The six month pilot program to test the Mexican Matricual Consular ID card results: It was not tested!
During the six months, there was no test plan and no data was recorded. The city council does not know how many individuals may have presented the sham ID who may have been criminals or fugitives. The LAPD has absolutely no information regarding anyone who may have previously used the Matricual ID. Thus, the LAPD does not have any records to fall back on in the event that in the future, the LAPD wants to check the background of someone who presents the sham ID.
Last January, I wrote the following letter to the LAPD requesting information under the California Public Records Act. Read my letter first. The LAPD answer letter follows.
P.O. BOX 3465, VAN NUYS, CA 91407
January 28, 2003
Jean Coronel, Sr. Mgt. AnalystSUB: Mexican Matricula Consular ID
LAPD Discovery Section
201 N. Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Ms. Coronel:
Sometime around June of 2002, the Los Angeles City Council launched a six month pilot program to officially recognize the Mexican Matricula Consular ID card.
1. During that six months, how many persons were cited for infractions whose only form of identification was the Matricula Consular ID?
2. During that six months, how many persons were arrested whose only form of identification was the Matricula Consular ID?
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM J. BRATTON
Chief of Police
P.O. Box 30158
Los Angeles, Calif. 90030
Telephone: (213) 978-2100
Reference Number 2.4.1
February 24, 2003
Mr. Hal Netkin
P. 0. Box 3465
Van Nuys, California 91407
California Public Records Act Request
Dear Mr. Netkin:
This correspondence is prepared in response to your letter dated January 28, 2003, requesting information from the Los Angeles Police Department (the Department) for a report compiling the number of persons cited for infractions or arrested whose only form of identification was an identification card issued byte Consulate of Mexico. This request is being made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (the Act).
The Department is cognizant of its responsibilities under the Act. It recognizes that the statutory scheme was enacted in order to maximize citizen access to the workings of government. The Act, however, does not mandate disclosure of all documents within the government s possession. Rather, by specific exemption and reference to other statutes, the Act recognizes that there are boundaries where the public s right to access must be balanced against such weighty considerations as the right of privacy, a right of constitutional dimension under California law; California Constitution, Article I, Section 1. The law also exempts from disclosure records in cases where disclosure might endanger a legitimate governmental interest, i.e., ongoing criminal investigations and/or prosecution, California Government Code 6254 (b); 6254 (c); 6254 (f); 6254 (k) and 6255.
With respect to the information contained in your request the Department does not currently maintain such record or information. The Department would have to take an affirmative steps to create records reflecting this information, and such actions would place an undue burden on the Department within the meaning of Government Code Section 6255.
We appreciate this opportunity to serve you. If you have any questions regarding this request please contact Management Analyst Susan Halistead, Discovery Section, at (213) 978-2156. Very truly yours,
WILLIAM J. BRATTON
Chief of Police
Signed for Barrera by Raymond G. Crisp
ANN F. BARRERA, Lieutenant
Acting Commanding Officer
Risk Management Division