"The Police Department does not discuss pending cases with good reason. Such discussion could unfairly prejudice the City or the defendant. Where, as here, juvenile matters are at issue, confidentiality is of particular concern. Indeed, the Public Records Act and the Brown Act both recognize these principles, tempering the public's right to know against the need for confidentiality for the limited time while an issue is in litigation. See Cal. Gov't Code § 6254(b) and § 54956.9 (permitting closed session between city council and legal counsel regarding existing or anticipated litigation). More importantly, with respect to juvenile records, the City is precluded by law from disseminating information regarding juvenile cases. See, e.g., Welf. & Inst. Code § 827."
"The Davis Police Department handled this case precisely as it would in any other instance involving similar circumstances," Davis Police Chief Jim Hyde said in a written statement. "The officer investigating this incident had ample cause to arrest the juvenile suspect."—March 24, 2006 Sacamento Bee.
Chief Hyde actually did release a 12-page report at the February 21, 2006 Davis City Council Meeting where he spent roughly one page and a half explaining the actions of the police department in this case (which is by the way, not legal according to the law, police cannot publicly comment on juvenile cases). The response by Hyde is completely contradicted by known evidence. —AnisSury
General Comments should go on the Halema Buzayan page.
Note: You must be logged in to add comments