Hiding in plain sight

So on Friday this particular piece of goodness was posted on Action Alameda, which essentially accused the City and the Alameda Police Department of attempting to cover up the fact that there was an armed robbery at a Park Street eatery.

Action Alameda commenters (and Action Alameda’s “publisher”) repeatedly called the — I’m guessing here — lack of coverage in the newspaper as a “coverup.”

Personally, the Alameda Police Department under Mike Noonan has been more forthcoming and transparent than the Police Department has been previously.   They have a presence on Facebook, on Twitter, and now Nixle.   Add to that the Daily Police Logs that are uploaded to the City’s website, if you want to know about anything happening, crime wise, in Alameda, it’s fairly easy to get that sort of information.

It’s interesting that Action Alameda and its commenters would characterize a lack of headline coverage in the newspaper as a “cover-up.”   Because certainly the incident did get covered in the Alameda Sun’s police blotter.   One would think that if Alameda Police were truly “covering up” the incident that it wouldn’t even make it’s way to a public blotter that can be pretty much reproduced anywhere.   And while Action Alameda and it’s commenters feel as though there isn’t enough reporting about all those dastardly crimes in Alameda, they only need to follow the Police Department on Twitter or on Facebook to get all the updates of breaking events like this one:

Strong arm robbery just occurred Webster/Haight #alameda. Suspect 2 black males w/dreads. Last seen wearing blk hoodie w/blu backpack—
  (@AlamedaPD) January 18, 2012

That makes it seem like there are more crimes in Alameda, not less.   It must be difficult and exhausting to see bad things and assume the worst about everything and everyone all the time.   You know because all those tools above, plus participation in crime mapping applications, is attempting to hide the fact that Alameda, like all cities, has crime.

But of course, in Action Alameda fashion, the subject is still getting top billing after several more attempts to get the same 911 records instead of just taking the Police Chief up on his offer to meet to discuss the case, Action Alameda has decided that alleging a “cover up” would be much more compelling because apparently the withholding of the 911 records is proof positive that something nefarious is afoot.    Here’s what the First Amendment Coalition says about 911 records:

…We are not aware of a case that specifically says that tapes of 911 calls or similar calls to law enforcement must be released, but there are two cases that touch on the subject

…

The Supreme Court held that the exemption in Government Code section 6254(f) for “records of investigations,” like the exemption in the same section for “records of complaints” to law enforcement, allows law enforcement to withhold the records completely. Law enforcement may have to release certain specific information in the records, but not the records themselves. Id.; see also Williams v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 337 (1993). Unfortunately, this precedent means that an agency could prevail with arguments that the recording/transcript you seek is exempt as an investigatory record.

More likely than not, the investigation is on-going and so the 911 records are being withheld because of that, but it’s so much more dramatic to make the issue seem bigger than it actually is.

Advertisement