Ed Boks denied a request for public records for Chameleon records of cats seized from Ron Mason by LAAS/ACTF on October 9 and 11. He refused. However, CA Penal Code 597.1 requires the seizing/impounding agency to supply the owner with several documents on the day of impoundment, including a description of each animal and its location, as well as the reason for seizure, and a norice of his right for a postseizure hearing regarding whether the impoundment was proper and procedures for Mr. Mason to recover his animals.
A written request by Ron Mason is being mailed to Mr. Boks requesting the same information as below.
My Request this date to Ed Boks and others:
A request is being made subject to the California Public Records Act: Government Code §6250-6268.Under this statute you have 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of this request to respond as to whether you will release the records requested as detailed below. It is preferred your response be made in writing to either the street address or the email address below.
On October 30, 2007, Brad Jensen submitted a Request for Records under the California Public Records Act to Ed Boks, regarding all Chameleon information regarding animals seized from the premises of Ron Mason on October 9 and October 11 (Attached). The request was denied stating that information was part of an ongoing criminal investigation regarding possible violations of section 597(B) of the California Penal Code, therefore the department was “unable” to release it.
However, under California Penal Code 597.1, the impounding agency must:
(f) Whenever an officer authorized under this section seizes or impounds an animal based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall, prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings authorized by this section, provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both.
(1) The agency shall cause a notice to be affixed to a conspicuous place where the animal was situated or personally deliver a notice of the seizure or impoundment, or both, to the owner or keeper within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. The notice shall include all of the following:(A) The name, business address, and telephone number of the officer providing the notice. (B) A description of the animal seized, including any identification upon the animal.
(C) The authority and purpose for the seizure, or impoundment, including the time, place, and circumstances under which the animal was seized.(D) A statement that, in order to receive a postseizure hearing, the owner or person authorized to keep the animal, or his or her agent, shall request the hearing by signing and returning an enclosed declaration of ownership or right to keep the animal to the agency providing the notice within 10 days…The declaration may be returned by personal delivery or mail.(E) A statement that the cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under this section is a lien on the animal and that the animal shall not be returned to the owner until the charges are paid, and that failure to request or to attend a scheduled hearing shall result in liability for this cost.(2) The postseizure hearing shall be conducted within 48 hours of the request, excluding weekends and holidays. (l) It shall be the duty of all peace officers, humane society officers, and animal control officers to use all currently acceptable methods of identification, both electronic and otherwise, to determine the lawful owner or caretaker of any seized or impounded animal. It shall also be their duty to make reasonable efforts to notify the owner or caretaker of the whereabouts of the animal and any procedures available for the lawful recovery of the anima.
Therefore, under these provision of CPC 597.1, I request with regard to the seizure of 6 kittens on October 9, and 51 cats on October 11, taken from Mr. Mason copies of:
1. Notice of the seizure or impoundment, which would include
2. A description of the animal seized, including any identification upon the animal.3. A Statement of the authority and purpose for the seizure or impoundment, including the time, place, and circumstances under which the animal was seized.3. A statement that Mr. Mason had a right to request a postseizue hearing.
4. A copy of the declaration of ownership.
5. A statement that the cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under this section is a lien on the animal and that the animal shall not be returned to the owner until the charges are paid, and that failure to request or to attend a scheduled hearing shall result in liability for this cost.6. Any evidence that Animal services, the LAPD or the LAACTF made reasonable efforts to notify the owner or caretaker of the whereabouts of the animal and any procedures available for the lawful recovery of the anima.
Form of Information RequestedThe information requested may be electronically imaged and transferred to the email address above.Denial and RedactionShould you choose to deny this request, as required by law, please indicate the exact reason for denial and the person and title of the person who made such decision. Should information be redacted from the files, statute requires that you list for EACH record the reason for redaction and type of information redacted.FeesI am willing to pay reasonable copying fees, as defined under law, not to exceed $25.00. Should fees run higher, please contact me. Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me immediately.
Linda Barth, Ross Poole, William Bratton, Tony Lomedico, Don cocek, Dov Lesel, Rocky Delgadillo, Council
Write a request from Ron Mason. Have him sign it and send it in. They must give him those documents. They cannot refuse him
If these were dogs, they would still be alive.
Boks hates cats and should not have their lives in his hands.
Did Mason follow procedures and request a hearing within the alloted time? And is he prepared to show ownership of these cats with a progression of pictures, licenses, vet records, etc? It was his responsibility to request a hearing and does he have proof he did this? It is not at all unusual to deny talking about a case or provide records to the public on a case that is under investigation. By the way, seizure of an animal in your house does not prove ownership. The animal could be stolen, visiting, etc.
If seizure of an animal in your house does not prove ownership, then they can't charge Ron for not providing medical care because the fact that the cat was in his house doesn't prove he owned it.
Can't have it both ways.
Besides, they stole Ron's records. "Seizing" improperly, without adhering to the law is stealing, like it or not.
And how is Ron, a guy they admit has never been a criminal, supposed to know that he could request a hearing? From the lawyer they never gave him?
He HAD a hearing, on November 6th. The city attorneys just never bothered to show up, or even respond when the Court called them.
If you are a legitmate reader, please keep clear on the facts. If you are, as I suspect, a surrogate or a plant (named Troy or Ed or whatever) don't try to muddy the waters with misinformation. That may work on the City Council, but we actually care about animals, AND people who really take care of them.
Post a Comment