Contact Us

Send calendar items, questions and comments to: BlogForArizona@gmail.com

12 responses to “Contact Us”

Jessie Dana | November 4, 2018 at 9:00 am | Reply

Three e-mail messages were sent to Nicole Litzie of the Petaluma Police Department requesting police logs for a one-month period for September, 1993, in Walnut Park, Petaluma, CA, where soon-to-be convicted Polly Klaas kidnapper-murderer Richard Allen Davis and other men were accused by neighbors of engaging in various illegal activities, including illegal drug possession and usage and public inebriation. Neighbors said the police failed to intervene, even though there was enough evidence, based on Davis’ activity in the park, to sentence him to death for stalking Polly and premeditation with a three week stay in Walnut Park.

By law, the police can destroy records after 2 years or if outside the statute of limitation for presumed crimes. This investigator questions why the law exists to assist in cover ups and help a state already rewarded with more power after several police officers refused to put out an APB on Polly’s abduction, when she, her abductor, and her abductor’s car were well described, and two Sonoma County Sheriff Deputies intercepted Davis north in Kenwood, two hours after the abduction. He was reported as high on drugs, drinking, with his car in a ravine, and they helped him get his car out of the ravine and set him free. Polly was later found further to the north in Cloverdale with her legs spread apart, night gown up, noose around her neck, and rope fibers in her hair, but a claim by the FBI on a recent Youtube video she was already dead in Kenwood.

The Tri Valley Herald, in December of 1993 said the police logs were inaccessible, well before the two-year requirement. The San Mateo County parole board, using the Public Records Act, is cooperating on producing logs for September, 1993, when Davis was reported in violation of his parole by being out of the county north in Petaluma, where parole officers failed to check on home for three weeks, weekly inspection was required. No warrant was put out for his arrest.

The five exchanges of e-mail between Litzy and this investigator, where Litzy, after 24 hours, failed to respond to this investigator’s third e-mail, went as follows:

James Wood
Tue, Oct 30, 6:05 PM (1 day ago)

to police

Hello,
Please see attached document for Public Records Act request for police log information from September and October, 1993.

Thank you.

James Dante Wood

Attachments area
2
Litzie, Nicole
12:07 PM (7 hours ago)

to me

Hi James,

There are no reports or other documents related to your request that are available to be released, nor do we have a record of the destruction date of the logs from 1993.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you,
Nicole

From: James Wood
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 11:58 AM
To: Litzie, Nicole
Subject: Re: Pubic Records Act

Hi Nicole.
Thank you. If any information can be released at all, please let me know my cost for duplication costs. I would also like to know, if possible, the timing of the destroyed police logs for Walnut Park for September 1 to October 1, 1993, as the “Tri Valley Herald”, a now defunct newspaper from Pleasanton, CA, where I was living in 1993, reported the logs were inaccessible December of that year. If police reports, independent of logs, are accessible, please let me know.

James Dante Wood

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:04 AM Litzie, Nicole wrote:
We are treating your request as a request for public agency information in accordance with California Government Code section 6250 and following (the California Public Records Act), which requires that public agencies make reasonably identified, non-exempt public records available for inspection or provide copies upon payment of the direct cost of duplication.

Please be advised that portions of your request (“police logs from September 1, 1993, to October 1, of 1993, from Walnut Park” and “calls regarding illegal activity in Walnut Park, including homeless vagrants doing illegal drugs”) have been destroyed in accordance with California Government Code section 34090. Other portions of your request (“intercepts with convicted kidnapper murderer Richard Allen Davis”) are exempt from disclosure in accordance with California Government Code section 6254(f), which states that all complaint, investigation, intelligence, security, analysis and conclusions of law enforcement, and other law enforcement files as described in the section, are exempt from disclosure (Government Code § 6254(f); Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061, 1069-1070). Additionally, the exemption for investigatory records and files extends indefinitely, even after an investigation is closed (Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 337, 355-361; Rackauckas v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 169; Rivero v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1052).

I am responsible for this determination concerning your records request in my capacity as Records Supervisor of the Petaluma Police Department, in consultation with authorized representatives of the City of Petaluma. If you have any questions, or are able to refer me to controlling legal authority that supports a different result, please contact me.

Thank you,
Nicole

Nicole Litzie
Records Supervisor
Petaluma Police Department
969 Petaluma Blvd. North
Petaluma, CA 94952-6320
Phone: 707-778-4462
Fax: 707-656-4059
nlitzie@ci.petaluma.ca.us

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: James Wood
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pubic Records Act

Hello,
Please see attached document for Public Records Act request for police log information from September and October, 1993.

Thank you.

James Dante Wood

James Wood
3:00 PM (4 hours ago)

to nlitzie

Hi Nicole,
My question is, if you say the police logs were already destroyed, but you don’t know when, then how do you know they were destroyed? Is there a protocol where these records are routinely destroyed after a certain time period? The government code 34090 says there are exceptions to the right to destroy records, including:

GOVERNMENT CODE – GOV
TITLE 4. GOVERNMENT OF CITIES [34000 – 45345]
( Title 4 added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 79. )

DIVISION 1. CITIES GENERALLY [34000 – 34102]
( Division 1 added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 79. )

CHAPTER 1. General [34000 – 34095]
( Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 79. )

ARTICLE 4. Miscellaneous [34090 – 34095]
( Article 4 added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 79. )

34090.
Unless otherwise provided by law, with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and the written consent of the city attorney the head of a city department may destroy any city record, document, instrument, book or paper, under his charge, without making a copy thereof, after the same is no longer required.
This section does not authorize the destruction of:
(a) Records affecting the title to real property or liens thereon.
(b) Court records.
(c) Records required to be kept by statute.
(d) Records less than two years old.
(e) The minutes, ordinances, or resolutions of the legislative body or of a city board or commission.
This section shall not be construed as limiting or qualifying in any manner the authority provided in Section 34090.5 for the destruction of records, documents, instruments, books and papers in accordance with the procedure therein prescribed.
(Amended by Stats. 1975, Ch. 356.)

(see https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=34090).

So even though crimes allegedly were committed (drug possession, inebriated in public) within the statute, and these records were inaccessible before the end of the two year period where you can legally destroy the records, there must be an investigation about protocol.

I may have to subpoena Santa Clara County Court records from the Davis trial of 1996, as witness and police reports of what happened in Walnut Park, September, 1993, were on record in the trial and are critical to the investigation I’m doing.

Thank you.

James Dante Wood

https://www.PandaBusters.com
KIM MILLS | October 8, 2018 at 12:11 pm | Reply

How long does it take for a comment to post on an article? I posted one ane the wordpress accounts says “pending.”
- Carolyn Classen | October 8, 2018 at 3:53 pm | Reply
  
  Kim,
  Our WordPress system has been having problems with comments for a while now. I’ve been approving comments sporadically when I am online, but I’m only one of the volunteer administrators of this site. Reader comments used to be automatically approved, and our webmaster is working on it. Thanks for your patience.
For Sure Not Tom | September 17, 2018 at 12:57 pm | Reply

Comments seem to have been broken for the last few months.

Sometimes a post will show up with say, 3 comments, but when you click the link, there are none, or they take days to show up.

Just an FYI.
- For Sure Not Tom | October 1, 2018 at 1:34 pm | Reply
  
  Still broken.
Cindy Gugenberger | June 30, 2018 at 1:13 pm | Reply

I have a completed petition for Invest in Ed. I need it notarized and I need to know where to turn it in. I live in Casa Grande but can drive elsewhere if necessary.
- Carolyn Classen | July 2, 2018 at 7:59 am | Reply
  
  I checked the Invest in Ed website and here’s info on turning in these petitions:
  
  https://investined.com/petition-hubs/
  
  Contact: Field Director Kieran Elia, kieran@investinedaz.com.
Peter | June 19, 2018 at 4:36 pm | Reply

Hello there is a national family separation protest for “Families Belong Together” on June 30. Where is the Phoenix AZ protest going to be? I didn’t see it in the calendar.
Pete
- Carolyn Classen | June 19, 2018 at 6:59 pm | Reply
  
  Checked the national website for Families Belong Together, and no event popped up for Phoenix zip code of 85007. Let me know if you hear of any in Phoenix. There is one scheduled for Tucson so I’ll post it shortly. There was one rally by this group in Phoenix on June 1st, and another in Tucson on June 14.
  
  https://act.moveon.org/event/families-belong-together/
- Carolyn Classen | June 22, 2018 at 7:38 am | Reply
  
  There is now a rally scheduled at Arizona Senate:
  
  Saturday, June 30 at 8 a.m.
  Hosted by Elisabeth I. Rigo G.
  Arizona Senate
  Phoenix, AZ 85007
  565 attendees
Grace Heike | March 29, 2016 at 11:21 am | Reply

Can you assist me with information on
prop 123 commites/marketing
Vote Yes
Vote No
I can’t seem to find anything that I thought would be readably available.
Thank you for your help
- AZ BlueMeanie | March 29, 2016 at 12:43 pm | Reply
  
  An independent expenditure committee, the Committee Opposing Proposition 123, has been formed for the Vote No on Prop. 123 campaign. See their web page at http://www.noprop123.com. This is a grassroots campaign.
  
  The Governor’s corporate funded expenditure committee is Let’s Vote YES (for AZ Schools). See their web page at http://yesprop123.com.