How to obtain 911 and dispatcher transcripts?

[bigryana]

Portland, OREGON. How do you go about obtaining 911 and dispatcher transcripts in Oregon without being a lawyer or getting the peoples consent that called? I believe you have to subpoena the court for them, but I thought they were public record? If you do have to subpoena where do I go to do this? I'm trying to avoid hiring a lawyer until I know how strong my civil case is. A lawyer is who told me to obtain the records, he said it would be much simpler though. Any answers are appreciated.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[las365]

Call the Portland police department and ask what the process is to obtain copies of the recordings.

[las365]

p.s. don't call 911 to reach them. Look up their number in the phone book.

[bigryana]

I appreciate the attempt at answering, but I actually called there after speaking with my teacher who is a lawyer, talked to a very rude records keeper and was told I "had to hire a lawyer and have them call" or "file a subpoena with the court". I was then told she didn't know how to go about this process, and good luck. I was told by my teacher that these are public record, and I can obtain them by paying a fee.
Any ideas are helpful

[quincy]

Oregon's Public Record statute is similar to the Freedom of Information Act, and the process for obtaining public records in Oregon is similar, as well.

Although 911 tapes and transcripts are subject to disclosure under Oregon's statute, they may also be withheld for one of several reasons. If you are denied your request to obtain copies, it may be then that you would have to go to court to subpoena the material.

You direct your request to the actual custodian of the 911 tapes and transcripts in question (whether it be the state, a county, a city, or a local body). The public body that holds the records may accept an oral request (although it does not sound like you had much success with that ), but written requests almost always get a better response - and a written request will provide you with documentation should you wind up having to head to court later.

Your written request should clearly identify the material you wish to inspect and/or copy, including the date of the tape and transcript, but you (generally) do not have to disclose your purpose for wanting this inspection or what your planned use for the material is (this could, potentially, be asked of you later). Provide contact information - your mailing address, an email address, a cell and/or home phone number - in case the agency that receives your request has problems locating the material you wish to inspect or a question regarding your request.

Anything that is available for inspection can be copied, and the fees for copying must be reasonable - to reimburse the public body for only their actual cost in copying.

Oregon does not have in their statute a specific time within which the public body must respond to a request. The statute uses only the term "reasonable." You should call and inquire on the status of your request if the delay in getting the material available for you to inspect seems too long.

There IS a whole list of exemptions to disclosure, and there are several that can be used in the case of 911 tapes and transcripts. You may want to review ORS 192.501. Disclosures are subject to whether the public body in question feels "the public interest requires disclosure in a particular instance" and, while the presumption is in favor of disclosure, the disclosure of some information may constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy (ORS 192.502(2)) or, if investigatory material in included, then the tape and transcripts may be withheld under 192.501 (3).

By the way, you do not need a lawyer to obtain public records. Anyone can request this information and, should it not be material specifically excluded from disclosure under ORS 192.502 (9) or information that this public body feels it has good reason to withhold, your request should be honored.

Good luck.

[CdwJava]

In addition to Quincy's reply, you should note that what you will get will be the raw recordings or computer printouts of the CAD (computer aided dispatch) entries, and not "transcripts". If you need to get any recordings transcribed, you will have to pay for that separately.

Also note that unless OR public records law is different from that of other states, the agency will not be required to provide records it does not keep. So, if you ask for a record of something such as, say, left handed blonds who were arrested on Saturdays in 2001, they do not have to spend hours and hours creating that record. If they do not keep a record of such things, they are not obligated to manufacture it.



- Carl

[quincy]

As with most (all?) states, Carl, Oregon will not create and provide records it does not keep. Some of us in Michigan are pushing for Michigan to create and provide left-handed blonde records, however.

Bigryana, there are pre-printed request forms (available online or in many records' offices) that you can use to fill out your request. Although a form is not necessary, it can help show you what information you will need to include in your request.

One thing you may want to include (that is not listed on any forms) is the request that, even should some parts of the material be exempt from disclosure or must be redacted, you would still like to inspect and/or copy the disclosable parts. With this added to your request, your request should not be denied due to only to a small portion of the material being exempt.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by quincy

As with most (all?) states, Carl, Oregon will not create and provide records it does not keep. Some of us in Michigan are pushing for Michigan to create and provide left-handed blonde records, however.

You might be surprised at the requests we get ... particularly from our one local pain in the tail media outlet. The publisher contends that government has to provide the information if it is even remotely accessible ... never mind that one such request that was agreed to by a county office cost them a hundred man hours and a couple thousand taxpayer dollars to produce from numerous sources, and all they could do is charge him a small per page copy fee.

- Carl

[FlyingRon]

Carl, there are exceptions to the public records act, but how difficult it is for you to retrieve things is NOT one of them. Either destroy them or keep them. But if you keep them and they are not part of any confidentiality exclusion, you must produce them.

Maybe your agency ought to figure out a better filing system.

[quincy]

I believe most state statutes allow for the charging of fees for not only the duplicating of the material and for mailing the material, but also for labor costs, if the costs involved in searching, examining, reviewing and separating the exempt from the non-exempt material would result in unreasonably high costs to the public body.

But, yes, Carl, the media can be a "pain in the tail."

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

Carl, there are exceptions to the public records act, but how difficult it is for you to retrieve things is NOT one of them. Either destroy them or keep them. But if you keep them and they are not part of any confidentiality exclusion, you must produce them.

Maybe your agency ought to figure out a better filing system.

Actually, under CA law we do not have to provide records we doo not keep. The example I gave, left handed blondes arrested on particular dates ... COULD we create such a record? Sure. But it would take hundreds of hours of combing narrative reports to do so.

As I said, you do not have to provide information you do not have. Your state might impose an undue expense upon agencies requiring them to go broke trying to find obscure data that is not normally kept, but mine (and every other state I am aware of) does not.

Let me provide you a real example ... we were asked for the number of citations issued that resulted in convictions. We do not retain that information. Could we find it out? Sure. But, because we do not maintain that information and it is not maintained in our normal record system we do not have to provide it. we provided that information we had in our system which was the number of citations issued and for what violations - even the citation numbers. The media outlet was directed to the court to see if they could retrieve the information sought.

Public Records requires government to provide records they keep, not create records they do not. Again, your state might impose a horrendous burden on local government to provide the requested info at all costs ... most other states do not require this. But, if the person who gets their request denied objects, they can seek redress in court and a judge can decide.

EDIT: Much of the data that is requested from outside sources is data that is held by agencies other than ours. Convictions is held by the court ... details on arrestees (place of birth, heigh, weight, etc.) is more than likely held by the jail, etc. If we do not maintain the record and we have to seek it from another source, we can provide that portion of the record we DO have and we refer them to the source that might possess the rest of the info they seek. While we COULD make phone calls and seek the info from the other agency, we are not required to create a record from whole cloth solely to release it.

- Carl

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by quincy

I believe most state statutes allow for the charging of fees for not only the duplicating of the material and for mailing the material, but also for labor costs, if the costs involved in searching, examining, reviewing and separating the exempt from the non-exempt material would result in unreasonably high costs to the public body.

California does not permit us to pass son the labor costs. We can only charge the actual cost of the copying (ink, paper, and copier expenses). hence the reason why some of these requests can be so annoying. Especially since he sues everyone for not providing the information in a timely manner when such would require that the office take people off of other tasks in order to comply with the requests. In a small town like mine, spending a hundred hours to find anything will pretty much shut things down at city hall for a few days.

- Carl

[quincy]

I compared California's Public Record law to Michigan's, and there is a definite difference in the allowable fees. Whereas California prohibits the charging of fees for all but the actual copying costs, and allows only 10 days for disclosure to be made (with a 14 day extension for a massive search), Michigan allows for labor costs to be charged even when the "labor" is done during regular business hours.

Perhaps this is why you are not fond of the media. We are actually liked here in Michigan.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by quincy

I compared California's Public Record law to Michigan's, and there is a definite difference in the allowable fees. Whereas California prohibits the charging of fees for all but the actual copying costs, and allows only 10 days for disclosure to be made (with a 14 day extension for a massive search), Michigan allows for labor costs to be charged even when the "labor" is done during regular business hours.

Perhaps this is why you are not fond of the media. We are actually liked here in Michigan.

I do not dislike the media as it is only one outlet that makes it a royal pain for us all. But, he makes a lot of work for us that could be spent on other things. In my small department, we spend no less than 6 man hours each week (not counting the Chief's time to review the info) preparing information for him.

- Carl

[quincy]

Ah, yes. You have spoken of this one newspaper before. At least he is keeping the public informed (and you guys honest ).