[11:24] Morning, Paul.

[11:33] Yeah, we got the interesting little symbol on our logo here, but I'm not sure what that means.

[11:43] Morning, director. Yeah, I applaud. I'm not sure why the logo is there, but. No problem. I mean, yeah, I do see the record symbol up there. So I think we're good. If we have parties, we can go ahead. Yeah, both of them at it. Mom, thanks.

[12:01] I was worried my video was going to work here.

[12:17] Morning, Mr. Tanner.

[12:18] Can you hear me okay?

[12:19] Yes.

[12:19] Good morning.

[12:20] Great.

[12:21] Have you?

[12:24] And Mr. Winchester, can you hear me all right?

[12:26] I can.

[12:27] Can you hear us?

[12:28] Yeah.

[12:28] We're all set.

[12:29] Great.

[12:29] Thank you very much.

[12:31] Welcome to the government records office hearings this morning.

[12:33] I'm Director Pearson.

[12:34] Looks like we have our first item on the agenda today is appeal number.

[12:39] and I think we're taking them in this order.

[12:41] Appeal number 2026-156, Tanner versus Syracuse PD.

[12:46] You know, Miss Tanner representing herself,

[12:48] and Mr. Winchester, are you representing Syracuse PD?

[12:53] I am. I'm the Syracuse City Attorney,

[12:55] and I have here with me Angie Paul

[12:57] from the Records Department of the PD.

[12:59] Okay, great. We're also expecting that we might be joined

[13:04] by Cassie Brown, who is the Syracuse City recorder.

[13:08] she'll be joining from home if she joins it all. I'm surprised I'm not to see her yet.

[13:13] Okay, do you want to just wait and see if we need to swear any witnesses in as we go or do we

[13:19] want to handle that now? We can do it now and I just see Cassie has just joined us. Okay, great.

[13:25] Yeah, let's get Ms. Brown on. If you can hear me, if you can turn on your camera and your

[13:30] microphone.

[13:33] Yeah, can you hear me? Yep, we've got you. Thank you very much. Okay, we were just about

[13:38] to swear in non-attorneys. So do you swear that the testimony you will given this matter

[13:44] will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties

[13:48] of perjury, Ms. Tanner. I do. Ms. Brown? Yes, I do. And I'm sorry, your other witness.

[13:57] As you call, P-O-L-L. Okay, Ms. Paul? I do, yes. Okay, great. So as far as how we operate,

[14:06] Each party will have up to five minutes for an initial presentation, you'll have an additional

[14:10] five minutes for rebuttal and conclusion. That's an addition to any question time we may have.

[14:18] Reminder about mediation communications, no mention of anything that might have occurred related

[14:22] to mediation, as that is privileged from disclosure here. And am I missing anything? It's been a

[14:29] couple of weeks since I've had hearings, so I'm out of the group. So if there are no questions,

[14:34] We'll go ahead and turn it to Ms. Tanner.

[14:36] You have up to five minutes.

[14:38] We do have the little traffic light

[14:39] to help us keep track of time as well.

[14:42] Perfect, I'll, I think I'll be under five minutes.

[14:44] We'll keep it pretty concise.

[14:46] There's kind of two main issues

[14:47] that I want to raise, essentially, with this.

[14:51] So what I'm looking for is a police report

[14:53] filed by a mother and a daughter

[14:54] who were concerned about a situation

[14:56] that was happening at their high school

[14:58] with some revenge.

[15:00] Formed by mail students. The two issues that kind of stand out to me under Utah Code 86, 1000, 4.1. Which gets us a little bit out of the grammar code, but it's the expungement statute. And specifically about expungement for juvenile cases and it says that the victim in the case is required to be served within notice of the have an opportunity to petition the expungement that never happened in this case.

[15:28] So I feel like we're citing this expungement code as a reason not to release these records.

[15:34] The actual expungement code itself also doesn't appear to be followed.

[15:37] I talked to Rachel and Kate Davies, the mother and daughter in this case.

[15:41] They say they were never served with any kind of notice.

[15:43] They never had any chance to appeal the expungement to petition it.

[15:47] And so the code itself wasn't exactly followed with that.

[15:51] So they never actually had a chance to do that.

[15:53] And then the second part of code that I want to point out to,

[15:56] I will say expungement code is as little different than grandma code and that it like sites a code sites a code sites code sites code

[16:03] So you got to like cut off all the trail, but once you follow the trail

[16:07] There's a part on Utah code 77

[16:10] 40A

[16:11] 404 that says when expunge records are specifically authorized to be released and it says the following

[16:18] Individuals may view or obtain an expunge record under this chapter or section

[16:23] in 77, 27, 5.1.

[16:26] Again, lots of references in this particle,

[16:28] but it says the petitioner or an individual

[16:31] who receives an automatic X-100 under the X-100 law.

[16:34] So in this case, it's my understanding

[16:36] that Kate Davies and Rachel Davies, the mother and daughter,

[16:38] are the petitioner in this case.

[16:40] They are the people who filed the police report

[16:43] and they have a right to see what's in their police report

[16:45] that they personally filed with the police.

[16:49] They tried to go in person to the CRQ's police station

[16:52] and were denied. Obviously, I have their notarized forms, which is the same as them requesting

[16:57] the records. So, I do believe that those should be released. I will say also that Mayor

[17:06] Maughan, I hope I'm pronouncing that right, noted in his denial, the expunge records may

[17:14] be released to the individual who is the subject of the record. Again, Kate Davies is the

[17:20] on the daughter who, you know, filed the report and is essentially the subject of the record.

[17:26] So it's those kind of two specific pieces of the law that I'd like to note here that

[17:34] the requirements for notification didn't happen and then that K-TV is the subject of the record

[17:41] should be able to access her police report. Okay, thank you. All right, we'll turn to you, Mr. Winchester.

[17:48] You have up to five minutes.

[17:50] Sure.

[17:51] I'll address each of those concerns in order regarding the fact or the allegation rather

[17:57] that they did not receive notice of the petition or expungement.

[18:02] That's not Syracuse Police Department's problem.

[18:04] We received an order saying the records had been expunge by the juvenile court.

[18:08] If Ms. Tanner wants to challenge the expungement process, she needs to go challenge that in the

[18:13] courts with the juvenile court, or the court of appeals or wherever, but not here.

[18:18] We did have nothing to do with the process.

[18:21] All we did was receive the court order

[18:22] and we followed it and explained to the records.

[18:25] Number two, she claims that her parties

[18:30] and just are the petitioners,

[18:31] and therefore they're entitled to a copy of the report.

[18:34] When it talks about petitioner

[18:35] and the expungement statute,

[18:37] it's talking about the person who petitions

[18:39] for an expungement.

[18:41] It is not talking about the petitioner in a grandma request

[18:44] that happens a year and a half later.

[18:46] I have already pointed that out of my written response.

[18:49] And finally, she said that Kate Davies is the subject of the record, Kate Davies, or

[18:54] her daughter, or not the subject of the record.

[18:56] The subject of the record, the subject of the, of the, of the, um, expunge records is the

[19:02] juvenile, not the persons that she's representing.

[19:05] Our position is we've got a court order.

[19:07] It said, expunge the records, statute says when the records are expunge, they are treated

[19:12] as they know long, as if they no longer exist, we've complied with the court order,

[19:16] we cannot and will not produce the records to Ms. Tanner.

[19:22] Okay, thank you. I guess we'll go back

[19:24] to you, Ms. Tanner. Yeah, I mean, I don't agree that the petitioner is not KTVs and Rachel,

[19:32] the law says the petitioner or the individual who receives the automatic expendment. So it's

[19:37] creating a difference between those two, the petitioner or the individual who receives,

[19:42] like those are two different things that OR is is delineating that those are two different parties.

[19:47] So I guess that's kind of my rebuttal. This is a pretty tight.

[19:54] Oh, it looks like you've muted, but I mean wouldn't you agree though that if the

[19:58] expungement order applies, I don't have authority to overrule it.

[20:02] Even if there were some improprieties or, you know, the statute wasn't followed

[20:07] exactly. Well, it says that there are those cases where those who are specifically authorized

[20:12] to receive the records, and it's that petitioner who asks for the records, who's the subject of the records?

[20:19] All of them, I haven't dug into this statute extensively. It does seem to me that a petitioner in an

[20:26] expungement matter would be the person seeking an expungement or their representative, but

[20:32] is petitioner not defined under the juvenile records expungement statute? Mr. Winchester, is that?

[20:39] But I don't know that it is, I have not researched it, but at this point, I don't know the

[20:46] answer.

[20:47] In my understanding, no, and again, it says the petitioner or the individual who receives

[20:51] the expungement.

[20:53] So, again, I think those are two different things.

[20:56] Mr. Winchester, what's your response to that?

[20:58] Why would they distinguish those if it's the same person?

[21:01] Is there common to have a request for an expungement by someone that's not the person seeking

[21:07] the expungement. You would have to direct that question to the courts. I don't know what's

[21:13] common with their expungement processes. The one that comes to mind is that there are a couple

[21:18] of public interest firms and law firms that specialize in expungements. They do those expungements

[21:24] on behalf of people who are the subjects of those records. So I don't know why they use two terms

[21:30] instead of one. Well I just yeah I just clicked on 80-6-1,001 and 5 is defines

[21:38] petitioner means an individual requesting an expungement or vacate your

[21:43] under this part so I think that resolves that dispute as far as who the

[21:49] petitioner referenced that has access to the records is. Any other arguments

[21:56] Once all that, you have a last word, Ms. Tanner, there's anything else you want to add?

[22:03] Okay.

[22:04] I think it's pretty clear from the language of this statute that the petitioner is,

[22:11] the person seeking the expungement, it doesn't really authorize, release to someone else besides

[22:15] that.

[22:16] I think the city properly interpreted this statute.

[22:20] I do not have authority to overrule that expungement order.

[22:25] or even if there were some procedural deficiencies

[22:30] that may have occurred, I'm not saying there were,

[22:32] but regardless of whether there were or not,

[22:34] I wouldn't have authority to do that.

[22:36] So I find that the records are subject

[22:38] to a valid expungement order.

[22:41] I do not have authority to vacate it.

[22:43] The requester here is not the petitioner

[22:47] as referenced in the expungement statute.

[22:50] So I'm going to deny this appeal.

[22:52] I'll issue a written decision within seven business days

[22:54] and you're going to appeal to District Court within 30 calendar days if you choose Miss

[22:58] Tanner.

[23:00] All right, I think that resolves this appeal.

[23:04] Thank you for your time today, Mr. Winchester and others.

[23:09] Thank you.

[23:18] Yay, I'm keeping Miss Tanner here and get Davis County on.

[23:31] Hello, can you hear me?

[23:32] Yep, I can, thank you.

[23:35] Do you have any witnesses or anyone else that we need to wait for, or are we all set?

[23:39] that. It was just being myself. Great. Great. All right. Thank you. All right. So our next

[23:44] appeal is appeal number 2026-148. It's Tana versus Davis County. Again, we have Ms. Tana

[23:51] representing herself. And we have Mr. James representing Davis County. You may have heard,

[23:58] but each party has up to five minutes for an initial presentation. And then you'll have initial

[24:03] five minutes for rebuttal and conclusion. Ms. Tana, I'll just say you are still under oath. So I

[24:08] I won't swear you again.

[24:10] And I will give the standard reminder,

[24:11] no mention of anything related to mediation.

[24:14] So with that, we'll turn it to Ms. Tanner,

[24:16] you have up to five minutes.

[24:18] I will admit, I don't know that we need to hear this case

[24:21] based on the ruling in the last case.

[24:24] That's why I was wondering what, you know,

[24:25] if the order mattered, but I guess there was a question

[24:30] whether I used to raise the question,

[24:31] whether Davis kind of a subject to that expungement order.

[24:36] And I don't know if that's an issue

[24:37] that we need to delve into or not.

[24:42] It's an automatic expunge in an order

[24:44] that's generated by the court and the juvenile case.

[24:47] And then, I mean, by my reading of it,

[24:50] which they did provide it for me for a camera review,

[24:53] it's directed at the court.

[24:57] So the court record gets expunged.

[24:59] But I don't know how it's handled outside of that.

[25:00] Maybe Mr. James, if you want to just address that.

[25:05] Oh, yeah, as far as the expungement goes,

[25:07] I guess we're in maybe a somewhat different posture

[25:10] than Syracuse City in the sense that we conducted what we would consider a reasonable search

[25:15] and did not find any records, but based off of the request we did not search our expunge

[25:20] records. So I think if there was going to be something different about ours, it would

[25:25] maybe be an order to go back and search our expunge records, and then I think we would

[25:29] be at the exact same place as Syracuse City. That would be my guess. I have purposefully

[25:34] not dug into those yet, and so I don't know if we would have something in our expunge

[25:38] that would be responsive, but I kind of to what was discussed previously, I think if we're going to go down the expungement route, it seems to me that would be kind of looking at 63g-2-107 of grandma where we'd be saying that the expungement section of the code is probably what's going to be controlling here.

[25:58] So I don't know if it's worthwhile for us to conduct an additional search of expunge records, but I think that's kind of where we're at.

[26:04] So at least that's where as far as the posture for us if that kind of helps clear that up at all.

[26:09] Well, how does the how's the expungement orders typically handled by the county?

[26:13] So if the juvenile court issue is one of those automatic expungement orders,

[26:19] I guess it's directed typically at the police department.

[26:25] Oh, right. Well, we would we we we we see them as well and we do expunge records. I mean,

[26:30] And I could go into that process, but yeah, we would have a similar one.

[26:34] We would have received an order, assuming that we were involved in this.

[26:38] And then we would have expunged the records, ours are typically, I think, kept in paper

[26:41] files.

[26:42] We literally like tape them up and whatever, but yeah, so it would have been a similar process.

[26:47] For us though, I think we probably would have included that expungement order with our expunged

[26:52] files basically.

[26:54] So for me to even get to those records, I basically have to start ripping open files, digging

[26:59] into them and seeing if they're even responsive and then once I saw they were responsive then

[27:03] I'd have to say oh yes we did have an expungement order and then we'd kind of be at where Syracuse

[27:09] City was I think.

[27:11] Okay well I'm Miss Tanner unless you have any other arguments regarding you know it sounds

[27:16] like we're kind of all on the same page so again just for the records for the record

[27:23] I'll say that I do want to put on the record, though.

[27:30] I think there was an argument, Mr. James, that the no records denial here was not an

[27:35] appealable access denial.

[27:36] That is something that I've addressed multiple times before.

[27:39] I might encourage you to just search up the recent records committee or government records

[27:44] office decisions on that point.

[27:46] But I have held repeatedly that no records denial is an access denial that is appealable.

[27:52] So, to me, or to this district court, so you might want to just pass that along, keep

[27:58] that in mind.

[27:59] I'll put that on the record as far as I find a plane that has, you know, not a matter

[28:04] burden of showing that there are records that aren't expunged that haven't been produced

[28:08] or that a reasonable search hasn't been conducted.

[28:10] So, this appeal has also denied all issue written decision within seven business days, and you

[28:15] can appeal the district court within 30 calendar days.

[28:19] That, I think that's it for these hearings. Thank you, Ms. Tanner. Have a good day.

[28:25] Mr. James. Thank you.

[28:33] I expected it would be a fairly short morning, Paul, but we're really moving long. So I don't

[28:38] know if we have, do we have parties for the last one?

[28:43] That makes it easier. But we don't have the respondent.

[28:47] Okay. So let's take a five minute break and we'll see if we can, we can get them.

[28:51] and then we'll come back.

[28:54] Okay.

[28:55] Alright, great.

[50:58] Okay. I believe we have the parties for our final hearing today. We'll go ahead and add them as presenters.

[51:18] Morning, Mr. Savalk. Can you hear me? Okay.

[51:22] I'm not hearing you. I think maybe you're muted. How about that? Does that work? That's it. Great. Thank you very much. I'm allergies for the mistake today. I thought with four matters in front of us, we would have a little more time. So yeah, we had a few drop out and then things went very quickly.

[51:40] So no problem at all. Thank you for jumping on as soon as we heard about it.

[51:45] And it looks like we have the petitioner. Is it Ms. Vigil? Can you hear me okay?

[51:49] Yes. Can you hear me okay?

[51:52] Yep. We're all set. All right. So we are on the record.

[51:55] This is appeal number 2026-146. It's Vigil versus Unified Police Department.

[52:01] We have Ms. Vigil representing herself as petitioner and Mr. Saval representing

[52:06] Unified Police Department.

[52:08] Ms. Vigil, I do need to swear you in as a witness to you swear that the testimony you

[52:12] will give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

[52:15] under the pains and penalties of perjury.

[52:18] Thank you.

[52:19] Okay.

[52:19] Thank you very much.

[52:20] As far as how we operate each party, we'll have up to five minutes for an initial presentation

[52:24] and then I may have questions and you'll have an additional five minutes for a rebuttal

[52:29] and conclusion.

[52:31] I will mention that anything related to mediation that may or may not have occurred in relation

[52:36] to this should not be brought up here as that's privileged from disclosure.

[52:40] If there are no questions, we do have the little traffic light there that you can see

[52:45] the green light will help you know when your time is almost expired.

[52:48] So Ms. Vigil, go right ahead.

[52:49] You have up to five minutes.

[52:51] Director, if I could ask just one question.

[52:54] I'm going to be having Terry Rigby who is now the case officer joining us.

[53:00] She needed a few minutes to get prepared, but that she'll be signing on and she'll be my witness.

[53:09] Okay, do you need me to wait or before we start with Ms. Vigil?

[53:13] Okay.

[53:14] No, I think we can get going now. I've made you wait enough.

[53:17] No problem. All right, thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Vigil.

[53:21] Okay. My name, as you know, is Tina Vigil. I'm the practitioner in this appeal. I am also the mother of Dominic Vigil.

[53:29] He is the subject of this case and the records request from the unified police department relating to his death on July 21st, 2023.

[53:41] This is very difficult for me to talk about without getting emotional.

[53:48] So I've asked my sister to, she's here with me to help me stay organized.

[53:56] I realized that my initial request was quite broad and I have narrowed the request down for specific records

[54:04] to help resolve this beautiful disputed factual issues in this related civil litigation.

[54:12] These records have been classified as protected records under grandma and I understand that under Utah code

[54:23] 6, 3G, 2, 406, I have the burden of demonstrating the public interest favoring access is equal to or greater than the interest favoring restriction of access.

[54:42] I believe the burden has been met, the requested records containing objective evidence concerning a fatal shooting and the resulting law enforcement investigation.

[55:00] The issue before the committee is whether continued withholding these specific records serves the greater public interest.

[55:09] The incident occurred July 21, 2023. Following the incident evidence of the records were collected

[55:18] for review by the District Attorney's Office to determine whether prosecution would be pursued.

[55:26] On February 14, just 2024, during an in-person interview, I recorded with Deputy District Attorney

[55:36] Vince Meister informed me that no charges would be filed and the matter had been deemed

[55:43] self-defense.

[55:45] The person involved in the shooting was released from custody and it has been now more

[55:51] than three years since the incident occurred.

[55:54] I have the recording if you guys would like to hear it or have it entered in.

[56:01] I would like it entered in if that's possible.

[56:07] Well, we don't have formal evidentiary procedures here.

[56:10] You're welcome to submit, you know, anything for consideration that you would like.

[56:14] I would prefer that have been done sooner, but I mean, you know,

[56:21] I'll hear Mr. Saval's response, but, you know, I take your word for it at this point

[56:27] What it says, he didn't proceed, Ms. Vigil, go ahead.

[56:33] Okay. Unified police department has continued to classify these records as protected based upon an ongoing investigation.

[56:44] I understand the importance of protecting legitimate law enforcement interests.

[56:50] However, the circumstance of this case requires consideration of whether continued withholding

[56:57] all the requested records remains justified when there is no prosecution pending or no criminal

[57:07] charges filed. The records requested include 911 recordings, CAD logs, ballistic reports,

[57:16] hurts, crime scene, demonstration, firearm, forensic analysis, surveillance videos, interrogation

[57:24] recordings, and related investigative material.

[57:30] These records, excuse me, these records are significant because they contain objective

[57:39] objective evidence that may resolve dispute factual issues that cannot be answered by completing accounts alone.

[57:50] I have submitted a list of the committee identifying disputed facts in the related civil litigation explaining how the requested evidence may help resolve these disputes.

[58:05] because my time is limited I would only allow address a few examples. One is

[58:14] issue with Dominic Vigil's location and actions at the time of the fatal

[58:19] shock was fired. He accounts differ regarding whether Dominic was reaching

[58:27] for the firearm or whether he was positioned away from the weapons.

[58:31] ballistic analysis, crime scene mapping, and firearm forensic analysis may provide objective information regarding the physical circumstances of the shooting.

[58:46] Another issue concerning, I guess my time is up now.

[58:54] All of you have minute two if you want to, if you have anything you want to wrap up.

[58:58] Okay.

[58:59] The information providing during the 911 call reflected in the CAD report, they are

[59:06] contemptuous records that created at the time of the incident may clarify that what information

[59:13] was reported to the dispatch when it was reported and how law enforcement initial response

[59:19] based on that information. I also want to emphasize that I am willing to accept

[59:28] regional safeguards regarding these records if there are legitimate privacy

[59:36] concerns or sensitive information that requires protection. I'm supportive,

[59:42] appropriate, appropriate redactions in in-camera, I'm sorry I'm a little nervous. In-camera

[59:51] you, or productive ordering limited, the use of

[59:58] disemerging of the records.

[1:00:00] Okay. Well, thank you very much. And I do want to tell you, Ms. Vigil, my condolences on your loss. And I know this is a very difficult situation for you. I think you've handled it very well. So, so I commend you on that. I do understand, of course, your interest in the records. But my understanding is there is a civil lawsuit. And you had sought records in discovery through that matter. And you were told by the court that you should try grandma instead. Is that correct?

[1:00:29] Yes, I have to exhaust all grandma.

[1:00:34] Okay, all right.

[1:00:37] We'll turn to you, Mr. Saval.

[1:00:40] Thank you.

[1:00:41] Thank you.

[1:00:41] This is, I'll start out by saying this is an absolute tragic case.

[1:00:46] And Miss Vigil has an interest in finding these answers.

[1:00:50] This isn't a question of ultimately obtaining access to an assuming that charges aren't filed.

[1:00:58] but that it's still an active investigation.

[1:01:02] So one of the things that make it tough

[1:01:04] is that, first of all, Ms. Vigil was in the house

[1:01:08] when this shooting happened, but she didn't witness it.

[1:01:12] And I don't know if the records would even answer

[1:01:14] some of the questions that she's seeking

[1:01:17] to have answered in terms of this.

[1:01:19] I mean, we don't go through and respond

[1:01:21] to interrogatory type questions,

[1:01:23] and that's essentially what the new submission was.

[1:01:26] Like, where was the body?

[1:01:28] Well, that may not be clear other than we can talk about the location of the body at the

[1:01:34] time that the officers arrived, and that would be available on body camp.

[1:01:41] So I think that in terms of the questions that she's asking, they appear to be sort of

[1:01:46] a list of disputed issues that the court in the civil case would like answered.

[1:01:51] I'm not sure that that would be answered by disclosure of the record.

[1:01:54] some of it may be, but if the body was moved for medical care or other reasons, it's not going

[1:02:00] to be perhaps the same answer that she's looking for. Regardless of that, one of the things that

[1:02:06] happens in an investigation, and the issue here was not whether the suspect in this case fired the

[1:02:16] shots. It's undisputed that she did. The question is whether she was acting in self-defense or not

[1:02:21] at the time that she fired the shots.

[1:02:24] Originally the case was screened and there was an initial determination that the state could

[1:02:30] not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she wasn't acting in self-defense.

[1:02:34] However, the prosecutor on this case, Vince Meister, ultimately decided he wanted additional

[1:02:42] information and this is everything from medical records of Ms. Perez to there's some information

[1:02:50] regarding, you know, surrounding cameras. They wanted some information, I prefer not to go

[1:02:59] into to try to determine the intent of this paras at the time of the shooting to see if she had

[1:03:07] made perhaps other statements about what was going on. They wanted to establish what the domestic

[1:03:14] istic history is between the two of them to see if there was, you know, circumstances

[1:03:20] that would indicate prior abuse.

[1:03:22] There certainly were prior calls.

[1:03:24] So in an effort to try to button this up, it took time.

[1:03:30] And ultimately, there's a final request, or at least I think it's a final request, that

[1:03:36] UPD believes it can respond to within about 30 to 60 days to the DA and then whatever time

[1:03:44] they take to screen that would ultimately make a final determination if they're going to go forward or

[1:03:50] not. Disclosing it now is problematic for a couple of reasons. One is simply that it's an ongoing

[1:03:57] investigation too. Ms. Vigil is accused of or allegedly was involved in an assault on Perez the

[1:04:06] night of the shooting. Now obviously at this point there is not a possibility of charging her with

[1:04:13] assault because the statute limitations is wrong but it's not a foregone conclusion that there

[1:04:19] wouldn't be some kind of a charge arising out of that if the district attorney believes it can

[1:04:24] prove that. So the complication here is simply that the investigation while slow all agree it's not

[1:04:31] been a breakneck speed is something that is not quite done. I think it'll be I think you'd be done

[1:04:40] by UPD within 30 to 60 days, and however long the DA takes to screen it, and I didn't know about

[1:04:50] a call recorded by Vince Meister until just now, or I may have asked him to try to make time to

[1:04:58] be here. I know he's a very busy prosecutor, but whenever Kerry really signs on, she can talk about

[1:05:06] her communications within and the timeframe that we need. So our request is simply that

[1:05:11] this is still premature even though it's you know three years after the fact and I know

[1:05:19] that she's got litigation needs for it but under the circumstances we think that the request

[1:05:24] for a period of what I put 180 days hopefully would be more like 120 would serve the

[1:05:32] the interest of justice served the purpose of the grandma statute in terms of protecting

[1:05:37] investigations and would further outline whether or not the DA is going to go forward with

[1:05:43] charges.

[1:05:45] Okay. Thank you. I don't have the exact timeline before me, but was the decision to reopen

[1:05:52] and reinvestigate or to follow-up investigation after the civil lawsuit request was filed

[1:06:02] and the request for discovery or this grammar request.

[1:06:06] So it's the cause of the decision?

[1:06:09] It's an interesting question.

[1:06:10] I think Ms. Rigby will have that answer once she signs on.

[1:06:14] I don't know it.

[1:06:14] And I think that what I know is simply from third hand, it's possible that this did result

[1:06:23] in a, and I can kind of explain the process because I know our records process.

[1:06:28] If we get a request for a record on a case that has not been closed by a declination letter,

[1:06:35] then we consider it an open investigation.

[1:06:38] Frequently at that point, our people will contact the prosecutor and say, hey, are you

[1:06:44] going to do anything with this or are we going to, because we either need an authorization

[1:06:49] to file or a declination so we can close our file at which point the record becomes

[1:06:54] public subject to privacy reductions. So I think that it is possible and I can find

[1:07:00] out when Kerry gets on, that that was what spurred this essentially to ask additional questions

[1:07:08] to try to wrap it up before making a final decision. So yeah, it is possible that I would

[1:07:13] say, I would almost say likely that the request for the information and the confirmation on whether it

[1:07:21] was declined or not spurred the DA to make some final requests for the following. Okay, thank you.

[1:07:27] It looks like we do have Ms. Rigby joining us. If you could turn your camera on and your microphone will

[1:07:32] make sure we can see and hear you okay. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. I do need

[1:07:39] to go ahead and swear you and you swear Ms. Rigby, the testimony will given this matter

[1:07:43] will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties

[1:07:46] of perjury.

[1:07:48] Yes, I do.

[1:07:49] Okay, thank you very much.

[1:07:50] Do you have anything to add on how much of Mr. Savai, I think you were on, but anything

[1:07:54] to add as far as the timing of this and how that might relate to?

[1:07:59] Yes.

[1:07:59] So if I could, I don't know, Carrie, when you signed on, so I don't know if you heard the

[1:08:03] I did hear yet. That is correct. So I kept reaching out to Vince and I did touch base with him several times when

[1:08:15] this would come up in the grandma request or the request for the information would come up. I'd reach out to him again

[1:08:20] and see if there was anything else that he wanted us to do and if we could get an update

[1:08:26] two-hour declination letter because the one thing that is on there is the declination

[1:08:33] letter would have stipulations and we won't close it as long as there's a stipulation.

[1:08:39] And so we were asking for, you know, can we close this? Are we okay to close this? Can

[1:08:44] we get the additional stipulation? And then that's when we would be asked for additional information

[1:08:50] and we would, we would go back and look for whatever it was that

[1:08:55] been sort of the other DA's would want us to look at.

[1:08:59] So the last time I, we did talk and I was just looking over my notes on that was

[1:09:05] would have been the June 9th that I spoke to him and then

[1:09:10] again on July 14th was when we were deciding that we should be okay

[1:09:17] We just got to get in front of the DA and sit down with them after all this

[1:09:22] stuff that we got from the last June 9th thing. The June 9th conversation with

[1:09:28] him was all over. I'm sorry looked over and everything and we could sit down

[1:09:34] with them and get in front of them to do that. So there hadn't been a formal

[1:09:39] declaration letter issued or. There was a formal declaration it just came with

[1:09:44] stipulations. So there was a list of things that they wanted us to do. And so when we were asking for a

[1:09:50] declination letter that came without stipulations so that it wasn't

[1:09:55] you know something that would allow us to actually close our case. That was what we kept asking for.

[1:10:03] And we couldn't get that as long as they had us adding things to that list. So looking at more things to do.

[1:10:10] So, thank you. I appreciate that. So, Mr. Saval, assuming hypothetically that no charges are filed,

[1:10:19] you're anticipating you said 60 to possibly 120 days outside for that final declination letter to

[1:10:26] be issued and then in the matter would be closed. What kind of a time frame would we be looking at

[1:10:31] for actually disclosing records under grandma to Ms. Vigil? So, I would say this that first of

[1:10:40] Do we have now the information the DA requested in the June 9th meeting?

[1:10:46] Yes.

[1:10:48] Okay.

[1:10:49] Then at this point, I believe that it would be without further stipulations or further

[1:10:57] requests as soon as the DA can get together with us and review this.

[1:11:02] I know he's busy, but it would seem to me that if the DA provides an unconditional declination

[1:11:09] and letter. I think that our time period would be approximately 30 days after that.

[1:11:16] Okay. Great. That's helpful. As far as the status of the civil suit, Miss Vigil,

[1:11:25] are there discovery deadlines? First off, do you have counsel in that matter or are you

[1:11:30] planning that process? Okay. And are there discovery deadlines in place or what's the status of

[1:11:36] lawsuit.

[1:11:41] Discovery is done and I have filed an extension. Okay. I have a hearing with

[1:11:50] the judge coming up in September.

[1:11:54] I don't know if you're aware or not, Ms. Vigil, but probably the

[1:11:57] best way to obtain these records would not be through a grammar process because they are going

[1:12:03] to be subject to heavy reduction. There are probably a lot of things that you can't really get

[1:12:10] very well through the grammar process that you would be able to obtain most

[1:12:14] likely through discovery. So this really isn't the ideal way to go about it in

[1:12:19] my mind. I understand if the judge directed you to you know give it a shot but

[1:12:23] I'll just throw that out there for you on the record. I'll turn it back to you

[1:12:29] Miss Vigil. You have an additional five minutes but again if you would just

[1:12:32] focus on the public interest in releasing these records while they are while

[1:12:38] they remain protected or private?

[1:12:47] Respectfully it is not for the committee to determine the liability of my civil case

[1:12:53] or whether this investigation should remain open, but that the committee should consider

[1:13:02] partial effect of allowing the investigation to remain the sole basis with holding records

[1:13:09] identity indefinitely because certain serious criminal offenses did not have

[1:13:17] statute of limitations and investigations could it could remain open for an

[1:13:28] ultimate period of time if the existence of the case investigation alone

[1:13:33] significantly to permanently prevent access to records the public interest

[1:13:38] this balancing required by grandma could be avoided indefinitely.

[1:13:46] Okay, thank you very much.

[1:13:48] Turn it back to you, Mr. Saval.

[1:13:49] Again, I think that probably the strongest public interest argument

[1:13:53] is just the amount of time that's gone by here.

[1:13:55] I mean, three years and then, you know,

[1:13:58] it's reopened when she files a new civil suit.

[1:14:01] And that's, you know, that's kind of factors into my weighing analysis,

[1:14:05] but I'll let you go ahead and address anything else.

[1:14:07] As far as just to address that question, two years ago, UPD separated from the Sheriff's

[1:14:15] Office, and 90 plus people, some of whom were working on these type of cases left, requiring

[1:14:22] a significant shuffling of work around.

[1:14:27] I know that's not Miss Vigil's fault, but there were cases that were picked up by other

[1:14:32] detectives and ultimately there has been some slower responses on or follow up on cases

[1:14:41] than even we would prefer. Nonetheless, we were sort of on a team with the DA's office

[1:14:48] and when we when we tried to see the status of a case and we're still doing a broader review

[1:14:56] a lot of our cases to see that the situation

[1:15:00] Just like this, are timely followed up on. We still, like I said, don't have a formal

[1:15:06] declination letter. We do have a commitment to review the information as quickly as possible

[1:15:13] once it's ready. It sounds like it's ready. So what was originally from the DA 180-day

[1:15:19] request of time, I put it in my filing, I think 120 is more reasonable. And I think now that

[1:15:26] that the information is available,

[1:15:29] we'll see if we could get it done sooner.

[1:15:31] But I would at least ask for 60 days

[1:15:35] to determine if there's a declination letter

[1:15:38] and I'll make a request to Mr. Meister,

[1:15:41] that he or somebody else in the office schedule a meeting

[1:15:45] and make a determination if they can.

[1:15:47] And if they don't, I think it could come back

[1:15:50] before you for final decision.

[1:15:52] If you want to continue this hearing

[1:15:55] to make that determination and rather than losing jurisdiction over it.

[1:16:00] In the meantime, I'm sympathetic to the fact that the lawsuit is going forward and I would

[1:16:07] offer to appear in that action in front of the judge and explain the reasons for the delay

[1:16:14] if that would assist.

[1:16:16] But regardless, I just think that we're almost to the finish line if they make a determination

[1:16:24] to charge, that may benefit Ms. Beheal because they're looking at Ms. Perez.

[1:16:30] What question I have for Ms. Vigil is, is Perez represented in that lawsuit by an attorney?

[1:16:39] No.

[1:16:40] Okay.

[1:16:41] So, it's a little bit problematic in two-prose parties, but I still think under the circumstances

[1:16:48] is at least that if there is a hearing that I am requested to attend and explain, I can't,

[1:16:55] and I will. But in the meantime, I would like to wrap this up in a way that doesn't have this case

[1:17:01] going out to the two interested parties before the DAs made a charging decision.

[1:17:09] No, that's totally understandable, and I appreciate your, you know, your cooperation here, at least

[1:17:14] the representation that you made that maybe this can be sped along. I did have the question

[1:17:21] as well whether the Suspects Council was curious, whether it was even aware of this

[1:17:26] grammar proceeding and might want to intervene. But I don't think that's really relevant at

[1:17:32] this point, given the representations that have been made. I am prepared to issue a ruling

[1:17:39] in this matter. While I certainly understand this visual, you're interested in these records

[1:17:44] and again I sympathize greatly with your situation. I do think the public interest here favors

[1:17:52] allowing additional time for the prosecutors to complete their final screening of this matter.

[1:17:58] I don't find any evidence that, you know, this additional effort to screen it or do additional

[1:18:05] of follow-up was intended to just deny access or to stall this out indefinitely.

[1:18:11] And I do appreciate the representations that have been made that they will try to speed

[1:18:15] the process along.

[1:18:17] So for those enters, I do find that the records are properly classified as private as protected.

[1:18:24] The public interests in disclosure do not equal or outweigh the interest in restriction of

[1:18:31] access at this time.

[1:18:32] So I'm going to deny this appeal.

[1:18:35] I'll issue a written decision within seven business days,

[1:18:38] and you can file an appeal to district court within 30 calendar days.

[1:18:42] The upside is, of course, that once that 30 days is run,

[1:18:46] your administrative remedies as far as the grammar process

[1:18:48] goes have been exhausted, and you can certainly report that.

[1:18:52] To the court that this process is done.

[1:18:56] And there's no, I don't see any barrier to you filing a new grammar request

[1:19:01] down the road if for whatever reason, you know, the UPD's statements don't bear out, but we can

[1:19:11] address that at that point. Yeah, anything to add, Mr. Seval? I was just going to say, UPD would not

[1:19:16] assert that there's some sort of a prior determination governing a new request because the new request may

[1:19:23] come in at a time when the records are going to be reclassified. So I just want to- Right. We're not

[1:19:28] going to do that. I appreciate that. Will you guys be able to give me the records eventually?

[1:19:35] Well, so I will just say this was vigil. I do think still that your best access to obtain

[1:19:40] the records is through discovering that suit. Now that you've exhausted this administrative process,

[1:19:45] I would encourage you to prefer that. I think that would be much quicker and would conserve resources

[1:19:52] by the city as well. I'm not giving you legal advice but I just do think as a practical

[1:19:58] matter that might be the way to go. All right thank you again best wishes to you and have

[1:20:06] a good day. Thank you.

[1:20:13] That is our last hearing so we are adjourned for the day. Thanks everyone.

Government Records Office Appeal hearings

Transcript