempt from Freedom of Information requests. Uvalde Police and the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, who were not cooperating with an investigation by DHS, have yet to acknowledge our requests. By law, they have 10 business days to respond; in practice, many government agencies around the country simply ignore freedom of information requests or only respond when badgered or threatened with litigation. Motherboard filed those requests nine business days ago.

---

Not sure how state DPS responding below equates to suppressing all body cam footage.

quote:

---

The Texas Department of Public Safety, however, responded quickly to our request and acknowledged that “photographs and audio as well as video records” do exist. Last week, the New York Times published details from a transcript of body camera footage.

“The Department has located records responsive to your request; however, we believe the records may be excepted from required public disclosure at this time,” a lawyer for the department said. “We are seeking a ruling from the Office of the Attorney General with respect to disclosure of these records, and a copy of our request letter is enclosed.”

In that letter, the department is seeking guidance on our request as well as about a dozen others (requests).

---

How do you keep making this shite worse? It’s actually impressive how the keep fricking up

quote:

---

in part because, it argues, the footage could be used by other shooters to determine "weaknesses" in police response to crimes.

---

I think you have to actually respond to a crime to worry about finding weaknesses in responses to crime. Watching a bodycam video of cops standing around not doing a fricking thing while innocent kids are being murdered doesn’t really help criminals learn anything.

quote:

---

it argues, the footage could be used by other shooters to determine "weaknesses" in police response to crimes.

---

This is like the time everyone in the Obama administration got immunity because they were guilty

Comey didn't put that in his book did he?

quote:

---

So basically they're fine with having zero credibility.

---

That's already there.

quote:

---

So basically they're fine with having zero credibility.

---

I think people need to go back and read entire article and not the title or what reporter wants you to decide quotes mean. This is about the state’s investigation and their requests and not dealing with the other local cops and the district requests for same stuff. Uvalde police and district were sent same request and hadn’t responded as of article with still one day to respond. NYT got body cam to release transcript.

This seems standard for state investigated the response of the cops who many feel was criminal and states multiple times ”at least until the end of investigation.“

Most of it is legalese for multiple reasons why what they have as part of active investigation on response shouldn’t be released until investigation complete. They also include info on “marked” records dealing specifically with one investigation

quote:

---

2022 Dear Open Records Division:

The Department of Public Safety received the above-referenced requests for information from multiple requestors on May 25, 2022; May 26, 2022; May 27, 2022; May 31, 2022; June 2, 2022; June 3, 2022; June 6, 2022, and June 8, 2022. On May 30, 2022, our offices were closed in observance of Memorial Day. Therefore, we believe this request for a ruling on disclosure is timely made in accordance with section 552.301 of the Government Code. We believe the requested information is excepted from required public disclosure pursuant to section 552.108(a)(1) and 552.108(b)(1) of the Government Code. Accordingly, we are requesting a ruling regarding the release of these records.

An investigation into the above-referenced incident is ongoing. Thus, the Department believes the requested information is excepted from required public disclosure pursuant to section 552.108(a)(1) of the Government Code, which states:

(a) Information held by a law enforcement agency or prosecutor that deals with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime is excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021 if:
(1) release of the information would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime.

Because this is an ongoing investigation, the release of potential evidence would interfere with the investigation and prosecution of this case. See Houston Chronicle Publ’g Co. v. City of Houston, 531 S.W.2d 177, 184-85 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1975), writ ref’d n.r.e., 536 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1976) (per curiam). Consequently, the Department believes the responsive records are excepted from required public disclosure at least until the investigation is complete.

The Department also believes this information is excepted from required public disclosure pursuant to section 552.108(b)(1) of the Government Code, which states:

(b) An internal record or notation of a law enforcement agency or prosecutor that is maintained for internal use in matters relating to law enforcement or prosecution is excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021 if:
(1) release of the internal record or notation would interfere with law enforcement or prosecution.


Section 552.108(b)(1) is intended to protect “information which, if released, would permit private citizens to anticipate weaknesses in [a law enforcement agency], avoid detection, jeopardize officer safety, and generally undermine [law enforcement] efforts to effectuate the laws of this State.” City of Ft. Worth v. Cornyn, 86 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.). Your office has stated that under the statutory predecessor to section 552.108(b), a governmental body may withhold information that would reveal law enforcement techniques or procedures. See, e.g., Open Records Decision Nos. 531 (1989) (release of detailed use of force guidelines would unduly interfere with law enforcement), 456 (1987) (release of forms containing information regarding location of off- duty police officers in advance would unduly interfere with law enforcement), 413 (1984) (release of sketch showing security measures to be used at next execution would unduly interfere with law enforcement), 409 (1984) (if information regarding certain burglaries exhibit a pattern that reveals investigative techniques, information is excepted under predecessor to section 552.108), 341 (1982) (release of certain information from Department of Public Safety would unduly interfere with law enforcement because release would hamper departmental efforts to detect forgeries of drivers’ licenses), 252 (1980) (predecessor to section 552.108 is designed to protect investigative techniques and procedures used in law enforcement), 143 (1976) (disclosure of specific operations or specialized equipment directly related to investigation or detection of crime maybe excepted).


Revealing the marked records would provide criminals with invaluable information concerning Department techniques used to investigate and detect activities of suspected criminal elements; how information is assessed and analyzed; how information is shared among partner law enforcement agencies and the lessons learned from the analysis of prior criminal activities. Knowing the intelligence and response capabilities of Department personnel and where those employees focus their attention will compromise law enforcement purposes by enabling criminals to anticipate weakness in law enforcement procedures and alter their methods of operation in order to avoid detection and apprehension. Consequently, the Department believes the records should also be excepted from required public disclosure under section 552.108(b)(1) of the Government Code at least until the investigation is complete.

---