Coming up there is no information in one information release from the San Diego Police Department. As 12:20 PM and you are listen to KPBS Midday Edition. KPBS is supported by the Pfister family foundations This is KPBS Midday Edition I Maureen Cavanaugh. The shooting death of for duty Nehad is still the subject of controversy. Late last year San Diego District Attorney Bonnie to Manis held a news conference to release videos. There is still information that has not been released. Internal pleased documents and memos that have been requested by several media outlets including inewsource and KPBS. One of those documents was sent to the investigative reporter at inewsource this week but it did not shed must light. Right off the bat Chris tell us what the memo you got looks like? Completely blacked out. That was really not much information here at all from the subject line to the very end of the document. It was just completely redacted. It's just a one and half page memo. The city told me that these are meeting notes from a meeting that involved San Diego police Captain David Ms. let and -- I should note that he is in charge of overseeing homicide investigations for the Police Department. There is very little information in this document. Just line after line of things blacked out. Yes. Why did you want this document? The reason why I wanted this document is -- I filed this record request back in January. I had asked for all communications involving San Diego police Captain David Nisleit and the Nehad shooting specifically within the date range of December 16 and December 23. The reason why I requested the states -- those dates are significant because they cover the day the federal judge ruled that the video could be released through the day after District Attorney Bonnie to Manis held her news conference making the video public. The only thing that we know from what we actually got in this document from the city is that the memo was sent hours after the judge ruled that the video could be made public. What did the police say about why the men memo was completely redacted? The city said that releasing the memo without reductions would discourage police officials from speaking candidly during meetings and that it would also undermine the Department's ability to protect the public. But I spoke to a man named Peter Scheer is an attorney with the First Amendment Coalition and that group focuses on free speech and opening government and he said he was skeptical about the reductions. He basically said that the city didn't exactly point to anything specific in its reasoning that could cause harm if they released the document without the reductions. Piece of the city could have very easily released to those notes. You have a clip from him. Yes. When suspicions become raise and questions are asked which can be completely [ Indiscernible ] if they just release it. So why not release it. I suppose one possible excuses because there is something in there that might be embarrassing. Chris, can you remind us briefly about the background of this story? Why is there controversy surrounding the shooting death of Mr. Nahant. This goes back to last April and that is when Nehad was shot in a Midway District alley late at night. Officer Neal Browder had responded to the reports saying that Nehad wasn't threatening people with a knife. So the officer showed up at the scene and shortly after getting there had gone out of his car and shot Nehad as he was walking slowly toward the officer. It appeared to almost come to a stop when that -- when he was shot. The shooting was caught by a surveillance camera that was nearby the scene. Bonnie Dumanis the district attorney in November had concluded that the shooting was justified and they decided not to press charges against the officer but the Nehad family has filed a federal lawsuit a wrongful death lawsuit against the city's police department. But when the video was eventually released in December, it raised some doubts when people look at it that Nehad actually pose a serious threat to the officer. That is the crux of why this was controversial. You've told us that you have these requests in to the San Diego Police Department for documents saying of course he received that redacted document. We look forward to finding more about this case? As I mentioned the family of Nehad had filed this federal wrongful death lawsuit against the city police department that is still in the process of working its way through. They are going through discovery now. Eventually a lot to be learned down the road about what happened that night and even more from -- azygos forward. I've been speaking with Chris Young reporter with inewsource. Thank you so much.
The meeting notes are time-stamped 7:24 p.m., hours after a federal judge ruled that the family of a man fatally shot by a San Diego police officer in April could release surveillance video of the shooting.
They were sent by San Diego police Capt. David Nisleit to himself. And that’s all the city says the public has the right to know.
The rest of the 1½-page memo — including the subject line — is blacked out. The city disclosed the document in response to a California Public Records Act request filed by inewsource in January.
inewsource asked for all communications from Dec. 16 through Dec. 23 involving Nisleit and the shooting of Fridoon Nehad, who was killed by San Diego police Officer Neal Browder in a Midway District alley. Nisleit oversees the Police Department’s homicide investigations.
The dates were significant. They covered the day U.S. District Judge William Hayes ruled that Nehad’s family could release footage of the shooting and continued through the day after a news conference by San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, during which she released the video and other information about the shooting.
Several news organizations, including inewsource and KPBS, had filed the motion that led to the judge saying the family could make the video public.
The city identified one document, which included meeting notes, in response to the records request. But it was redacted, the city said, because otherwise the notes would “discourage candid discussion” among police officials and jeopardize the Police Department’s ability to protect the public.
“I’m always troubled when police withhold records … when they don’t have to,” said Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a California-based nonprofit group that focuses on free speech and open government.
Scheer said the city cited a broad, catch-all legal exemption that government agencies commonly use to withhold documents. He said the city’s decision to redact the notes was discretionary.
The shooting has attracted much media scrutiny because it turned out that Nehad was unarmed the night he was killed, though reports to police before the shooting said he had a knife. The surveillance video also raised doubts that the 42-year-old man posed a threat to the officer.
In November, Dumanis concluded that the shooting was justified. But Nehad’s family is suing the Police Department in a federal wrongful death lawsuit.
In its records request, inewsource asked the city to find documents using specific search terms, including the names of Browder, Dumanis and Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman. The nonprofit news organization made a similar request to the District Attorney’s Office for the communications of Fiona Khalil, the deputy district attorney who handled the shooting investigation. The DA’s Office said no relevant records were found.
Before the judge’s ruling, the district attorney strongly opposed making the video public. After the judge’s ruling, Dumanis pre-empted the family’s release of the video at her news conference on Dec. 22, during which she showed reporters the video and other selected evidence.
Dumanis did not release Browder’s statement about what happened the night of the shooting. The day after the news conference, the attorney for Nehad’s family made public a report showing two conflicting statements Browder made during interviews with police.
In the first interview, Browder said he didn’t notice that Nehad was carrying a weapon. In the second interview, the officer said he saw a metal object that he believed to be a knife.
It later turned out to be a pen.
The city released the meeting notes to inewsource on March 7, but with the extensive redactions. The only parts not blacked out are the date, time and Nisleit’s name. (The name of a police official who handles records requests is also listed at the top of the document.)
In a statement explaining the redactions, Lea Fields-Bernard, the city’s Public Records Act request coordinator, wrote that the Police Department decided that “nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the meeting notes.”
“These meetings are not open to the public and allow the heads of the department to converse in open dialogue regarding key issues,” Field-Bernard continued.
Scheer, of the First Amendment Coalition, said the city did not argue that releasing the memo without redactions would cause specific harm or compromise privacy.
He added that it’s possible the notes could show the police were acting responsibly, in a way that could improve police-community relations. For example, he said the police could have been preparing for civil unrest in anticipation of the release of the surveillance video.
“You have to pause and say, well, given all that and the fact that the law allows them to release it, why wouldn’t they?” Scheer said. “I suppose one possible answer is because there’s something in there that might be embarrassing, there’s something in there that might be not so helpful to community relations.”
A spokeswoman for the Police Department declined to comment for this story. An attorney representing Nehad’s family did not respond to a request for comment.
