No Incident Report? Then Where’s Use of Force Report? More Violations from Ferguson

Chief Jackson reveals details in defense of Officer Wilson's shootings
Chief Jackson reveals details in defense of Officer Wilson’s shootings

Everyone who is paying attention to the incident in which Mike Brown was gunned down in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri by Officer Darren Wilson is aware that there is no actual “Incident Report” in existence. Well, more specifically, a week after the ACLU requested the report and was told that there was a report but it was being withheld because it was exempt from the Sunshine Law, they produced “an” Incident Report that had no useful information in it.

What we now can state firmly in addition to this is that Ferguson Police also do not have a Use of Force Report that their policies required to be produced – not by Officer Wilson but by the Watch Commander on duty that day.

Ferguson is deliberately violating both the laws and its own policies to prevent any information from being produced and made public that could be used to hold Officer Wilson to account for his actions. This is a serious problem of cover up, abuse of authority, and contempt of the law by both the Ferguson and St. Louis County Police Departments. Given the evidence there is ample reason for the public to have little, or no, confidence or trust in either of these agencies.

[FERGUSON POLICE POLICY ON USE OF FORCE] [scribd id=238121104 key=key-qB0ljf1fNnboLj7RVaFV mode=scroll]

I have  detailed the story of how that document was created after and upon a request I made – along with 160 others – challenging the claim that this was exempt under the public records law. It clearly was not. So the St. Louis County Police Department created one almost two weeks after the incident and a day after my request.

It was then produced the day after that – to the amazement of all who looked at it. It contained nothing but the date, time and location of the incident.

Following their lead the Ferguson Police Department then produced a similar document alleging to be the required Incident Report.
But there were other records required to have been produced in this incident that should provide more information as to the facts of those events and that the public has a right to access. In particular a required Use of Force Report – specifically referred in Ferguson Police Policy on the Use of Force as an F-080 report.

Not having yet received the Ferguson Use of Force Policy but armed with their Police Report Procedures – a policy I also had obtained under the state’s Sunshine (public records) Law – I asked for all statements or reports pertaining to the use of force by Officer Wilson. 406.02 (A) 3 clearly states that when there is a “use of force” the officer is required to file a report. [See the Policy linked in this story below]

[AUGUST 23rd PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST: USE OF FORCE STATEMENTS] [scribd id=238121100 key=key-bwUOPM2eif6fzgWshO1j mode=scroll]

I made a request for that report on August 23rd and that same day received an email from Stephanie Kerr. Kerr, a private attorney with the firm of Curtis, Heinz, Garrett and O’Keefe, has been contracted by the City of Ferguson to provide them the services of the City Attorney. City Attorneys are not attorneys that represent the City in a lawsuit – but who advise the City on how to be in full and faithful compliance with the law in all their activities. Kerr responded to this request with the following statement:

“The Incident Report has previously been provided to you. The City of Ferguson has no other documents which are responsive to your request.”

[AUGUST 23rd RESPONSE: NO USE OF FORCE STATEMENTS EXIST] [scribd id=238121102 key=key-iB8wAARAmliQyB8DothV mode=scroll]

But the Incident Report referenced here, in addition to its not meeting the legal definition of such or being in compliance with the requirements established in the Report policy, was not what was requested. What was clearly requested were all use of force statements – also required by that policy.

[FERGUSON POLICE POLICY ON REQUIRED REPORTS] [scribd id=237642655 key=key-vguDPnSdMp697jg7ZOgd mode=scroll]

The response was thus stating that the Department was not following that policy not just with regard to Incident Reports but also with regard to Use of Force statements. I had also requested, again under the public records law, the Departments Use of Force Policies. I received them and read what they contained. [See Policy linked above]

Sure enough there was an explicit policy that required that not just Officer Wilson, but because he used deadly force causing injury, that the Watch Commander on the date of the shooting produce an F 080 Report for that Use of Force.

Perhaps, I surmised, they did not provide this to me in the first request because I did not specifically ask for this report – it should have covered all such reports, as I did not confine it to reports filed by Wislon, but perhaps they misunderstood.

[AUGUST 28th PUBLIC RECORDS REQEUST: F 080 REPORT ON USE OF LETHAL FORCE RESULTING IN WOUNDS] [scribd id=238121103 key=key-cp6MF1p2jtXYIy0fVMt7 mode=scroll]

So on August 28th I followed up again. This time I specifically requested the F 080 Report.

410.05 of that policy sets out the procedures required to be followed whenever an officer uses “lethal force.”   In particular, under that chapter, section D sets out “Procedures to be Followed When a Firearm is Discharged (Gunshot Wound Inflicted).”

Under that section part 4 states:

4. The watch commander will complete the Use of Force Report F-080 and forward it through the chain of command to the Chief.

This puts an explicit obligation on the “watch commander” – not just the other requirements of Officer Wilson to file reports – to complete an explicitly defined Report – the F-080 Report – and that this report will go up through the chain of command all the way “to the Chief.”

If this policy was not fully and faithfully followed this implicates – beyond the issue of Officer Wilson and the Incident Report – Wilson’s superior officers, from the Watch Commander all the way through the Chief, in wrongdoing.

Thus if the Department were following its procedures fully and faithfully there should be an F 080 Report. Filled out by the Watch Commander. And received by the Chief.

But today, August 29th, I received a response to my second follow up request – specifically seeking any F 080 Report prescribed under that policy.

[AUGUST 29th RESPONSE: No F 080 REPORT EXISTS] [scribd id=238121101 key=key-rHKt549p95mTGlH1yws7 mode=scroll]

This was the response I received:

“The City of Ferguson has no ‘Use of Force Report’ relating to the Michael Brown shooting; therefore there are no documents which are responsive to this request.”

In this case the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  Absence of routinely produced and explicitly filed reports that are necessary if the police are to faithfully fulfill their legal obligations to the community.

If anything positive may come from the tragedy of this event, perhaps it may be a wider knowledge and understading in the public of their right to obtain public records from their public agencies and officials.  And a recognition of the immense power these laws – if respected by officials and enforced under the law – provide to citizens seeking to hold public officials and agencies to account under those same laws they are entrusted to enforce.

For even the response that there is no record as requested provides evidence.  It is an answer to the question, in this case, did the Ferguson Police Department, including the Chief of Police , follow the law and the Department’s policies?

The answer is now clear.

The Chief, the Watch Commander, others in the department, and Officer Wilson do not believe they are subject to the law.

They have, at best, some different set of laws or standard of law that they believe they must obey – just not the laws on the books. Not even their own Departmental policies are binding according to their actions.

This leaves us without any knowledge of just what occurred on the day of the fatal shooting of Mike Brown.  It suspiciously allows Officer Wilson, and the rest of the Ferguson Police Department, to wait until all the evidence against Wilson is discovered and collected, and afterwards to write reports that will neatly fit the evidence.  Rather than to have those required reports serve in the evidentiary capacity that they were intended.

But the absence of records and reports does not leave us entirely in the dark.

We have proof of one thing: the entire department (actually two departments) are actively defying the law and their policies to cover-up the facts of what Officer Wilson did that day.  And to deny the right of the public to obtain those facts in the records the police are required to keep.

In this case, therefore, there is ample reason – in fact actual evidence – for the public to have no faith or confidence in anything these Departments, their officials, or the officers employed therein do or say. And certainly there is no reason to trust that they can honestly and faithfully participate in the process inquiring into and investigating the shooting by Officer Wilson.

About Charlie Grapski

Check Also

Public Records Again Expose Albuquerque Police Misconduct


  • Boko Hos

    Excellent article. I’m sure this would be the same result with 90 percent of the “law enforcment” corporations in this country. It’s disgusting and pathetic.

  • BabbaZee

    GOD bless you for doing this, Charlie.

  • Difster

    The State’s Attorney is going to have to get involved in this if they’re ever to be held accountable.

  • JWE

    The next thing to request is are the department’s disciplinary/personnel policies, in-regards to failure to fill out those reports.

  • Sam Keller

    What law are you referring to when you say multiple times that the FPD and/or Wilson do not believe they are subject to the law or they broke the law?

    The FPD has no legal obligation to write a UOF report and they aren’t legally obligated to write an incident report any more detailed than the one they provided. The investigation is being handled by multiple outside agencies, let them do their job.

    • Charlie Grapski

      Actually – Missouri Statute required an Incident Report with MORE information than provided. 610.100 (4)

      Their job is to OBEY – not just enforce on others – the law.

      • Sam Keller

        The PD can’t violate 610.100(4), it is a definition not something that can be violated.

        They are entitled to redact anything from an incident report that would jeopardize a criminal investigation. The report contained the date, time, specific location, name of victim and immediate facts. The circumstances are part of the investigation.

        Do you have another statute that is the basis for your repeated claims of illegality?

        You didn’t address my question about the Use of Force report. Are you retracting your article’s claim that producing that report is a legal obligation of the FPD? If not, please identify the Missouri statute that legally obligates the FPD to produce a UOF report.

        • Charlie Grapski

          First: You are WRONG on the law. They CAN violated that – both in terms of what they put into an incident report AND on what they DO NOT PRODUCE in a public records request.

          Second: It is the POLICE DEPARTMENT ITSELF that said THEY were required to follow that statute in their Incident Reports.

          Third: Their POLICIES state what is supposed to be in those reports as well.

          Fourth: They are NOT entitled to REDACT “ANYTHING” – based on that exemption – and NOTHING in this Incident would justify such a redaction IF they were permitted.

          Fifth: They HAVE NOT REDACTED anything from the reports.

          Sixth: They HAVE NEVER CLAIMED that exemption.

          So before you start playing attorney for the police – DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK – and figure out a VALID point to raise.

          I will not be addressing any of your questions – because you don’t raise any valid questions – and you don’t READ or LISTEN to what is said anyway.

          • Guest

            You have to violate a statute, you can’t violate the definitional portion of a statute as those merely define terms used later in the statute.

            Of course they are entitled to redact, 610.100 states as much.

            You don’t know what was or wasn’t redacted. This article regarding the ACLU says it was –

            They don’t have to claim an exemption, the law says they can redact and that is all they have to do.

            You are welcome to file suit claiming they are violating a definitional portion of the law, good luck and keep us all informed on how it goes.

          • Charlie Grapski

            I am not going to get into the litigation details. But let me assure you – in litigation – this statute and their policies can be used to demonstrate the failure of the department to fulfill its legal duties and obligations.

            As for the Sunshine Law – they ASBOLUTELY MUST not only claim an exemption – they must STATE EXPLICITLY the statutory exemption being claimed AND the nature of the portion being redacted.

            AND AGAIN – not only is there NO REDACTION in the so-called Incident Report – but the Department TOLD ME EXPLICITLY that no redaction was made.

            So I DO KNOW – that NOTHING was redacted. And all of this has been stated explicitly in the articles I have written.

            But you keep with your theories.

          • Charlie Grapski

            That article – by the way (again – perhaps if you were less SURE of yourself – and actually demonstrated reading comprehension skills – you would see the problems in your posts) – was a reference to what WAS produced for the ACLU originally. It is a reference to the CAD file – which WAS redacted – and which contradicting your claim that they don’t have to say they redacted but JUST CAN – the Police STATED they redacted AND cited the EXEMPTION (which is not the exemption you keep harping on – which has never been claimed in this case – and another exemption that did not exempt the Incident Report or any portion – but was specifically the exemption for the REPORT OF the Investigation – until it is completed).

            That has nothing to do with the Incident Report they released in response to my public records request that is now in circulation and contains nothing more than the date, time and location.

            But again – you will just keep spouting myths.

          • Sam Keller

            The article I linked to came out on Aug 22nd after the incident report was provided to the ACLU. “The two-page document, which the Ferguson Police Department released
            only after pressure from journalists and civil liberties advocates, is
            largely redacted or left blank”.

            “The ACLU filed a lawsuit to
            try to compel Ferguson to make the disclosure. But its attorney told
            Yahoo News that the incomplete police report just adds to the mistrust
            in Ferguson.
            “It doesn’t tell us anything,” Rothert said. “We have to imagine what is there because it is all redacted.”

            It’s an incident report. It was redacted. It was the original incident report for the Michael Brown shooting. It is the only incident report produced by the Ferguson Police Department regarding the Michael Brown shooting.

            Maybe you are confusing the FPD with the St Louis County PD?

          • Charlie Grapski

            It was NOT redacted – for the 1 millionth time.

          • Charlie Grapski

            Look – the SLCPD confirmed to me – when I specifically asked – that they did NOT redact the report they produced on the 20th. Its as simple as that. There are redactions on other documents – that are problematic – but that is a different issue.

      • Dan from STL

        The correct Citation for that Section is 610.100.1 (4)

        • Charlie Grapski

          Yes thanks – the problem of going from mere memory in this

      • Drake

        Well done Charlie !
        Where ever I find you online you are the best voice for justice !

    • Boko Hos

      Jesus H Christ . Are you another fucking clone of ECLS?

  • MSMediacritic

    Laws that don’t have consequences for those who break them are merely suggestions.

  • Bill Shaper

    I’m very curious about how the Justice Department and FBI would react to Ferguson’s failure to follow procedure (and the law). Do they know about this? Someone should follow up with them.

    • Dan from STL

      The FBI wants them to keep their mouths shut and stop screwing up their investigation. Chief Jackson has already tried to mess things up by releasing the robbery tape (evidence of an uncharged crime, which is exempt from the Sunshine Law).

      • Bill Shaper

        That may be but it’s unrelated to my question, what’s the FBI or Justice Department’s response to Ferguson PD not following the law with regard to the incident report and UoF report?

        • Dan from STL

          Evidence they can use to impeach Ferguson PD witnesses and insinuate a coverup if they ever charge Wilson. Something they’ll hold close to the vest unless they decide to use it at trial. In and of itself, it isn’t a Federal Crime.

          The FBI and US attorney doesn’t play the press game.

          • Bill Shaper

            No one said anything about a federal crime, we are not at that point yet. The feds are engaging in a simultaneous investigation as a form of check and balance against Ferguson/St Louis County investigation. They can comment on this issue without jeopardizing any witness testimony as all those statements have already been recorded. Ferguson either followed the law with regard to these reports or they didn’t. The feds could help shed some light on the truth here.

          • Dan from STL

            The feds don’t want to shed any more light on anything until they get to trial. The first time they’ll mention it is when they have Chief Jackson or the Watch Commander in the Grand Jury room and the first time they’ll mention it in public is at the trial.

            IMHO, the only chance of any justice in this case comes from the feds. Bob McCulloch is going to kill it in the Grand Jury, just like he’s done with every other police misconduct case he’s ever had and every other case he for some reason doesn’t want to prosecute. It is standard operating procedure in St. Louis County.

          • Dan from STL
          • Charlie Grapski

            Well – even if he were not (as is typical) going to present to the Grand Jury so as to determine the outcome …

            It will be kind of hard to have the Grand Jury consider WHAT THE OFFICER did – without the requisite Incident and Use of Force reports.

            Yes – these are usually self-serving documents (which is why their refusal to release – or to claim to have created – such – is so revealing). What would he have put into such a report – what would the watch commander put in his?

            The officer feared for his life. There was a struggle for the gun. Etc.

            What evidence is he going to present to the Grand Jury?

            Of course – in this case – the claim, for example, that there was a “struggle for the gun” (which had to come from somewhere when the Chief stated it in his press conference) – is hard to maintain given the rest of the known facts. It is extremely implausible – given what other things we have learned.

            This is why they don’t want to commit to that in writing. They want to be able to – when they do state something for the record – to have “shaped” it to FIT all of the evidence first. That means – don’t say anything officially – until you have all the evidence.

          • Charlie Grapski

            Of course – even worse for Wilson – even if there was an initial struggle for the gun – if the two were then separated by space – and no longer such a struggle – the prior struggle does not legally authorize the officer to shoot – let alone shoot to kill.

          • guest

            Maybe, maybe not. But the news reports are that the justification for shooting Michael Brown was that he turned around and came at the officer.

            There are few absolutes, you would be well served to stop pretending there are.

          • Guest

            The Grand Jury will be hearing testimony, they don’t need a use of force report or incident report to be able to determine the facts.

            You want to know what evidence he will present to the Grand Jury? Whatever he and the Grand Jury want presented. They have a say in the matter as well. Witnesses will testify, Wilson may or may not testify, the medical examiner reports will be reviewed, the medical examiner will probably be asked to testify, ballistics evidence will be submitted, crime scene information will be submitted. The usual stuff that any Grand Jury would see and hear.

            So let them do their job and stop whining like a little girl.

          • Charlie Grapski

            No. The GJ will hear WHAT THE PROSECUTOR BRINGS TO THEM.

            They WILL NOT be hearing testimony from Officer Wilson as to what happened.

          • Guest

            Looks like you were VERY WRONG about that. 4 hours of testimony from Wilson. It’s amazing you can speak with such authority on issues you know nothing about.

          • Charlie Grapski

            Their job is to OBEY the law – once again. And I have made LAWFUL requests for public records – and they have both failed to comply fully and faithfully with that law – and they have failed to follow statutory and policy requirements as to records they are required to maintain.

      • Charlie Grapski

        No that tape was NOT exempt.

        • Charlie Grapski

          Here is why:

          1) That tape is the property of the store. The store thus could release it to anyone they want.

          2) The tape – obtained by the police – yes, is evidence, and that evidence may be used in an “investigation.”

          But it is the “Report” of the Investigation that is “closed” (it is a public record – just has a time of releasability connected to it) UNTIL the Investigation (and thus the Report – which when it is completed – marked the end of the Investigation) is complete.

          But records USED IN or BY the Investigation are not necessarily exempt. Now – plausibly (although in Mo this is not clear in the statute – as in some other states) a record CREATED BY the Investigation in the process thereof – can be claimed as exempt.

          BUT a record that exists PRIOR TO the Investigation, and INDEPENDENT OF the Investigation, if ON ITS OWN STATUS is a “public record” – is still a public record even if it is looked at or otherwise used by the Investigation. And remains such – and thus is not exempt.

          So, for example, if there were a dash-cam video or a body-cam video of Officer Wilson – that WOULD BE a public record. Even though the Investigation would be using it.

          This video being private and obtained under subpoena is somewhat different. But it was obtained, I believe, in the initial police involvement – much as the witness statements in the Incident Report – and not by the later Investigation (In fact I believe this case was closed immediately upon the death of Brown – and no such investigation ever began).

          Also – however – as inappropriate as the SELECTIVE release of information by the Chief was – unless specified otherwise in terms of a particular record or portion thereof – the fact of an exemption existing does not preclude the agency from releasing it. An actual, valid exemption, means they don’t have to release it – not necessarily that they must not release it.

          But it is the SELECTIVE release of information – ALL which was presented in an attempt to either DISCREDIT the victim or JUSTIFY/DEFEND the officer – that is most telling of all.

          They are selectively NOT releasing – even what they are obligated to release, and claiming they have NOT created even what they are obligated to create – because they have a predetermined OUTCOME that they desire: the officer is right (the officer is ALWAYS right).

          That is why having THEM investigate Wilson’s actions to determine whether the shooting was justified – is laughable (if it were not such a serious issue).

          • guest

            They , THEM, aren’t the same group. The They who released the tape aren’t the THEM who are investigating.

          • Charlie Grapski

            Not true. The Ferguson Police released the tape. The Ferguson Police DO HAVE their own investigations going on. As well as other entities doing other investigations.

          • Charlie Grapski

            And again – the fact that the Police Department had possession of the tape – means that the Police Department has a legal obligation to provide such under the Sunshine Law – it matters not what other investigations are taking place with other agencies and what records they are utilizing.

            None of that removes the legal obligation to maintain and produce records by the Ferguson Police or the St. Louis County Police.

          • Charlie Grapski

            And the issue here – is ONLY the two police agencies. I have made no requests of the DA or the FBI.

  • super g

    Um not that I’m anwhere near current on this but last I heard the witness admitted he lied and the the perp had actually charge towards the cop. I’m thinking if that’s true then the cop walks, the riots are as of a result of a perp lying and the media stired the pot.

    • Bill Shaper

      Really? Please provided a credible link showing that a witness recanted previous statements, admitted to lying, and now claims Micheal Brown charged toward Officer Wilson. Make sure the name of this witness is included.

      • James M Morriss

        I’m sure the guy is one of the “over a dozen” witnesses that we heard about from that reporter before she not quite recanted the tweet.
        Besides, when has “credible”, “facts”, or “truth” ever been required to absolve a cop of wrong doing? They think their chief is like the pope; he can wave his hand ans say “obbie dobbie, alakazam” and they have done no wrong. So far it seems to be working for them in Ferguson.
        What needs to happen now is about twenty people, with many cameras in tow, need to show up at the station and start pouring over all their files and rifling through the station house until they find what we are looking for. You know, what they would do to our house, but not at 5AM.

        • Bill Shaper

          I’m not trying to absolve this cop of anything, just waiting for super g to back up his BS claim. Still waiting on that btw.

    • Dan from STL

      Not true. Twitter based disinformation

    • Empty0Set

      “the perp had actually charge towards the cop.”

      I find it plausible that Brown (a.k.a., the perp) attacked Officer Wilson while Wilson was in his car…I mean…if any time is a good time to attack a cop, it is when the cop is in his car and you are on foot outside, that is when an officer is most vulnerable.

      That is exactly why I find the story of Brown charging at Wilson laughable. We know Brown started to flee. For one reason or another, Brown decided it was in his best interest to bomb the fuck out of there. Now we are supposed to believe that in spite of being seriously spooked such that he was willing to flee from a police officer in a patrol car, that he changed his mind, turned around, and while *unarmed*, made a charge at a cop who was firing a gun from some 20-30 feet away?

      In other words, is the claim now that Brown was suicidal?

  • Guest

    If I was a cop, and I shot someone while on duty. I wouldn’t make any statements. I wouldn’t write any reports. Period. Even if it meant losing my job. I don’t blame any officer that invokes his Constitutional right to remain silent in the case of a shooting. It is the only sensible course of action to take: for anyone, cop or not.

    Now. As far as other officers, like the watch commander, refusing to file required reports about the incident. That’s another story.

    • Mike Ross

      Well said on all points. I’m licensed to carry a concealed weapon. During my training, I was told that if, God forbid, I ever DID have to use my gun, I was to say one thing and one thing only in the immediate aftermath:

      “I have too much stress. I need to go to the hospital”.

      Just that. Those exact words. Nothing else. It doesn’t MATTER how justified your actions were; every single thing you say will be picked over and twisted by ten different teams of lawyers, minimum.

      • Guest

        “I have too much stress. I need to go to the hospital”

        Even that statement will be used against you if they are able to. It will not help you. Nothing you say can ever help you. The only thing you should say is:

        “I invoke my fifth amendment right to remain silent.”

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        Concealed weapon holder is very different than a sworn peace officer. Apples and Oranges. Obviously. If you can’t handle the obligations and responsibilities that come with being a sworn LEO, then don’t be one.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      Then you are ill suited to be a cop. Think about the implications if any time a cop shot someone, they didn’t have to write a report or testify about their actions. The police are granted extra powers regarding the use of force. Those powers also come with extra responsibilities. If you can not commit to the responsibility, you should not be granted the power.

      Ps you sound like a thuggish coward who avoids taking responsibility

      • Guest

        Exercising your fifth amendment right to silence is one of the smartest and most important things you will ever do in your life should the time arise. Shooting someone is definitely one of those times.

  • Crabby the dinosaur

    This is sick! How is this happening?! I’m telling you, if Missouri lets them get away with denying the public records requests and refusing to submit proper reports, follow procedure and protocol, you will only see the rests of the departments around the rest of the country will only try to get away with more. This will become the new normal. This is a massive test case to see what the future of police will be able to get away with.
    You give them an inch and they’ll try and take a mile!

  • What?

    Maybe that’s why they handed it over to STLC so fast. They wanted to avoid having to report. But they still have to account for the time it wasn’t with STLC.

    • James M Morriss

      STLC?? It is bad form to use an acronym without defining it in your post. Not everyone will know it.

      • Dan from STL

        St. Louis County. Locally we’d abreviate it StL Co.

  • James M Morriss

    What needs to happen now is about twenty people, with many cameras in
    tow, need to show up at the station and start pouring over all their
    files and rifling through the station house, going through every nook and cranny, taking anything looks remotely interesting; weather or not it is truly relevant, , leaving a huge mess, until they find what we are
    looking for. You know, what the cops would do to our house if we refused to turn over something they wanted. We just won’t do it at 5am in the morning like the SWAT team would.

  • Mizz Boo

    Google Officer Patricia March

  • Guest

    I believe you have drawn your conclusion too soon. Sure, the indications are pointing heavily in the direction of your conclusion. However, there are other possibilities of why you are getting these responses. Those other reasons have not been proved or disproved yet.

    If you step back and start to investigate the event just prior to it starting, then reassess all the possibilities, you should be able to see the other possible reasons.

    • Charlie Grapski

      There are no other “possibilities” of why I am not getting the records. The law requires certain records to be kept. With certain information in them. The law requires those records to be produced upon request. The records have not been produced with the information required. And in other cases – they have stated that the records do not exist.

      If the record exists – it must be provided. If they state the record does not exist – it does not exist – unless they are lying.

      No other possibilities. Its not rocket science.

      Both agencies were asked to produce “the” Incident Report. Both agencies are required under Mo Law to have such a record and for it to contain more than just date time and location.

      St. Louis County PD stated to the ACLU – the record was exempt (not as some of our other guests here have claimed – but based on a non-existent exemption about open investigations). Ferguson stated no report existed.

      Then I stepped in. St. Louis County REVERSED its position – and said the Incident Report was NOT exempt and WAS public record. Then CREATED ONE after that – and produced it ACCORDING TO THEM USING 610.100 (4) (Again contrary to our other guest’s claims). But it did not COMPLY with that statute.

      Ferguson then followed suit with a similar “new” Incident Report without the key information.

      I have also gotten the POLICY of the Ferguson PD. It says a Report of that nature WAS REQUIRED.

      I have also gotten the USE OF FORCE POLICY of the Ferguson PD. It and the REPORT Policy – required that the Officer AND the Watch Commander file reports pertaining to the Use of Force.

      They said no such report existed. I followed up with the EXPLICIT REPORT – F-080 – as a request. They again claimed THAT REPORT did not exist. Even though their policy required it.

      AND ALSO (for our other guest who believes they have all the answers) – the POLICY of the Department IS NOT AN ARBITRARY THING – the Department IS LEGALLY REQUIRED to follow that policy.


      • Ordinary Citizen

        Wow. Tunnel vision much?

        • Charlie Grapski

          Yes – because when we have X OR Y – and then someone says – IF NOT X, THEN Y – they suffer from Tunnel Vision.


          • Ordinary Citizen

            I’m glad you’ve got it all figured out.

            There surely can’t be any other explanations.

            (snickering into the back of my hand)

          • Rail Car Fan

            @ “Ordinary Citizen”…

            It seems to me (considering some of your other posts), that “snickering into the back of your hand” is about the only thing your good for, but then again…

            Rail Car Fan

          • Ordinary Citizen

            I assume that your comment was some sort of insult, but your chronic passive/aggressive nature hides the true intent behind a thin veneer of politeness.

          • Charlie Grapski

            It was a Nebraska insult.

          • Ordinary Citizen

            Well that explains it.

      • stk33

        Any law makes any sense only when it gets enforced. They can simply play the game of waiting for you to sue them on every step of your requests. Unless this is real possibility, plus the outcome of such lawsuit would include also some punitive measure, there’s no reason for them to do anything else.

      • Sam Keller

        “Ferguson stated no report existed”

        No they didn’t, the Ferguson PD produce an incident report.

        There is no law that requires a PD to follow their policy. If you believe there is feel free to quote it.

        You also continue to be confused between a definition of an incident report and what you think is required to be in it. If your faulty logic was correct the police in Missouri could never produce an incident report with a John Doe victim or no victim at all.

        Think about it. And then explain why you think the definition of what an incident report is mandates that everything in that definition has to be in the incident report? Gee, that definition says “name of the victim” so if you don’t have a name or a victim I guess the PD is breaking the law.

        • Charlie Grapski

          No – Ferguson stated that no report existed. Perhaps – once again – you should pay attention to details.

          Two weeks later – having forced the issue of the Sunshine Law and their requirement to have an Incident Report – first with SLCPD – Ferguson PRODUCED an Incident Report, without the legally required information, CONTRARY to their original statement.

        • Charlie Grapski

          OK – the policies are just for show.

      • Sam Keller

        You can’t comply with a definitional statute. It just defines terms and doesn’t contain any compliance requirements.

        Your assertion that the STLCPD reversed their position in response to your communications is like the rooster claiming the sun rises because he crows in the morning.

        BTW I haven’t asserted tat policies are arbitrary things, kindly refrain from making up stuff as a substitute for facts.

        The simplest fact is an incident report doesn’t have to contain all the elements stated in the definitional statute to be an incident report.

        • Kerfuffulator

          Smells like bullshit to me. But, on the odd chance you didn’t just pull this out of your ass, cite the Statue or other Legal source to back your claim.

          That’s the problem, since conversely, Charlie DID cite the relevant plain plain language laws.

      • concerned

        This is the same PD that found Officer Gore not completing a use of force report and police report problematic.

        • Charlie Grapski

          Excellent work. I was aware of his case – because he has spoken up about the Brown issue. But I did not have any articles that gave the Department’s side. The quote about the problem – is wonderful – given the lack of both reports here.

    • Dan from STL

      I have another reason. There is an incident report or use of force report. It is self serving Bulls^&t that tends to exonerate Wilson. The FBI and U.S. Attorney have told them if they release it, they’ll crucify them.

      • Guest

        There you go. That’s one of a number of possibilities. And that falls within Charlie’s X & Y view in a 3-D world.

        If that is the case I hope the local yocals were smart enough to have received those orders in writing or recorded the conversation.

      • Charlie Grapski

        Problem is – if they have it (and I believe it is more likely than not that they had SOMETHING of that nature originally) – they MUST produce it.

        The FBI and US Attorney can’t tell them not to.

        • Guest

          Well if you keep the pressure on them they may sacrifice more low level employees to placate the masses. And maybe one of those sacrifices will be brave enough to come forward and blow the whistle on the orders they were given. But I wouldn’t count on it.

          In my experience there’s nothing a public servant hates more than someone knowing more about their duties, policies or law than they do and ordering them to do something. So I typically use that approach last after giving them every opportunity to voluntarily comply. It makes the complaint or legal action much easier to substantiate and succeed.

          Typically they seem to follow things in this order: Duties or Job requirements, Supervisor’s direction, department policy, law, Constitution. As we’ve seen numerous time many of them could not care less about anything other than the first two or maybe three. Likely because they are almost never held accountable.

          So before you get to the job and policy quotations or law you may want to appeal to their sense of moral or ethical values, duty or responsibility, civic mindedness, or compassion. Email will not work well for this. You will likely need to either meet or call and speak to them for this to have some chance of success.

          I haven’t read all your FOIA letters. When you do send demands for action and quote duties, policy or laws I hope you do it and copy everyone both up and down the chain of command. Their inaction at each level will make them each guilty of violations of their duties, policy, law etc when they fail to ensure they, their subordinates or their superiors are performing within those same required parameters. And the failure to take action will result in each potentially being held accountable.

          A courier delivery to each specific assignee requiring their signature for delivery may be required in certain cases. Otherwise you can expect more claims such as they didn’t get the email (i.e. alleged Ferguson email system attack) or never received the letter or their staff failed to inform them etc. Try registered mail with return receipt. You’ll see the benefits of that below.

          I almost had to do courier delivery with the clerk of a court recently when they refused to acknowledge receipt of a motion sent twice by mail and once by registered mail with signature required and return receipt. Each time I called them on a recorded line to inquire about receipt. But before I did the courier route I called them one final time and recorded the clerk claiming that the court stamp on the return receipt I received was not someone in their office so the still didn’t have the motion and it was past the alleged deadline. So I informed them that based on their claim I would be turning the recording of the call and the return receipt with signature over to the US Postmaster to investigate a claim of mail fraud, report it to the head judge and would be courier deliver the document requiring both the clerk & his supervisor to acknowledge receipt. The chief judge called me back on a my recorded line and informed me that the clerk had made a mistake and that he would accept the motion etc.

          Ferguson appears to be making it as unnecessarily difficult for you as they possibly can. I hope you find the right pressure points to make them responsive or hold them accountable.

  • OhSnapDJB

    Like any number of the stories posted here, believe me when I say that NOBODY can afford to trust ANY PIG! Don’t even SPEAK to these PIGS! Either arrest me and I’ll fight it out in court or stand there and be IGNORED! The American people absolutely CANNOT trust nor rely on ANYONE affiliated with or in the law enforcement community! Theres no such thing as a “good cop”, they DONT exist! ALL PIGS will lie on you to justify their actions! ALL PIGS will lie on you to cover for other PIGS! If you find yourself being questioned or detained, it is in your BEST interest to FILM the encounter! Most of yinz will debate with these PIGS and i personally believe this is a HUGE mistake! It’s not like youre gonna get any PIG to see your point of view nor will you change their minds. Don’t argue your case in the street, argue it in COURT!

  • Chipster

    I expect that many departments are run in this same manner- when you have to answer to no-one.And the press or even citizens are looked on as a nusense . when police refuse to live by the law- but over exert their authority on others- then the gangs they so complained about of being out gunned. has themselves turned into a gang – if police can’t live by the law — they should not be-allowed to carry a gun– and they should not be in any type of union – they don’t fear reprisals because their union will get them off

  • guest

    it was a justified shooting whats the problem

    • Kefuffulator

      Yes Mr.. Troll, please enlighten us

      What IS the problem with writing the LAWFULLY REQUIRED Incident Report and the LAWFULLY REQUIRED Use of Force Report? If the shooting was perfectly lawful & justified, WHY would PD be acting EGGZACTLY like they are engaged in a poorly run coverup?

  • Wilton Blake

    Thank you for your hard work!