San Diego Sheriff Refuses to Release Deputies' Cell Phone Records.

A Complaint Public Records’ Request was submitted to the County of San Diego regarding the Sheriff Department Deputies stalking of private citizens and other violations of State and Federal Laws. Part 3 of 4.

Request 3: Cellphone Records including, but not limited to, Calls, Texts, Photos, and Videos from the government-issued phones of San Diego County Sheriff Deputy Alejandro Silva and Deputy Casey L. Calloway from January 1, 2021 through March 2, 2021.

Response 3: Your request for "any and all" cellphone records for deputies Alejandro Silva and Casey L. Calloway from January 1, 2021 through March 2, 2021 would be an overly burdensome task that would likely support a denial pursuant to Government Code section 6255. The broader the sweep of your request, the more likely it is that your request may be denied pursuant to Government Code section 6255. An agency may withhold a record if the agency demonstrates that on the facts of the case, the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. Cal. Gov't. Code § 6255. This includes the "expense and inconvenience involved in segregating nonexempt from exempt information." American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian, 32 Cal. 3d 440, 452-453 (1982). In order to provide records responsive to this request, the Sheriff's Department would have to access all electronically stored information in each cellphone, extract all responsive records from the phone (all records and information on each phone from January 1, 2021 through March 2, 2021), and remove the information that is exempt pursuant to any exemptions. Deputies are provided Department cellphones in order to assist them in the performance of their law enforcement duties. Records of intelligence information or security procedures, records of a law enforcement investigation, or any investigatory or security files compiled by a law enforcement agency are exempt from disclosure. Cal. Gov't. Code § 6254(f); Haynie v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. 4th 1061, 1071-72 (2001).

We encourage you to work with the Sheriff's Department towards making a focused and effective request for non-exempt records. Are you able to identify specific documents or information related to a specific incident that you would like to request? Please provide additional details that would help the Sheriff's Department identify the specific cellphone records that you seek.

“An overly burdensome task”.

1. A Complaint was filed, so the phone records should have been pulled by the Investigator or the Supervisor at the least, but there’s no investigation into complaints of wrongdoing in the San Diego Sheriff’s Department.
2. The information is all electronically generated and very easily accessible.
3. It cost the Taxpayers far more money to pay a Lawyer than it does to pay a Clerk. The Sheriff has a multitude of Lawyers to violate State and Federal Laws, but no Clerks to fulfill Public Records Requests. This proves the willful intent of the Sheriff’s Department to Violate State and Federal Laws.

This is a perfect example of why the Citizens in the Contract Cities no longer want the San Diego County Sheriff in their communities. Ask any Citizen that’s ever called the Sheriff for service; every service to the community is “an overly burdensome task”. Incompetency and insubordination is the culture of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department. A billion dollar budget for a Sheriff’s Department that considers upholding State Laws “an overly burdensome task”.

“An agency may withhold a record if the agency demonstrates that on the facts of the case, the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”

There is an overwhelming and growing ‘public interest’ in the illegal activity of Government Officials, specifically in Law Enforcement. There is no ‘public interest served’ by protecting insubordinate and predatory employees that are committing crimes while on duty as sworn members of law enforcement.

In Fiscal Year 2020 the Sheriff’s Department spent $1,137,400.37 of Taxpayers’ Money on ‘Cell Phone Use’. Imperial Beach was charged $28,813.55 for ‘Cell Phone Use’, yet there is no internal oversight as to the use of these phones and the County refuses to release Public Records to prove the cell phones are used for anything but stalking women and other illegal activity.

“We encourage you to work with the Sheriff's Department towards making a focused and effective request for non-exempt records.”

This is a fraudulent statement. The Sheriff’s Department has one and only one reputation and that is to refuse to follow any California State Laws. The request was specific and easily accessible: Government Cell Phone Records of two (2) named Deputies for the most recent two-month period. It would greatly serve the Public’s interest and the interest of the Sheriff’s Department if the Sheriff’s Department could prove that these two Deputies have used their government-issued, Taxpayers’ paid cell phones for anything BUT to stalk women while on duty.

And I can prove the above statement is fraudulent with a Public Records’ Request:

Any example of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department ‘encouraging’ and ‘working with’ Members of the Public or the Press. The time frame is; any time since former FBI agent Bill Gore was gifted the job title of San Diego County Sheriff after he had to slither out of the FBI for opening fire on Ruby Ridge. Let’s see one example of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department working with the Press or Public to fulfill a records’ request.

And for the County: I’ll take ALL of Cell Phone Invoices/Receipts for the Month of February, 2021 that was allocated to the Sheriff’s Department.

AND a comment on using Court Cases as an excuse to violate California State Laws:

Precedent is used in courtroom proceedings to support arguments and sway Judges. Precedent does not supersede State and/or Federal Laws and can not be used as an excuse to violate State and/or Federal Laws.

The above response was signed by Amanda Kamphoefner, Legal Advisor for the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. Kamphoefner just passed the Bar in 2017 and it appears she has yet to get a grasp on the legal system.

In Fiscal Year 2020 the San Diego County Sheriff spent $16,020,682 on ‘Public Liability Insurance Premiums’.

Public Sector or Private Sector; Liability Insurance Premiums are based on usage. $16 Million in Liability Insurance Premiums tells the Taxpayers that the entire Staff of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department is functioning at a detriment to the People.