Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Not So Public Records
Repeated attempts to obtain access to public records result in repeated denials, and escalating conditions.
Over the past several weeks, activists with HUFF have been attempting to obtain access to public court records related to 186 separate camping ban citations issued by the City of Santa Cruz. These are public records, normally accessible to anyone upon request (journalists make requests of this sort all the time).
The court records office has been less than co-operative (at least, in the person of Tess Fitzgerald, the supervisor we've been dealing with). Last Weds., for example, she literally slammed the window gate shut in one activist's face as he attempted to get a clear statement of policy from them. She also informed another activist that any request to retrieve any number of records, even just a single record, would cost $15.00 for the first ten minutes, and $15.00 for every 10 minutes thereafter (at least that was our understanding), and that it needed to be submitted in writing, and would not be done at the window (although a few minutes before, the clerk had been happy to take our request and handle it right there, presuming we were willing to accept their demand to authorize a $15 fee).
Prior written communications from their office had suggested that we agree that any records search lasting over 10 minutes would cost $15.00, and agree to pay an estimated total cost for the 186 records of around $200. In response to this communication, the Wednesday before last (on May 30th), we requested that they search for up to five or six records, and not exceed ten minutes, even if they haven't retrieved all the records. They refused - although they wouldn't actually say so, directly (as that could potentially be seen as a violation of the California Public Records Act). Eventually, Tess Fitzgerald wound up calling the Sheriff's office, claiming that we were creating a public disturbance - and five deputies showed up (and proceeded to spend over half an hour standing around trying to look authoritative).
At another point, Tess even stated that they would not release any records unless the person the record is associated with made the request - a clear violation of the California Public Records Act.
The people seem to be making this up as they go - it is clear that they don't want to set a precedent that allows free access to even a single record, if the person making the request is a community activist - I have grave doubts that this policy is being applied to anyone not associated with HUFF (such as lawyers requesting records for their own use).
At prior points, requests for a single record by HUFF activists and others have been retrieved, at the window, at no cost. The new policy of $15.00 for the first ten minutes is in direct contradiction to prior written communications from that office (and the California Public Records Act). They also seem to be willing to call the cops at the drop of a hat (they've done so every time we've shown up), although at no time have any arrests been made or other action taken by the police, all that has actually happened is polite dialog with officers over the situation. The officers have gotten wise though: last Wednesday, they only send a single officer down, who proceeded to speak with us, very politely, for an extended period.
It seems that the County is setting itself up for a lawsuit, simply because public employees are unwilling to make the slightest effort to provide affordable access to court records.
The court records office has been less than co-operative (at least, in the person of Tess Fitzgerald, the supervisor we've been dealing with). Last Weds., for example, she literally slammed the window gate shut in one activist's face as he attempted to get a clear statement of policy from them. She also informed another activist that any request to retrieve any number of records, even just a single record, would cost $15.00 for the first ten minutes, and $15.00 for every 10 minutes thereafter (at least that was our understanding), and that it needed to be submitted in writing, and would not be done at the window (although a few minutes before, the clerk had been happy to take our request and handle it right there, presuming we were willing to accept their demand to authorize a $15 fee).
Prior written communications from their office had suggested that we agree that any records search lasting over 10 minutes would cost $15.00, and agree to pay an estimated total cost for the 186 records of around $200. In response to this communication, the Wednesday before last (on May 30th), we requested that they search for up to five or six records, and not exceed ten minutes, even if they haven't retrieved all the records. They refused - although they wouldn't actually say so, directly (as that could potentially be seen as a violation of the California Public Records Act). Eventually, Tess Fitzgerald wound up calling the Sheriff's office, claiming that we were creating a public disturbance - and five deputies showed up (and proceeded to spend over half an hour standing around trying to look authoritative).
At another point, Tess even stated that they would not release any records unless the person the record is associated with made the request - a clear violation of the California Public Records Act.
The people seem to be making this up as they go - it is clear that they don't want to set a precedent that allows free access to even a single record, if the person making the request is a community activist - I have grave doubts that this policy is being applied to anyone not associated with HUFF (such as lawyers requesting records for their own use).
At prior points, requests for a single record by HUFF activists and others have been retrieved, at the window, at no cost. The new policy of $15.00 for the first ten minutes is in direct contradiction to prior written communications from that office (and the California Public Records Act). They also seem to be willing to call the cops at the drop of a hat (they've done so every time we've shown up), although at no time have any arrests been made or other action taken by the police, all that has actually happened is polite dialog with officers over the situation. The officers have gotten wise though: last Wednesday, they only send a single officer down, who proceeded to speak with us, very politely, for an extended period.
It seems that the County is setting itself up for a lawsuit, simply because public employees are unwilling to make the slightest effort to provide affordable access to court records.
§Becky Johnson and Bernard Klitzner at the window.
Making a request for three records. The clerk informed them, after we declined to authorize the $15.00 fee, that a "memo" had just been sent out on this subject, and that she'd need to call her supervisor.
Trying to clarify what had been told to activist Becky Johnson regarding fees for access to public records.
Trying to get clarification on current policy.
You can see the closed window in the background.
Comments (Hide Comments)
Tuesday Jun 12th, 2007 12:05 AM
There's no need for this hassle. You make a written request for the records and after ten days you file a public records act lawsuit and the judge orders them to give it to you Every county seat in California has a law library for the benefit of the citizens as well as the judges and attorneys, with staff trained to help the public find the resources they need for things like this. Go to your county law library and find Benders' California Forms of Pleading and Practice and look up Public Records and all you have to do is read the directions and follow them to fill in the pleading forms Allow two hours. If you're low income, you file a request to waive court filing fees. Anybody, even a broke homeless person, can successfully prosecute a public records act lawsuit.
Tuesday Jun 26th, 2007 5:22 PM
Actually the Public Records Act does not apply to California Court records, though the California Rules of Court does have a public access provision.
Rule 2.503. reads: "Public access (a) General right of access All electronic records must be made reasonably available to the public in some form, whether in electronic or in paper form, except those that are sealed by court order or made confidential by law.
Getting courts to enforce the rather simple requirement that they make their own records accessible to public view should not be so difficult a task, particularly--you would think--in "progressive" Santa Cruz. However the record of the last year shows otherwise.
It is a continuing tale of refusal, rudeness, and the intervention of sheriff's deputies. As the main story in this thread describes and the photos document.
Here is the history of our correspondence with the court:
Tess Fitzgerald is the Supervisor of the windows of the Traffic/Infraction Court, whose computers contain the information we are requesting.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 8:43 AM
>To: Tess Fitzgerald
>Subject: Questions Around MC 6.36.010 the Santa Cruz City Camping
>Prohibition
>
>Tess:
>
>Per our conversation of a week or two ago, I am writing to clarify the
>information I'm asked you about.
>
>MC 6.36.010, sections a, b, & c criminalize sleeping, covering up with
>bedding, and camping respectively and significantly impact the homeless
>population of Santa Cruz, particularly given the ongoing shelter
>emergency which alots only 40 beds for 1500-2000 homeless people each night.
>
>I am seeking the following information under the Public Records Act of
>California:
>
>Access to copies of all court records of these infractions from 6-1-03 to the present. in electronic form.
>These records shall including all relevant information such as the names of the defendants; the arresting officer; the date of the offense; the date and amount of bail paid (if that happened); whether the court referee was disqualified; the arraignment and trial proceedings; any further court records around the case; whether a court reporter made a recording; any motions around the case including demurrers, motions to make a private audio recording, and constitutional challenges; whether any contempt proceedings came out of the cases for failure to pay, failure to appear, or any other reason; any record of a trial if one was held;. the final sentence; the disposition of any failure to appear charges; & when the fine, community service, or jail sentence was finally done.
>
>I believe this information is a regular part of the court record of any particular case. It is my understanding that such information is routinely contained in court records available at the traffic court window for current cases. Hence, once you identify a MC 6.36.010 case, a simple standard "print out" of the case history in question should be sufficient, in electronic form if possible.
>
>I would also like to know how long these records are kept.
>
>I would also like an estimate of the cost, if any, of this record search prior to its being done. I'd also like an estimate of the time you feel this will take. I understand Public Records Act requests have a standard reply time of 10 days.
>
>Thanks for your help in this matter. You can also reach me by phone at 831-423-4833.
>
>Robert Norse
>From: "Tess Fitzgerald"
>To: "Robert Norse"
>Subject: RE: Questions Around MC 6.36.010 the Santa Cruz City Camping
>Prohibition
>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:12:41 -0700
>
>Hello Mr. Norse--
>
>I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail--I just got back
from a business trip to Southern California, and will forward your request
to the proper authority (I am going to start with the manager of my division).
>
>Do you have a mailing address where a reply can be sent? The Court
>generally corresponds via snail mail as opposed to e-mail when
>processing this sort of request. Thank you!
>
>Tess E.
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 8:27 PM
To: Tess Fitzgerald
Subject: Questions Around MC 6.36.010 the Santa Cruz City Camping
Prohibition & FTAs
Tess: Per our conversation on Wednesday at the Dept. 10 window, I'm forwarding you this earlier e-mail to refresh your memory of my now long overdue Public Records Act request. Meaning no disrespect to you, two months is more than enough time to respond to this request, at least in terms of the parameters required and any additional difficulties you might have dealing with it.
I know you have verbally advised me that your computer system does not allow access to these records by code violation number. Please specify exactly what the problem is in writing and how quickly the records can be accessed.
I don't mind working manually with a computer, as I have proposed in past requests to your department.
In 2005 I was advised by your department, first that there would be a cost of $70 for the computer consultant to do this work. Then, after we had obtained the money from a charitable donation, that it was not possible. No specific explanation was given at that time.
If these public records exist, it is the right of the public to have access to them. Please respond or have your superior respond within ten days of this request. Also please advise me of the e-mail address, phone number, street address, and administrative title of your superior as well as similar information about his superior.
I appreciate your friendly manner in this matter and your attempt to cooperate. However, access to this information is important to the wellbeing of literally hundreds of homeless people in this community who are currently being regularly harassed and denied basic human rights by city authorities and your courts.
Please reply ASAP
Thanks,
Robert Norse
P.S. You also asked me to remind you of a prior request regarding the court's inappropriate reduction of misdemeanor Failure to Appears to infractions without the consent and/or knowledge of the defendants involved.
As a regular practice, this illegal procedure has been going on for over a decade, apparently for the convenience of the courts, but in defiance of both the Constitution and California Penal Codes. I requested both of you and of Dolores that Presiding Judge Morse or the court administrator address this issue, and both have failured to do so in a reasonable period of time.
Please forward to me any communications you have received on either of the issues involved.
From: "Tess Fitzgerald"
To: "Robert Norse"
Subject: RE: Questions Around MC 6.36.010 the Santa Cruz City Camping Prohibition & FTAs
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:17:57 -0700
Thank you for your patience. I will forward your e-mail to the appropriate officials here at the Court.
Sincerely,
Tess E.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 3:54 PM
To: Tess Fitzgerald
Subject: RE: standing order (TF)
Thanks, Tess. My address (sorry for the penmanship) is Robert Norse, 309 Cedar PMB #14B, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. Feel encouraged to e-mail it to me as well, if it's convenient.
Any word on Bob Patton's public records act request for the numerous named Camping Ban citations he gave your office?
Thanks again for the help,
Robert Norse
Tess Fitzgerald
Sent : Wednesday, December 20, 2006 4:11 PM
To : "Robert Norse"
Subject : RE: standing order (TF)
Mr. Norse--
Unfortunately we are not so sophisticated as to have scan/e-mail capability in our clerk's offices. I could fax it to you if you like--is your fax number 479-9241 or 9291?
As for Mr. Patton's request, I sent it up to administration, and they told me to relate to him the cost associated with his request would be $15 per name searched, a total of (don't shoot the messenger) $2520.00 for the 168 names he provided. I e-mailed that information to him today.
I will not take any action on his request until he contacts the office again.
Let me know if you wish a fax, I am dropping this in the mail today--happy winter solstice!
Tess E.
Melodie Parmenter is Tess Fitzgerald's boss.
ATTACHMENT
From: "Robert Norse
To:melodee.parmenter [at] sccourt.org
CC: cruzrooster [at] hotmail.com, klitznerbernard [at] hotmail.com, lioness@got, davebeau [at] pacbell.net, thomas [at] thomasleavitt.org, jhondg [at] msn.com
Subject: Requesting clarification of policy (MP)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 07:52:30 -0800
Melodee Parmenter
Court Services Manager, Criminal/Traffic
Dear Ms. Parmenter:
A month ago, Mr. Bob Patton made a public records act request for a CD or e-mail version of the court records of trhe SCMC 6.36.010 cases of 168 names. In the event that was NOT available, we requested it be in printed form.
Ms. Tess Fitzgerald informed us that such a request costs the rather astonishing figure of $15 per name. Please supply me with the statutory authority and/or written court policy that justifies so high a cost. I would remind you that the public records act provides for "reasonable copying costs" in the event that an electronic copy is NOT available. We would prefer an electronic copy.
Even in the event of a paper copy, $15 for several sheets of paper is a rather extraordinary price to pay for viewing a public record. Given the fact that we've been trying unsuccessfuly to view this records since 2003, it might be regarded as intentionally prohibitive.
We would also be willing (as we have said before in prior requests, as Ms. Fitzgerald can confirm) to view this records ourselves and make notes to spare court personnel time.
These records concern court action against homeless people, denying them the right to shelter themselves in a community that provides shelter for less than 5% of its homeless and fines the rest if they sleep at night after 11 PM. I understand that the records might be something of an embarrassment for some authorities, but I believe the law requires you to make them available at reasonable cost without unreasonable delay.
Thanks for your assistance in this matter.
Robert Norse
Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
Kate Wells is a sympathetic attorney. She sent the following letter to Melodee Parmenter:
-----Original Message-----
From: Kate Wells [mailto:lioness [at] got.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:05 AM
To: Melodee Parmenter
Cc: Robert Norse; cruzrooster [at] hotmail.com; klitznerbernard [at] hotmail.com; David Beauvais; Thomas Leavitt; jhondg [at] msn.com
Subject: Access to Public Court Records
KATE WELLS
Attorney at Law
2600 Fresno Street
Santa Cruz, California 95062
Telephone: (831) 479-4475
Facsimile: (831) 479-4476
TRANSMITTED BY EMAIL AND UNITED STATES MAIL
January 31, 2007
MELODEE PARMENTER
Court Services Manager
Criminal/Traffic
Santa Cruz Superior Court
Dear Ms. Parmenter,
Last month, Mr. Bob Patton of the Human Rights Organization requested electronic copies or printouts of some 168 court cases (most involving one or two pages) for homeless people charged with violating MC 6.36.010. You informed him that the cost per citation would be $15 for a total of $2,520.00. This would average out to $7.50 per page assuming two pages per case. You have, thus far, provided no justification for these unconscionable fees.
Mr. Robert Norse, following up for Mr. Patton, discussed this matter extensively with Ms. Tess Fitzgerald. On January 4th, he sent you an e-mail requesting clarification of the prices you were charging for what is clearly public information. I attach a copy of that e-mail. To date, he has received no response.
My clients would like this matter resolved as quickly as possible. It has, in actuality, been dragging on for several years as the courts seemingly have resisted releasing the requested information on a variety of pretexts.
Please make the records available, preferably in electronic form, or provide access to a computer screen so Mr. Patton and Mr. Norse can view the records individually and take what notes they need. As a third option (although my clients prefer the first), they are willing to accept print-outs, provided that the cost does not exceed the reasonable amount mandated by the California Rules of Court.
Since my clients are under the understanding that such printouts are customarily provided free of charge, the $15 per citation cost seems wildly excessive. Please explain how you have arrived at this figure and/or provide them with a reasonable fee in accordance with the law.
California Rules of Court provide that electronic copies be made accessible [Title 5, Rule 2073, Public Access], and that the fees be reasonable [Title 5, Rule 2076, Fees for Electronic Access]. The rules further provide that "On request, a court must provide the public with a statement of the costs on which these fees are based."
According to law, records must be made available if possible (and my clients are aware that you have these records readily available in electronic form), and that, in any case, printed copies must be made available within 10 days. You are way past that time period. Please act swiftly and comply with the law.
Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
/s/
KATE WELLS
Attachment
cc: Robert Norse
Bob Patton
----- Original Message -----
From:Melodee.Parmenter [at] santacruzcourt.org
To: lioness [at] got.net
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: Access to Public Court Records
Copies of case print outs are free to the client/defendant only. Record searches are $15.00 per search, as those require more staff time to locate cases. If you have case numbers and are requesting copies, those are 50 cents per page. If you wish to provide a check and list of cases or searches, please direct your request to the clerks office and we will begin processing.
Thank you.
Melodee
KATE WELLS
Attorney at Law
2600 Fresno Street
Santa Cruz, California 95062
Telephone: (831) 479-4475
Facsimile: (831) 479-4476
April 2, 2007
The Honorable Heather Morse
Judge of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: Access to public court records
Dear Heather:
Hope you are doing well. I have been attempting for some time now to gain access to court records that are mandated by California Rules of Court to be made available to the public.
In fact, I sent you a copy of the letter I sent to Alex Calvo in this regard. I have heard
nothing from Mr. Calvo in more than a month.
In case you do not still have a copy of that letter, I have attached a copy. This is now a
matter of some urgency. My clients have been more than patient, however their patience is running low. Since we are dealing with homeless issues, I am working pro bono and would really rather not be forced to file a writ regarding this matter.
My clients’ first request for these records was more than a year ago and they have received nothing but the runaround ever since. I know you are extremely busy and I apologize for “piling on”. Unfortunately, I have been left with no choice but to direct my request to you since the court personnel responsible for dealing with this have either made totally unreasonable and unlawful demands as a prerequisite to gaining access to the public records or have ignored my requests.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
KATE WELLS
Attachment
cc: Bob Patton Robert Norse
Alex Calvo is the administrative head of the court system in Santa Cruz.
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Cruz
Alex Calvo, Executive Officer
Judges Chambers
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 454-2380
May 1 2007
Dear Ms. Wells:
The Santa Cruz Superior Court is unable to provide electronic access to the public at this time, however it is a situation we are currently working on to change. Government Code Section 70627(c) provides for a $15.00 fee for each search taking longer than 10 minutes. Searches currently take from 3 to 30 minutes depending on the amount of information provided by the defendant, location of the file, copying requirements.
I am suggesting that the court treat the 168 cases as one request and assess a $15.00 charge for each 10-minute increment of the total time plus$.50 a page for each photocopied page. If, for instance, it took the court a total of 120 minutes to comply with the demand (12 increments of 10) and 12 copied pages, the court would charge $180.00 ($15 x 12) + $6.00 ($.050 x 12) for a total of $186.00.
The Traffic Division estimates it would take from 2 1/2 to 6 hours to complete the project. Please contact the traffic supervisor Tess Fitzgerald (454-2013) to schedule a time to proceed with this project.
Sincerely,
Alex Calvo
Court Executive Officer
cc: Tess Fitzgerald
Rule 2.503. reads: "Public access (a) General right of access All electronic records must be made reasonably available to the public in some form, whether in electronic or in paper form, except those that are sealed by court order or made confidential by law.
Getting courts to enforce the rather simple requirement that they make their own records accessible to public view should not be so difficult a task, particularly--you would think--in "progressive" Santa Cruz. However the record of the last year shows otherwise.
It is a continuing tale of refusal, rudeness, and the intervention of sheriff's deputies. As the main story in this thread describes and the photos document.
Here is the history of our correspondence with the court:
Tess Fitzgerald is the Supervisor of the windows of the Traffic/Infraction Court, whose computers contain the information we are requesting.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 8:43 AM
>To: Tess Fitzgerald
>Subject: Questions Around MC 6.36.010 the Santa Cruz City Camping
>Prohibition
>
>Tess:
>
>Per our conversation of a week or two ago, I am writing to clarify the
>information I'm asked you about.
>
>MC 6.36.010, sections a, b, & c criminalize sleeping, covering up with
>bedding, and camping respectively and significantly impact the homeless
>population of Santa Cruz, particularly given the ongoing shelter
>emergency which alots only 40 beds for 1500-2000 homeless people each night.
>
>I am seeking the following information under the Public Records Act of
>California:
>
>Access to copies of all court records of these infractions from 6-1-03 to the present. in electronic form.
>These records shall including all relevant information such as the names of the defendants; the arresting officer; the date of the offense; the date and amount of bail paid (if that happened); whether the court referee was disqualified; the arraignment and trial proceedings; any further court records around the case; whether a court reporter made a recording; any motions around the case including demurrers, motions to make a private audio recording, and constitutional challenges; whether any contempt proceedings came out of the cases for failure to pay, failure to appear, or any other reason; any record of a trial if one was held;. the final sentence; the disposition of any failure to appear charges; & when the fine, community service, or jail sentence was finally done.
>
>I believe this information is a regular part of the court record of any particular case. It is my understanding that such information is routinely contained in court records available at the traffic court window for current cases. Hence, once you identify a MC 6.36.010 case, a simple standard "print out" of the case history in question should be sufficient, in electronic form if possible.
>
>I would also like to know how long these records are kept.
>
>I would also like an estimate of the cost, if any, of this record search prior to its being done. I'd also like an estimate of the time you feel this will take. I understand Public Records Act requests have a standard reply time of 10 days.
>
>Thanks for your help in this matter. You can also reach me by phone at 831-423-4833.
>
>Robert Norse
>From: "Tess Fitzgerald"
>To: "Robert Norse"
>Subject: RE: Questions Around MC 6.36.010 the Santa Cruz City Camping
>Prohibition
>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:12:41 -0700
>
>Hello Mr. Norse--
>
>I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail--I just got back
from a business trip to Southern California, and will forward your request
to the proper authority (I am going to start with the manager of my division).
>
>Do you have a mailing address where a reply can be sent? The Court
>generally corresponds via snail mail as opposed to e-mail when
>processing this sort of request. Thank you!
>
>Tess E.
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 8:27 PM
To: Tess Fitzgerald
Subject: Questions Around MC 6.36.010 the Santa Cruz City Camping
Prohibition & FTAs
Tess: Per our conversation on Wednesday at the Dept. 10 window, I'm forwarding you this earlier e-mail to refresh your memory of my now long overdue Public Records Act request. Meaning no disrespect to you, two months is more than enough time to respond to this request, at least in terms of the parameters required and any additional difficulties you might have dealing with it.
I know you have verbally advised me that your computer system does not allow access to these records by code violation number. Please specify exactly what the problem is in writing and how quickly the records can be accessed.
I don't mind working manually with a computer, as I have proposed in past requests to your department.
In 2005 I was advised by your department, first that there would be a cost of $70 for the computer consultant to do this work. Then, after we had obtained the money from a charitable donation, that it was not possible. No specific explanation was given at that time.
If these public records exist, it is the right of the public to have access to them. Please respond or have your superior respond within ten days of this request. Also please advise me of the e-mail address, phone number, street address, and administrative title of your superior as well as similar information about his superior.
I appreciate your friendly manner in this matter and your attempt to cooperate. However, access to this information is important to the wellbeing of literally hundreds of homeless people in this community who are currently being regularly harassed and denied basic human rights by city authorities and your courts.
Please reply ASAP
Thanks,
Robert Norse
P.S. You also asked me to remind you of a prior request regarding the court's inappropriate reduction of misdemeanor Failure to Appears to infractions without the consent and/or knowledge of the defendants involved.
As a regular practice, this illegal procedure has been going on for over a decade, apparently for the convenience of the courts, but in defiance of both the Constitution and California Penal Codes. I requested both of you and of Dolores that Presiding Judge Morse or the court administrator address this issue, and both have failured to do so in a reasonable period of time.
Please forward to me any communications you have received on either of the issues involved.
From: "Tess Fitzgerald"
To: "Robert Norse"
Subject: RE: Questions Around MC 6.36.010 the Santa Cruz City Camping Prohibition & FTAs
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:17:57 -0700
Thank you for your patience. I will forward your e-mail to the appropriate officials here at the Court.
Sincerely,
Tess E.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 3:54 PM
To: Tess Fitzgerald
Subject: RE: standing order (TF)
Thanks, Tess. My address (sorry for the penmanship) is Robert Norse, 309 Cedar PMB #14B, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. Feel encouraged to e-mail it to me as well, if it's convenient.
Any word on Bob Patton's public records act request for the numerous named Camping Ban citations he gave your office?
Thanks again for the help,
Robert Norse
Tess Fitzgerald
Sent : Wednesday, December 20, 2006 4:11 PM
To : "Robert Norse"
Subject : RE: standing order (TF)
Mr. Norse--
Unfortunately we are not so sophisticated as to have scan/e-mail capability in our clerk's offices. I could fax it to you if you like--is your fax number 479-9241 or 9291?
As for Mr. Patton's request, I sent it up to administration, and they told me to relate to him the cost associated with his request would be $15 per name searched, a total of (don't shoot the messenger) $2520.00 for the 168 names he provided. I e-mailed that information to him today.
I will not take any action on his request until he contacts the office again.
Let me know if you wish a fax, I am dropping this in the mail today--happy winter solstice!
Tess E.
Melodie Parmenter is Tess Fitzgerald's boss.
ATTACHMENT
From: "Robert Norse
To:melodee.parmenter [at] sccourt.org
CC: cruzrooster [at] hotmail.com, klitznerbernard [at] hotmail.com, lioness@got, davebeau [at] pacbell.net, thomas [at] thomasleavitt.org, jhondg [at] msn.com
Subject: Requesting clarification of policy (MP)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 07:52:30 -0800
Melodee Parmenter
Court Services Manager, Criminal/Traffic
Dear Ms. Parmenter:
A month ago, Mr. Bob Patton made a public records act request for a CD or e-mail version of the court records of trhe SCMC 6.36.010 cases of 168 names. In the event that was NOT available, we requested it be in printed form.
Ms. Tess Fitzgerald informed us that such a request costs the rather astonishing figure of $15 per name. Please supply me with the statutory authority and/or written court policy that justifies so high a cost. I would remind you that the public records act provides for "reasonable copying costs" in the event that an electronic copy is NOT available. We would prefer an electronic copy.
Even in the event of a paper copy, $15 for several sheets of paper is a rather extraordinary price to pay for viewing a public record. Given the fact that we've been trying unsuccessfuly to view this records since 2003, it might be regarded as intentionally prohibitive.
We would also be willing (as we have said before in prior requests, as Ms. Fitzgerald can confirm) to view this records ourselves and make notes to spare court personnel time.
These records concern court action against homeless people, denying them the right to shelter themselves in a community that provides shelter for less than 5% of its homeless and fines the rest if they sleep at night after 11 PM. I understand that the records might be something of an embarrassment for some authorities, but I believe the law requires you to make them available at reasonable cost without unreasonable delay.
Thanks for your assistance in this matter.
Robert Norse
Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
Kate Wells is a sympathetic attorney. She sent the following letter to Melodee Parmenter:
-----Original Message-----
From: Kate Wells [mailto:lioness [at] got.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:05 AM
To: Melodee Parmenter
Cc: Robert Norse; cruzrooster [at] hotmail.com; klitznerbernard [at] hotmail.com; David Beauvais; Thomas Leavitt; jhondg [at] msn.com
Subject: Access to Public Court Records
KATE WELLS
Attorney at Law
2600 Fresno Street
Santa Cruz, California 95062
Telephone: (831) 479-4475
Facsimile: (831) 479-4476
TRANSMITTED BY EMAIL AND UNITED STATES MAIL
January 31, 2007
MELODEE PARMENTER
Court Services Manager
Criminal/Traffic
Santa Cruz Superior Court
Dear Ms. Parmenter,
Last month, Mr. Bob Patton of the Human Rights Organization requested electronic copies or printouts of some 168 court cases (most involving one or two pages) for homeless people charged with violating MC 6.36.010. You informed him that the cost per citation would be $15 for a total of $2,520.00. This would average out to $7.50 per page assuming two pages per case. You have, thus far, provided no justification for these unconscionable fees.
Mr. Robert Norse, following up for Mr. Patton, discussed this matter extensively with Ms. Tess Fitzgerald. On January 4th, he sent you an e-mail requesting clarification of the prices you were charging for what is clearly public information. I attach a copy of that e-mail. To date, he has received no response.
My clients would like this matter resolved as quickly as possible. It has, in actuality, been dragging on for several years as the courts seemingly have resisted releasing the requested information on a variety of pretexts.
Please make the records available, preferably in electronic form, or provide access to a computer screen so Mr. Patton and Mr. Norse can view the records individually and take what notes they need. As a third option (although my clients prefer the first), they are willing to accept print-outs, provided that the cost does not exceed the reasonable amount mandated by the California Rules of Court.
Since my clients are under the understanding that such printouts are customarily provided free of charge, the $15 per citation cost seems wildly excessive. Please explain how you have arrived at this figure and/or provide them with a reasonable fee in accordance with the law.
California Rules of Court provide that electronic copies be made accessible [Title 5, Rule 2073, Public Access], and that the fees be reasonable [Title 5, Rule 2076, Fees for Electronic Access]. The rules further provide that "On request, a court must provide the public with a statement of the costs on which these fees are based."
According to law, records must be made available if possible (and my clients are aware that you have these records readily available in electronic form), and that, in any case, printed copies must be made available within 10 days. You are way past that time period. Please act swiftly and comply with the law.
Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
/s/
KATE WELLS
Attachment
cc: Robert Norse
Bob Patton
----- Original Message -----
From:Melodee.Parmenter [at] santacruzcourt.org
To: lioness [at] got.net
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: Access to Public Court Records
Copies of case print outs are free to the client/defendant only. Record searches are $15.00 per search, as those require more staff time to locate cases. If you have case numbers and are requesting copies, those are 50 cents per page. If you wish to provide a check and list of cases or searches, please direct your request to the clerks office and we will begin processing.
Thank you.
Melodee
KATE WELLS
Attorney at Law
2600 Fresno Street
Santa Cruz, California 95062
Telephone: (831) 479-4475
Facsimile: (831) 479-4476
April 2, 2007
The Honorable Heather Morse
Judge of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: Access to public court records
Dear Heather:
Hope you are doing well. I have been attempting for some time now to gain access to court records that are mandated by California Rules of Court to be made available to the public.
In fact, I sent you a copy of the letter I sent to Alex Calvo in this regard. I have heard
nothing from Mr. Calvo in more than a month.
In case you do not still have a copy of that letter, I have attached a copy. This is now a
matter of some urgency. My clients have been more than patient, however their patience is running low. Since we are dealing with homeless issues, I am working pro bono and would really rather not be forced to file a writ regarding this matter.
My clients’ first request for these records was more than a year ago and they have received nothing but the runaround ever since. I know you are extremely busy and I apologize for “piling on”. Unfortunately, I have been left with no choice but to direct my request to you since the court personnel responsible for dealing with this have either made totally unreasonable and unlawful demands as a prerequisite to gaining access to the public records or have ignored my requests.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
KATE WELLS
Attachment
cc: Bob Patton Robert Norse
Alex Calvo is the administrative head of the court system in Santa Cruz.
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Cruz
Alex Calvo, Executive Officer
Judges Chambers
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 454-2380
May 1 2007
Dear Ms. Wells:
The Santa Cruz Superior Court is unable to provide electronic access to the public at this time, however it is a situation we are currently working on to change. Government Code Section 70627(c) provides for a $15.00 fee for each search taking longer than 10 minutes. Searches currently take from 3 to 30 minutes depending on the amount of information provided by the defendant, location of the file, copying requirements.
I am suggesting that the court treat the 168 cases as one request and assess a $15.00 charge for each 10-minute increment of the total time plus$.50 a page for each photocopied page. If, for instance, it took the court a total of 120 minutes to comply with the demand (12 increments of 10) and 12 copied pages, the court would charge $180.00 ($15 x 12) + $6.00 ($.050 x 12) for a total of $186.00.
The Traffic Division estimates it would take from 2 1/2 to 6 hours to complete the project. Please contact the traffic supervisor Tess Fitzgerald (454-2013) to schedule a time to proceed with this project.
Sincerely,
Alex Calvo
Court Executive Officer
cc: Tess Fitzgerald
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$ 117.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network