I'm trying to find the most current Arkansas FOIA law, but here is an exerpt that will be the most troubling for the police chief:

(3)(A) Upon receiving a request for the examination or copying of personnel or evaluation records, the custodian of the records shall, within twenty-four (24) hours of the receipt of the request, determine whether the records are exempt from disclosure and make efforts to the fullest extent possible to notify the person making the request and the subject of the records of that decision.

(B) If the subject of the records cannot be contacted in person or by telephone within the twenty-four hour period, the custodian shall send written notice via overnight mail to the subject of the records at his last known address. Either the custodian, requester, or the subject of the records may immediately seek an opinion from the Attorney General who, within three (3) working days of receipt of the request, shall issue an opinion stating whether the decision is consistent with this chapter. In the event of a review by the Attorney General, the custodian shall not disclose the records until the Attorney General has issued his opinion.


If that is still part of the current law, thats going to be a problem for the police chief.

(06-07-2015 03:16 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 03:07 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:41 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  So what is the police chief's ideology? What makes the city attorney "flakey"? Do you mean incompetent? Also, it was a police report, not a court record so that may have something to do with it. Is the police chief facing legal action? Were any victims names included in the report?

The lawyer is flakey because he didn't interpret the law in the same way as esteemed legal experts Jim Bob Duggar and UofMStateU. The police chief is retiring at the end of the month, not facing any kind of legal action (that point was thrown in by the UofMStateU to make it seem like she was stepping down because of some sort of scandal). No victims names were included.

True or false, the police chief announced her retirement prior to releasing the documents.

For the challenged, true or false means yes or no.

True. As in she announced her retirement before the FOI request was received. Your point?

What day was the FOIA request received?

May 15th. Here is an article from May 7th about her retirement (which she had been planning since last year).

http://www.nwahomepage.com/story/d/story...u8ulS1JIQw

(06-07-2015 03:42 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I'm trying to find the most current Arkansas FOIA law, but here is an exerpt that will be the most troubling for the police chief:

(3)(A) Upon receiving a request for the examination or copying of personnel or evaluation records, the custodian of the records shall, within twenty-four (24) hours of the receipt of the request, determine whether the records are exempt from disclosure and make efforts to the fullest extent possible to notify the person making the request and the subject of the records of that decision.

(B) If the subject of the records cannot be contacted in person or by telephone within the twenty-four hour period, the custodian shall send written notice via overnight mail to the subject of the records at his last known address. Either the custodian, requester, or the subject of the records may immediately seek an opinion from the Attorney General who, within three (3) working days of receipt of the request, shall issue an opinion stating whether the decision is consistent with this chapter. In the event of a review by the Attorney General, the custodian shall not disclose the records until the Attorney General has issued his opinion.


If that is still part of the current law, thats going to be a problem for the police chief.

I've read that it was not required by law that the notify them, but even though that was the case, the police department did give the family a heads up that the records were being released.

I believe (and I could be wrong) that what you are referring to is in regard to personal records (like a medical record), not a police report. No one from the Duggar family had previously asked for the report to be sealed or expunged.

Again though, I'm just a simple liberal maggot who gets spoon fed his news by partisan sources. I'm not an unbiased law expert like yourself.

Who the f**k is Lena Dunham?

(06-07-2015 04:48 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Who the f**k is Lena Dunham?

Be prepared to be grossed out.

(06-07-2015 04:01 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 03:42 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I'm trying to find the most current Arkansas FOIA law, but here is an exerpt that will be the most troubling for the police chief:

(3)(A) Upon receiving a request for the examination or copying of personnel or evaluation records, the custodian of the records shall, within twenty-four (24) hours of the receipt of the request, determine whether the records are exempt from disclosure and make efforts to the fullest extent possible to notify the person making the request and the subject of the records of that decision.

(B) If the subject of the records cannot be contacted in person or by telephone within the twenty-four hour period, the custodian shall send written notice via overnight mail to the subject of the records at his last known address. Either the custodian, requester, or the subject of the records may immediately seek an opinion from the Attorney General who, within three (3) working days of receipt of the request, shall issue an opinion stating whether the decision is consistent with this chapter. In the event of a review by the Attorney General, the custodian shall not disclose the records until the Attorney General has issued his opinion.


If that is still part of the current law, thats going to be a problem for the police chief.

I've read that it was not required by law that the notify them, but even though that was the case, the police department did give the family a heads up that the records were being released.

I believe (and I could be wrong) that what you are referring to is in regard to personal records (like a medical record), not a police report. No one from the Duggar family had previously asked for the report to be sealed or expunged.

Again though, I'm just a simple liberal maggot who gets spoon fed his news by partisan sources. I'm not an unbiased law expert like yourself.

No, the 'unbiased law expert' on these here boards is Tom in Lazybrook. Perhaps you two should get aquainted.

I feel like I'm watching Clinton ask the definition of is

(06-07-2015 02:33 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:06 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  So for those of us to lazy to look it up, who requested it?

The requestor was InTouch magazine.

The release was by the SpringDale Police Chief, who is stepping down at the end of this month.

She consulted with the Springdale attorney, who said it was legal because the person is no longer a minor. (Which is not right, a juvenile case does not cease to be a juvenile case when someone reaches adulthood.)

Washington county attorneys, the county where Springdale is located, says the report should not have been released and have started an investigation.

The police chief is stepping down.

The judge ordered the complete destruction of all documents to prevent further illegal release in the case.

It wouldn't seem to me like the police chief did anything wrong. She checked with the city attorney and possibly got some bad legal advise, but the Freedom of information Act is the law, so based on legal advise she got, she would have been in violation of the law had she not released it, would she not?

The law clearly states that juvenile records are not to be released. If you have a flakey city lawyer to tell you that its ok to do something the law clearly says not to do, I would run that past someone such as the state's attorney general. You are not shielded from prosecution just because you got bad advice from your lawyer.

In the case of children and children victims, you err on the side of the child. Not your ideology.

Duggar was a legal adult when the police report was filed. The names and even pronouns that could identify any of the victims were redacted from the police report.

For someone who likes to insult others for being "spoon fed talking points", you sure don't seem to know what the **** you are talking about.

This seems to be the crux of the argument. According to the linked Washington Post article, "The alleged crimes occurred in 2002 and 2003, but the police investigation did not occur until 2006. By that time, Josh Duggar was already an adult at age 18, so the state code covering the confidentiality of juvenile records would not apply to this case, legal experts have said."

Beyond any of that, I can not feel one bit of sympathy for an attention seeking reality-tv family whose personal life details become public. You chose to live a life of celebrity, to become household names, (I assume people actually watched their show) and now that something unsavory is associated with you, you blame the media for exposing your life to the public? Look elsewhere for sympathy.

[Of course I feel bad for the actual victims of inappropriate touching. Josh and his parents, however, are NOT victims.]

(06-08-2015 10:11 AM)ragincajun019 Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:33 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:06 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The requestor was InTouch magazine.

The release was by the SpringDale Police Chief, who is stepping down at the end of this month.

She consulted with the Springdale attorney, who said it was legal because the person is no longer a minor. (Which is not right, a juvenile case does not cease to be a juvenile case when someone reaches adulthood.)

Washington county attorneys, the county where Springdale is located, says the report should not have been released and have started an investigation.

The police chief is stepping down.

The judge ordered the complete destruction of all documents to prevent further illegal release in the case.

It wouldn't seem to me like the police chief did anything wrong. She checked with the city attorney and possibly got some bad legal advise, but the Freedom of information Act is the law, so based on legal advise she got, she would have been in violation of the law had she not released it, would she not?

The law clearly states that juvenile records are not to be released. If you have a flakey city lawyer to tell you that its ok to do something the law clearly says not to do, I would run that past someone such as the state's attorney general. You are not shielded from prosecution just because you got bad advice from your lawyer.

In the case of children and children victims, you err on the side of the child. Not your ideology.

Duggar was a legal adult when the police report was filed. The names and even pronouns that could identify any of the victims were redacted from the police report.

For someone who likes to insult others for being "spoon fed talking points", you sure don't seem to know what the **** you are talking about.

This seems to be the crux of the argument. According to the linked Washington Post article, "The alleged crimes occurred in 2002 and 2003, but the police investigation did not occur until 2006. By that time, Josh Duggar was already an adult at age 18, so the state code covering the confidentiality of juvenile records would not apply to this case, legal experts have said."

Beyond any of that, I can not feel one bit of sympathy for an attention seeking reality-tv family whose personal life details become public. You chose to live a life of celebrity, to become household names, (I assume people actually watched their show) and now that something unsavory is associated with you, you blame the media for exposing your life to the public? Look elsewhere for sympathy.

[Of course I feel bad for the actual victims of inappropriate touching. Josh and his parents, however, are NOT victims.]

The section of Arkansas code that deals with family law and release of information, which is the basis of the FOIA exemption, clearly states that no information may be released even after the juvenile turns 18. Also, there are other minors mentioned in those reports, which would also cause the report to be restricted from being released. This is family law. And the rules of release of family law material is extremely restricted, and completely exempted from FOIA.

Furthermore, there is due process in which should have been utilized. The state attorney general could have been requested to review the FOIA. In fact, the subject of the FOIA also has the right to request this. (Although it does not sound like proper notification was given to the subject. A "heads up" is not a proper notification. The subject has the right to get the AG involved.) So instead of relying on a city lawyer who cant read, they should know if its family law, you cant release it, but before you decide to break the law anyway, get the AG involved to clear your butt.

For those who have such blind hatred for the Duggars that they dont mind minor children and other victims being raped by the media, keep this in mind. Something stinks about this.

(06-08-2015 10:27 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 10:11 AM)ragincajun019 Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:33 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  It wouldn't seem to me like the police chief did anything wrong. She checked with the city attorney and possibly got some bad legal advise, but the Freedom of information Act is the law, so based on legal advise she got, she would have been in violation of the law had she not released it, would she not?

The law clearly states that juvenile records are not to be released. If you have a flakey city lawyer to tell you that its ok to do something the law clearly says not to do, I would run that past someone such as the state's attorney general. You are not shielded from prosecution just because you got bad advice from your lawyer.

In the case of children and children victims, you err on the side of the child. Not your ideology.

Duggar was a legal adult when the police report was filed. The names and even pronouns that could identify any of the victims were redacted from the police report.

For someone who likes to insult others for being "spoon fed talking points", you sure don't seem to know what the **** you are talking about.

This seems to be the crux of the argument. According to the linked Washington Post article, "The alleged crimes occurred in 2002 and 2003, but the police investigation did not occur until 2006. By that time, Josh Duggar was already an adult at age 18, so the state code covering the confidentiality of juvenile records would not apply to this case, legal experts have said."

Beyond any of that, I can not feel one bit of sympathy for an attention seeking reality-tv family whose personal life details become public. You chose to live a life of celebrity, to become household names, (I assume people actually watched their show) and now that something unsavory is associated with you, you blame the media for exposing your life to the public? Look elsewhere for sympathy.

[Of course I feel bad for the actual victims of inappropriate touching. Josh and his parents, however, are NOT victims.]

The section of Arkansas code that deals with family law and release of information, which is the basis of the FOIA exemption, clearly states that no information may be released even after the juvenile turns 18. Also, there are other minors mentioned in those reports, which would also cause the report to be restricted from being released. This is family law. And the rules of release of family law material is extremely restricted, and completely exempted from FOIA.

Furthermore, there is due process in which should have been utilized. The state attorney general could have been requested to review the FOIA. In fact, the subject of the FOIA also has the right to request this. (Although it does not sound like proper notification was given to the subject. A "heads up" is not a proper notification. The subject has the right to get the AG involved.) So instead of relying on a city lawyer who cant read, they should know if its family law, you cant release it, but before you decide to break the law anyway, get the AG involved to clear your butt.

For those who have such blind hatred for the Duggars that they dont mind minor children and other victims being raped by the media, keep this in mind. Something stinks about this.

I don't think it was about the report being released after he turned 18, but that the report didn't even begin to exist until after he was 18. Murky situation in my mind.

What is absolutely crystal clear, however, is the distinction between this person actually, physically touching these people in an inappropriate manner, and the "raping" others claim the media is committing.

While neither of these actions constitute the dictionary definition of "rape", one is millions of miles closer to the actual definition than the other. I'll give you a hint, it is the one that involves inappropriate touching of others' genitalia.