FOIA Friday: I Filed Two Different Lawsuits in Two Counties.

It's FOIA Friday, where I share notable public records released to me and share how to FOIA records yourself. Today it's about two lawsuits lawyers filed this week against two counties in California. We're making the case that, in using overbroad exemptions, Imperial County and Los Angeles County are violating public records law. It shouldn't take a lawsuit, but either I give up on my reporting or fight for them in court. I'm thankful for the lawyers representing me in these cases. Otherwise, the public loses out on knowing about their government's business. After all, their business is your business, too.

Support my work by becoming a subscriber.

Subscribe Here

The first lawsuit is against the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department over its refusal to release records about its Flock cameras. Last year I requested the department's Flock data, including whom they share their data with and a list of their search history. The department outright denied it, citing multiple exemptions as their rationale and closing the request.

I called bullshit.

I've filed similar requests over the course of my reporting for the same Flock records from other departments's, and they've handed them over. But the sheriff's department would rather spend taxpayer money fighting me in court than comply with California public records law.

I believe the public is owed the records. One of the largest police departments in the country doesn't get to use its invasive surveillance equipment in secret. The sheriff's department is choosing a lawsuit over transparency to the public they serve at a time of increased scrutiny over Flock and other automatic license plate readers.

There's been multiple cases of other department's sharing license plate data for immigration purposes. They've also searched for people who've recently attended protests over ICE and the No Kings rallies. California departments have also shared their data with departments outside the state, which is against the law. What we don't know is if the sheriff's department is doing the same. The records will give the public greater detail about how the department is using the technology, either putting them at ease or causing them to demand accountability for its misuse.

A few months back, I was perusing through federal contracting data when I stumbled upon multiple single-source contracts over the course of multiple years between Imperial County and Border and Customs Protection for juvenile detention services. Since 2017, DHS has awarded $750,000 to house detainees inside Imperial County's juvenile probation detention facilities. It's a deal that's possibly illegal under California's Values Act, which states, "California law enforcement agencies may not enter into new contracts with the federal government to house or detain noncitizens in a locked detention facility for purposes of immigration custody.”

More concerning than the legality is the involvement of juveniles, you know, children. But I've found nothing about why they're detained and where they after their release. I've searched everywhere on the county's website, digging through agenda items and reports from the probation department for any information. Nothing. There's no trace of any votes approving the contracts or where the federal government's money is going.

Attempts to reach out with questions to anyone at the county were met with radio silence. Elizabeth Sais, the head of the county's probation department, declined to an interview or answer my questions. Customs and Border Protection also ghosted my questions.

I hate dead ends in my investigations when I know there is more to the story. That's where a public records request comes in, forcing the government to tell me more with the backing of state law. I sent multiple requests to the county about the contracts and any emails about them, but was denied each time by county counsel. The denials were unlike anything I've experienced in my work to the point of absurdity. County counsel cited the Supremacy Clause and the Comity Clause for not releasing the records. They're arguing Constitutional Law, not California public records law. The county didn't even attempt to acknowledge whether email records exist, instead they cited the same federal laws and closed the request.

Thankfully the folks over at First Amendment Coalition saw what was going on and are suing on my behalf to challenge the county's legal rationale. Hopefully it's a successful lawsuit and I can continue investigating the county and DHS/CBP's contracts. Their lack of disclosure and the little details I've found isn't enough for an news outlet to commit to my story, leaving me to do this work for free. (If any editors are reading this and are interested, email me)

There's something going on here and they screwed up by telling me no and not answering my questions. It's a waiting game as it plays out in the courts for the next few months.

If you know anything, send me a secure message on Signal at joeyscott.05 or an email.

Here's the press release from the First Amendment Coalition.

See you both in court!