tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37431669.post1087235431500028720..comments2008-07-15T23:09:36.308-04:00Patti Ewaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11118539617989280234noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37431669.post-67913280115987420322008-07-15T19:35:00.000-04:002008-07-15T19:35:00.000-04:00Yeah, the cops around here keep a tight leash on the info as well. It's all got to come from their public information officer, who often finds time to type up a press release after the story is no longer news. <BR/>We've been having to make frequent public-records requests for the initial reports, which, by our laws, are public. Now they quibble over what information is in the initial report. <BR/>Basically, cops are too afraid of losing their jobs or getting at least a good chewing out if they release something they shouldn't. So you have to keep hammering them with the public-records requests.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37431669.post-64631916497699395542008-06-16T14:35:00.000-04:002008-06-16T14:35:00.000-04:00Sounds like the sheriff's office personnel have some control issues with releasing public information.<BR/><BR/>I'm recalling the Chronicle's excellent past reporting on how the office improperly redacted information from reports and didn't release others as required.<BR/><BR/>On the flip side, I can understand an inexperienced dispatcher refusing to answer questions if they haven't been explicitly told they can do so. They don't want to lose their jobs by disclosing stuff that shouldn't be disclosed.<BR/><BR/>Sounds like the top sheriff's officers need to do some wholesale training on how to work with the media.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com