SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

GEORGE AND ELEEN FRANCIS
PIa in ti ff/Peti tion er, - against Index No.

NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
DefendantlRespondent. -----------------------------------------------------------------x

(S

3bi1 /I--O/J-.

NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION SUBJECT TO MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the matter captioned above, which has been commenced by filing of the accornpanyi ng documents wi th the COUllty Clerk, is sub] ect to mandatory electron ic fi ling pursuant to Secti on 202. 5-bb of the Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts. This notice is being served as required by Subdivision (b) (3) of that Section. The New York State Courts Electronic Filing System ("NYSCEF") is designed for the electronic filing of documents with the County Clerk and the court and for the electronic service of those documents, court documents, and court notices upon counsel and self-represented parties. Counsel andlor parties who do not notify the court of a claimed exemption (see below) as required by Section 202.5-bb(e) must immediately record their representation within the e-filed matter on the Consent page in NYSCEF. Failure to do so may result in an inability to receive electronic notice of document filings. Exemptions from mandatory e-filing are limited [0:1) attorneys who certifyin good faith that they lack the computer equipment and (along with all employees) the requisite knowledge to comply; and 2) self-represented parties who choose not to participate in e-filing. For additional information about electronic filing, including access to Section 202.5-bb, consult [he NYSCEF website at www.nycourts.gov/efilc or contact the NYSCEF Resource Center at 646386-3033 or efile@courrs.state.ny.us.

350 BROADWAY,

SUITE 701

(Address)

NEW YORK, NY 10013

F::=:=::::::::::::=::::::::=:::==:::::=:=:=:=:=::::::::===\(Name)
~,AW,"FIRM OF RANKIN & I..~_A_Y_L_O_R
--'n

I(Firm Name)

212-226-4507

.===r===========t(Phone)
v.

I~;Cl~ @.._ ORr-f"L.a 4&~<lil)

To:

cj6

fJyC- .L...aw

C>ef~ff-Afeh.~

[00

ck

\J J""~

~fc-<..-r

gJYJNY

troD?

4/Hll

J

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

GEORGE FRANCIS and ELEEN FRANCIS,

--------------------------------------------------x

PETITIONERS, -against-

Index Number

/53 b11j?oJ h

NOTICE OF PETITION ]JURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 78 NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, RESPONDENT.

--------------------------------------------------x
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the annexed Verified Petition of George and Eleen Francis dated June 14,2012, together with the Affirmation of Steve Vaccaro, dated June 14,2012, with attached exhibits, Petitioners will move this Court, at 9:30 AM on the 5th of July, 2012, at the Courthouse located at 60 Centre Street, New York, New York, in the Motion Support Courtroom, Room 13 0, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for an order and judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78 for the relief demanded in the Petition.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to CPLR 7804, Respondent's answer and supporting affidavits, if any, are required to be served upon the undersigned by July 2, 2012, and Petitioner's reply and supporting affidavits, if any, will be served on July 5, 2012.

Dated: New York, NY June 14,2012

Rankin & Taylor 350 Broadway Suite 700 New York, NY 10013 212-226-4507 Counsel/or Petitioners George & Eleen Francis To: New York Police Department One Police Plaza New York, NY 10038

2

SUPREME COURT OF THE STA IE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------)(
GEORGE AND ELEEN FRANCIS, PETITIONERS, -againstIndex Number NEW YORK CITY POLlCE OEP ARTMENT, RESPONDENT. VERIFIED PETITION PURUSANTTO CPLR ARTICLE 78

153 b q 1 /;;"Ol?--

--------------------------------------------------)(

Steve Vaccaro Of Counsel Rankin & Taylor 350 Broadway, Suite 700 New York, NY 10013 212-226-4507

Counsel for Petitioners George & Eleen Francis

Summary 1. Petitioners George and Eleen Francis seek an order directing disclosure of

public records concerning the death of their daughter Shereese Francis by the Respondent New York City Police Department, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL"), New York Public Officers Law Section 84, et seq. 2. On March 15,2012, Shereese Francis died in her home while in the

custody of four NYPD officers, who had been summoned to assist her to the hospital. The four officers chased Francis from her bedroom to her mother's, and handcuffed her face down on her mother's bed while pressing their weight on her back. Shereese Francis went into cardiac arrest and died as a result. 3. On April 2, 2012, NYPD leaked extensive personal information

concerning Shereese Francis' death to the Wall Street Journal in a self-serving attempt to exonerate itself from liability for her death. Yet NYPD has refused to disclose the records containing the leaked information to Petitioners pursuant to their FOIL request. NYPD has provided more information about Shereese's death to the press, than to Shereese's parents. 4. Having publicly disclosed the contents of records sought by Petitioners,

NYPD cannot refuse Petitioners' request for those same records, based on boilerplate excuses about needing time to determine whether they can be publicly disclosed. 5. Petitioners therefore respectfully request this Court to order the NYPD to

disclose the documents containing the leaked information to the Francises, and to pay the Francises' attorneys fees incurred in being forced to litigate their FOIL request.

2

Background 6. The Death of Shereese Francis. This proceeding arises from the

Francises' March 21,2012 FOIL request (the "Request") seeking disclosure of records concerning the death of Shereese Francis. See Letter from Steve Vaccaro to NYPD Legal Bureau (Mar. 21, 2012), attached as Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Steve Vaccaro, filed herewith. 7. Shereese Francis died in her home on March 15,2012. Francis was in

emotional crisis at the time due to mental illness, and her sister summoned an ambulance to her home to transport her to the hospital. 8. Four NYPD officers responded to the call before the arrival of the

ambulance. The officers provoked a confrontation with Shereese Francis. They chased Shereese to her mother's room, maneuvered her onto her mother's bed. and while holding her face-down on the bed with their combined weight, the four officers handcuffed her behind her back. Francis lost consciousness about 15 minutes after the officers entered the Francis home. 9. After handcuffing her, the officers realized that Shereese Francis was

dead. Emergency medical technicians finally arrived and spent more than an hour attempting to revive her. When Shereese Francis was finally transported to the hospital, doctors told her family member that she had suffered cardiac arrest 90 minutes before her arrival at the hospital. 10. Officers from the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau ("lAB") arrived at the

Francis home even before Shereese Francis was taken to the hospital. The lAB officers

3

conducted tape-recorded interviews of Shere ese's mother and sister. During those interviews, Shereese's family members candidly shared details concerning Shereese's medical and mental health history, her behavior, and other facts known only within the Francis family. 11. Among the details shared by the Francises with the lAB officers and

recorded on the lAB tape-recorders -

were Shereese's diagnosis with schizophrenia, that

she was not taking medications prescribed for that disease, that she had argued with her mother on the evening of March 15 hours before she died, and that during the argument Shereese had pulled on her mother's hair. See Vaccaro Aff. Ex. B, (Affidavit ofShauna Francis) ~~ 6-7; Vaccaro Aff. Ex. C. (Affidavit of Eleen Francis ~~ 6-7). 12. Petitioners' FOIL Request and NYPD's Failure to Disclose. Six days after

her death, on March 21, 2012, the Francises made their Request to obtain records from the NYPD concerning Shereese's death. Vaccaro Aff. Ex. A. 13. The Request was framed broadly, seeking seven different categories of

records relating to, inter alia, Shereese Francis' death, the presence ofNYPD personnel at the Francis home on March 15,2012, and NYPD's investigation ofthe events of March 15. See id. 14. By letter dated March 23, 2012. NYPD responded to the request. See

Vaccaro Aff. Ex. 0 (Letter from Lt. Richard Mantellino to Steve Vaccaro (Mar. 23, 2012)). 15. NYPD stated that no records would be produced at that time, and advised

that a delay of20 business days (approximately one month) would be necessary before it

4

would determine whether any records would be produced. See id. This delay was necessary, NYPD advised, to determine "whether the records [sought by the Francises] could be located," and to "assess the potential applicability of exemptions set forth in FOIL." Id. 16. NYPD's Publication of Responsive Information. Nine days later, on April

2,2012, a news report appeared on the Wall Street Journal website, WSJ.com. See Vaccaro Aff. Ex. E (Sean Gardiner, "Family Sues Police in Death of Daughter" (Apr. 2, 2012, 10:25 p.m. ET). available at http://online.wsj.com/artic1e/ SBI0001424052702303816504577320233003422506.html 17. (accessed June 14,2012)).

The article stated that on the evening of March 15, Shereese Francis Id. The

"hadn't taken her medicines since early November and was acting irrationally."

statements were attributed to an unnamed "law enforcement official with knowledge of the incident." Id. 18. Based on information from this unnamed source. the article reported

numerous additional details concerning events at the Francis home on the evening of March 15, including the facts that Shereese Francis had argued with her mother that evening, and that she had pulled on her mother's hair. See id. 19. None of the details reported in the Gardiner article concerning events at

the Francis home prior to the arrival of the police on March 15 were known to anyone other than Shereese's mother (Petitioner Eleen Francis) and Shereese's sister (Shauna Francis), except insofar as Eleen and Shauna Francis reported those details to lAB and other NYPD officers. See Vaccaro Aff. Ex. B, Affidavit of Shauna Francis ~~ 6 and 7

5

(facts in Wall Street Journal article known only Francis family members and NYPD officials prior to April 2, 2012); Vaccaro Aff. Ex. C, Affidavit of Eleen Francis ~~ 6 and 7 (same). 20. The Gardiner article also reported on purported statements made by

parademics during interviews with police officials, regarding the moments prior to Shereese's death. See Vaccaro Aff. Ex. E. 21. The unnamed police source also provided the Wall Street Journal with

details concerning a Jamaica Hospital physican's examination of Shereese Francis after she died confidential medical information that has not even been shared witlt See id. I

Shereese 's parents. 22.

Petitioners' First Administrative Appeal. On April 3,2012, Petitioners

took an administrative appeal from Lt. Mantellino's March 23, 2012 statement that a minimum of a month's delay was necessary to determine whether records responsive to the Request could be located, and whether any such records were exempt from public disclosure. See Vaccaro Aff. Ex. F (Letter from Steve Vaccaro to Lt. Jonathan David

(Apr. 3, 2012)). 23. Petitioners' administrative appeal argued that NYPD had violated Public

Officer's Law Section 89(3)(a), by imposing a delay on disclosure that was demonstrably unreasonable under the circumstances: The Department's March 23 response violates Public Officers Law Section 89(3)(a), because it states the Department will take 20
The Francises submitted a written request for medical records concerning their daughter to Jamaica Hospital, but the request was refused because the Francises had not at that time been appointed administrators of the late daughter's estate.

6

business days to determine the Request, and this delay is not reasonable under the circumstances. The relevant circumstance is that the NYPD has provided extensive, detailed information concerning the death of Shereese Francis, including confidential information concerning her medical treatment, to the Wall Street Journal. .... Clearly, NYPD possesses information within the scope of the Request that it "as seen fit to make public. The Francises are entitled to that information pursuant to the Request. Vaccaro Aff., Ex. F (emphasis added). 24. By letter dated April 18, 2012, Jonathan David of the NYPD denied

Petitioners' administrative appeal. Vaccaro AfT., Ex. G. Mr. David's letter failed to address the issue raised in Petitioners' administrative appeal of the "reasonableness of the circumstances" ofNYPD's delay under Section 89(3)(a), in light of the NYPD's leak of

information from the records sought to the Wall Street Journal 16 days earlier. See id. 25. By letter dated April 27,2012, NYPD Lt. Richard Mantellino advised presumably,

Petitioners that certain records concerning the death of She reese Francis those containing the information leaked to the Wall Street Journal -

had been identified,

but would not be disclosed because their disclosure would "interfere with the ongoing investigation" and were thus exempt under Public Officers Law:

[AJ memorandum, a handwritten note, police activity log (memo
book) entries, audio statements and radio communications have been located. Because the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau is conducting an internal police investigation, POL §§ 87(2)(e)(i) and (ii) bar the release of these records as release would interfere with the ongoing investigation." Vaccaro AfT. Ex. _, at 1-2. See Vaccaro Aff., Ex. H (Letter from Lt. Richard Mantellino to Steve Vaccaro (Apr. 27,

7

2012)).2 26. Lt. Mantellino's April 27 letter determining Petitioners' administrative

appeal did not address Petitioners' argument that records containing information already made public cannot be withheld on grounds of exemption. See Vaccaro Aff. Ex. H. 27. Petitioners' Second Administrative Appeal. On May 25, 2012, Petitioners

took an administrative appeal from the April 27, 2012 denial of their FOIL Request, insofar as NYPD relied upon the exemptions under Public Officers Law Sections 87(2)(e)(i) and (ii) to deny disclosure of records already made public. See Vaccaro Aff. Ex. I (Letter from Steve Vaccaro to Jonathan David (May 25,2012)). 28. In their appeal, Petitioners argued that those exemptions could not apply to

the records containing the information leaked to the Wall Street Journal, because the disclosure to Petitioners of information already widely disseminated to the general public cannot interfere with an investigation. 29. See id.

By letter dated June 13,2012, Jonathan David of the NYPD denied

Petitioner's May 25,2012 administrative appeal from the April 27, 2012 denial of their FOIL Request. See Vaccaro Aff. Ex. J (Letter from Jonathan David to Steve Vaccaro (June 13,2012)). 30. In his June 13 letter, Mr. David did not deny that NYPD shared

information concerning the death of She reese Francis with the Wall Street Journal. 31. Mr. David concluded, however, that because the Wall Street Journal

The April 27 letter also stated that certain records responsive to the Request would be disclosed upon payment of copying fees and/or on the condition that Petitioners provide a release authorizing NYPD to disclose to them certain records containing confidential medical information. Petitioners have paid those copying fees and provided the requested authorization, but have not yet received those records.

8

article does not expressly state that NYPD made copies of the requested records available to the newspaper, that the disclosure "has no bearing" on the question of whether an exemption applies: Since the Wall Street Journal article that you mention and have attached to your earlier letter dated April 3, 20123 does not provide an indication that any copes of the requested records were made available to that newspaper, it has no bearing on the question whether the records you requested have previously been disclosed to the public so as to effect a waiver of the exemptions. 32. Petitioners now bring this instant Article 78 petition to address NYPD's

continued reliance upon the exemptions under Public Officers Law Sections 87(2)(e)(i) and (ii) to deny disclosure.

Jurisdiction and Venue 33. This proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice

Law and Rules is the proper mechanism for seeking judicial review ofa municipal agency's failure to properly respond to a FOIL request. N.Y. Pub. Off. L. § 89(4)(b). Petitioners have exhausted NYPD's internal appeals process, and the instant petition has been filed within the four month period thereafter as specified in Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 217( 1). 34. The decision by the NYPD to unreasonably delay its response to the

Request and to deny disclosure of records was made at One Police Plaza in New York County, which also serves as NYPD's principal place of business. Venue is therefore proper in this Court. N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 7804(a), 506(b).

9

Basis for Relief 35. "The Freedom of Information Law [New York Public Officers Law

Section 84, et seq.] expresses this State's strong commitment to open government and public accountability and imposes a broad standard of disclosure upon the State and its agencies." Matter of Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 N. Y.2d 562, 565 1986). 36. The FOIL not only "affords the public the means to attain information

concerning the day-to-day functioning of State government," but also assists "in exposing waste, negligence and abuses on the part of government". Matter of Fink v. Lefkowitz,

47 N.Y.2d 567, 571,419 N.Y.S.2d 467, 470 (1979); see also Burns, 67 N.Y.2d at 565, 505 N.Y.S.2d at 578 (same). 37. To further these goals, the FOIL provides that all records kept by a public

agency are presumptively open to public inspection and copying unless specifically exempted. New York Civil Liberties Union v. City of Schenectady, 2 N.Y.3d 657, 661, 781 N.Y.S.2d 267, 270 (2004). 38. The definition of "records" subject to FOIL includes "any information

kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for an agency." N.Y. Pub. Off. § 86(4). "Significantly, this 'very broad definition' is not limited by the purpose for which a document was originated or the function to which it relates." Encore College Bookstores, Inc. v. Auxiliary Service Corp. of State University of New York at Farmingdale, 87 N.Y.2d 410, 417, 639 N.Y.S.2d 990, 993 (1995) (quoting Matter of Washington Post Co. v. New York State Ins. Dep't, 61 N.Y.2d 557, 564,475 N.Y.S.2d 263, 265 (1984».

10

I.

NYPD's Initial Month-Long Delay Was Not Reasonable Under the Circumstances.
Law provides:

39.

The Freedom ofInformation

Each entity subject to the provisions of this article, within five business days of the receipt of a written request for a record reasonably described, shall make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in writing or furnish a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of tire request, when such request will be granted or denied .... Pub. Off. L. § 89(3)(a) (emphasis added). 40. In this case, NYPD acknowledged petitioners' FOIL Request in writing,

and stated that it would determine how to respond to the request within 20 business days. Vaccaro Aff. Ex. D. NYPD cited two reasons for the delay: (a) time needed to locate documents responsive to Petitioners Request; and (b) time needed to determine whether any responsive documents located were exempt from public disclosure. 41. Id.

This 20 business day (one calendar month) delay imposed by NYPD was Petitioners sought information concerning the As NYPD later

unreasonable under the circumstances.

death of their daughter, who died in police custody on March 15.2012.

stated, the NYPD lAB was conducting an investigation concerning her death. Clearly the lAB knew where the records concerning the case they were investigating were located. 42. Moreover. NYPD disclosed information from the records requested to the in the middle of the one-month

Wall Street Journal on April 2 (Vaccaro Aff. Ex. E) -

period that NYPD claimed it needed time to locate the documents in question, and determine whether they were exempt from public disclosure.

11

43.

These records are clearly within the scope of Petitioners' FOIL request,

and at the fingertips of NY PO officials, who supplied them to the Wall Street Journal. Any claim that the records on which the Gardiner article was based have not been located is not worthy of belief.

II.

No FOIL Exemption Applies to Records Already Disseminated to the Public.

44.

The Gardiner article demonstrates that NYPO possesses and has

publicized records of interviews of police officers and EMT technicians who were present in the Francis home at the time Shereese Francis died, records of interviews of physicians who examined Shereese Francis after she died, and records interviews of Shereese's mother and sister. Eleen and Shauna Francis. 45. Having publicized the contents of these records in the mainstream media,

NYPD cannot claim they are subject to an exemption. 46. Public Officers Law Sections 87(2)(e) provides, inter alia, that records

may be exempt from disclosure under FOIL if disclosure would interfere with a law enforcement investigation, or would compromise any person's right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication. 47. Neither of these rationales would apply to prevent disclosure of the

records containing the information leaked to the Wall Street Journal by NYPD. Because the information has already been made public, its further disclosure to Petitioners cannot interfere with or compromise any law enforcement or adjudicative activity, and the exemptions have been waived.

12

48.

NYPD appears to argue that, in the absence of an explicit reference to the

sharing of records by NYPD in the Wall Street Journal article, Petitioners cannot establish that NYPD in fact shared the records, or at least information from the records, with the Wall Street Journal. Vaccaro Aff., Ex. J, at 1-2. That argument is incorrect and disingenuous. 49. The Wall Street Journal article itself states the information it reports was

provided by NYPD. See id. Moreover, as set forth in the accompanying affidavits of Eleen and Shauna Francis, that information was known only to the Francises and to NYPD, and was not shared by the Francises with the Wall Street Journal or any other person or entity. See Vaccaro Aff. Exs B, C. 50. Regardless of whether NYPD shared confidential information concerning

Shereese Francis' death and medical condition with the Wall Street Journal orally or via copies of records, NYPD does not deny that the ill/ormation was shared. To the extent of that sharing, NYPD has waived any claimed exemption, and the records containing the shared information must be disclosed.

Where/ore, Petitioners respectfully request the court to enter an order (a)
declaring that Respondent NYPD's 20 business day in determining Petitioners' request was unreasonable under the circumstances; (b) directing Respondent NYPD to produce those records within the scope of Petitioners Freedom of Information Law request that contain the information published in the Wall Street Journal article attached to the Affirmation of Steve Vaccaro as Exhibit E; (c) awarding Petitioners their reasonable attorneys fees and expenses incurred in bringing this proceeding; and (d) granting such

13

other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: New ~rk, NY Junel-T,2012

Rankin & Taylor 350 Broadway, Suite 700 New York, NY 100] 3 212-226-4507 Counselfor Petitioners George & Eleen Francis

14

ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION I, Steve Vaccaro, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of New York, affirm the following to be true under the penalties of perjury per N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. R. §§ 3021, 3020(d)(3): 1) 2) I am the attorney of record for the Petitioners, Geroge Francis and Eleen Francis. read the annexed Petition and know the contents thereof, and the same are true to my knowledge, except as to those matters asserted based upon information and belief as to which matters I believe them to be true.

r have

This verification is made by me because Plaintiff does not reside in the County where I maintain my offices.

Dated:

New Ybork,NY June~, 2012 Steve Vaccaro

15

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

GEORGE FRANCIS and ELEEN FRANCIS,

--------------------------------------------------)(

PETITIONERS,

Index Number
-against-

153 b '1'1/)D I L

NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, RESPONDENT.

AFFIRMATION OF STEVE VACCARO

--------------------------------------------------X
Steve Vaccaro, a member of the Bar of the State of New York, hereby affirms under penalties of perjury: 1. I am Of Counsel to the Law Office of Rankin & Tay lor. I submit this

affidavit in support of the Verified Petition of George Francis and Eleen Francis in this matter, filed herewith. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of a letter I sent

to the FOIL Unit of the Legal Bureau of the New York City Police Department, dated March 21, 2011 . 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of the June 12,

20 I2 Affidavit of Shauna Francis. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and accurate copy of the June 12,

2012 Affidavit of Eleen Francis ..

5.

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and accurate copy of the March 23,

2012 letter of Lt. Richard Mantellino of the NYPD FOIL Unit, responding to Petitioners' March 21, 2012 FOIL request. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and accurate copy of Sean Gardiner,

"Family Sues Police in Death of Daughter" (Apr. 2, 2012. 10:25 p.m. ET), available at http://online.wsj.comlarticle/SB1 (accessed June 14, 20] 2). 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and accurate copy of my April 3, 000 1424052702303816504577320233003422506.html

2012 letter to Jonathan David, NYPD Records Access Appeals Officer, with attachments, taking an administrative appeal from the March 23, 2012 letter of Lt. Richard Mantellino. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and accurate copy of a letter from

Jonathan David of the NYPD dated April 18,2012, denying Petitioners' April 3,2012 administrative appeal. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and accurate copy of a letter from

Lt. Richard Mantellino of the NYPD FOIL Unit, dated April 27, 2012, responding to Petitioners' April 3,2012 FOIL request. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and accurate copy of my May 25,

2012 letter to Jonathan David, NYPD Records Access Appeals Officer, with attachments, taking an administrative appeal from the April 27, 20 12 letter of Lt. Richard Mantellino. I]. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and accurate copy of a letter from

Jonathan David of the NYPD dated June 13,2012, denying Petitioners' May 25,2012 administrative appeal.

2

I swear under penalties of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: New \)t'rk, NY June~, 2012

Rankin & Taylor 350 Broadway, Suite 700 New York, NY 10013 212-226-4507 Counsel for Petitioners George & Eleen Francis

3

Exhibit A

Rankin & Taylor
Attorneys at Law
350 Broadway, Suite 701 New York, NY 10013 Steve@DRMTLaw.com Phone: 212-226-4507 Fax: 212-658-9480

DELIVERED BY HAND March 21, 2012 Police Department Legal Bureau F.O.I.L. Unit, Room 110e One Police Plaza New York, NY 10038-1497
Request for Records Pursuant to FOIL

Dear Records Access Officer: This letter constitutes the request of George and Eleen Francis ("The Francises") upon the New York City Police Department, under the provisions of the New York Freedom of Information Law, Article 6 of the Public Officers Law, for disclosure of certain records concerning the death of their daughter, Shereese Francis. Shereese Francis died on March 15,2012, at her home located at 132-33 l54th Street in Jamaica, while in the presence of Police Department personnel. I am the attorney for the Francises. The Francises request disclosure of any record described below that is or once was in the possession, custody or control of the Police Department, or any precinct, unit bureau or subdivision thereof: I. Any Complaint Follow-Up Informational Reports and DD-5 forms, including any attachments to such reports or forms, concerning the presence of police officers at 132-33 154th Street on March 15, 2012 or to the death of Shereese Francis; 2. Any activity log or memo book entry concerning, referencing or pertaining to the presence of police officers at 132-33 154th Street on March 15,2012 or to the death of Shereese Francis; 3. Any Complaint, Omniform Complaint report, aided report, Finest Message Switching System report, UF61 report, 684 form, follow-up control sheet, or other memorandum or report concerning, referencing or pertaining to the presence of police officers at 132-33 154th Street on March 15,2012 or to the death of Shereese Francis;

NYPD FOIL Unit

-2-

March 21, 2012

4. Any documents or received from or sent to the Chief Medical Examiner by the Police Department documents concerning or relating to the death of Shereese Francis; 5. Any electronic data, audio or video recordings, or transcripts of any audio or video recordings or communications concerning or relating to the presence of police officers at 132-33 154th Street on March 15,2012 or to the death of She reese Francis, including without limitation any 911 Sprint print outs, taser port data or recorded witness statement; 6. Any record concerning, referencing, or pertaining to the presence of police officers at 132-33 154th Street on March IS, 2012 or to the death of Shereese Francis;and 7. Any record concerning any criminal charges brought or that may be brought, or that were considered, in connection with the presence of police officers at 132-33 154th Street on March 15,2012 or with the death of She reese Francis. The Francises have been in contact with Detective Mark E. Dennis of the Internal Affairs Bureau Group 54, who we understand is investigating Shereese Francis's death. The Francises have no intention to interfere with that investigation, but they urgently seek maximum disclosure of records relating to their daughter's death as required by the Freedom ofInformation Law. As you know, the existence of an ongoing law enforcement investigation provides no basis for withholding records unless it shown that the disclosure of the records would interfere with that investigation. Some portions of records responsive to this request may be exempt from disclosure under FOIL. Such records must be produced with the exempt material redacted, and the redactions drawn as narrowly as possible to provide maximum disclosure. Any records redacted or withheld on grounds of exemption must be justified by reference to the specific exemptions relied upon by the Department. Please respond to this request no later than the five days permitted. We agree to pay $0.25 per page for each page of records produced in response to this request, and any other reasonable production costs permitted under the FOIL. To the extent any records are disclosed, please produce them with a certification of accuracy pursuant to 43 RCNY Section 1-03(e). To the extent any records responsive to this request have been destroyed or otherwise disposed of, please describe such records in writing with reasonable particularity pursuant to 43 RCNY Section 1-05(c) (4). Thank you for your cooperation, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. ... ~

~;'caro~~

~!::I

Exhibit B

SUPREME COUNTY

COURT OF NEW

OF THE YORK

STATE

OF NEW

YORK

GEORGE

AND ELEEN

FRANCIS, Index No.

Petitioners,
-v-

------------------

NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEP AR TMENT, Respondent.

Affidavit of Shauna Francis

State of County of

Nl

r.

~e_rn~

) ) ss.: )

Shuana Francis affirms under penalty of perjury that the following is true:
1.

I reside at 132-33 154th Street, Jamaica, New York. I am the sister of the late Shereese Francis. On the evening of March 15,20012, Shereese Francis died at her home while in

2. 3.

the custody of four NYPD officers who had been summoned to assist her to the hospital. 4. Before Sheerese was taken to the hospital, officers from the NYPD Internal

Affairs Bureau ("lAB") arrived at our home. 5. Eleen. 6. mental illness. During those interviews, I told the officers that Shereese had been diagnosed with The lAB officers conducted tape-recorded interviews of me and my mother,

7.

I told the officers that Shereese had not been taking her medications that evening.

I did not tell that to anyone else prior to April 3,2012.

Sworn to before me on

a01..~' ~~k~_
2012
" ''''''''Sllon

!._

MICHAEL EVAN AUERBACH NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YOIlK NO.02AU6251946 _ Q_ualltled In ICing. COunfy £XpJre.November 21', 201,

Exhibit C

SUPREME COUNTY

COURT OF NEW

OF THE YORK

STATE

OF NEW

YORK

GEORGE

AND ELEEN

FRANCIS, Index No.

Petitioners,
-v-

------------------

NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent.

Affidavit of Eleen Francis

State of County of

#/. Y

Q.

J(A%Y\ ~

) ) ss.: )

Eleen Francis affirms under penalty of perjury that the following is true: 1. 2. 3.. I reside at 132-33 154th Street, Jamaica, New York. 1 am the mother of the late Shereese Francis. On the evening of March 15,20012, Shereese Francis died at our home while in

the custody of four NYPD officers who had been summoned to assist her to the hospital. 4. Before Sheerese was taken to the hospital, officers from the NVPD Internal

Affairs Bureau ("lAB") arrived at our home. 5. 6. The lAB officers conducted tape-recorded interviews of me and my daughter. I told the lAB officers that Shereese had not been taking her medications for

mental illness that evening. I did not tell that to anyone else prior to April 3,2012.

7.

I also told the lAB officers that earlier that evening Shereese and I had argued,

during which Sheerese pulled on my hair. I did not tell that to anyone else prior to April 3, 2012.

sLk~
Eleen Francis Sworn to before me

JV~l:i #~_
OD

N1lCHAll EVAN AUERBACH NOTARY PUBLIC·STATE OF NEW YORK
NO.02AU6251946 Q.ualilled In ICings County
Mv Commlulon hplres November2B, 2015

Exhibit D

LEGAL BUREAU F.O.l.L. Unit, Room 110e One Police Plaza New York, NY 10038

POLICE DEPARTMENT

~I

Rankin & Taylor Steve Vaccaro 350 Broadway ste 701 New York NY 10013

3/23/2012

Foil Req # 2012-PL-1652 Your File # Francis,S

Dear Sir or Madam: This is in response to your letter dated 3/21/2012 which was received by this office on 3/2112012 in which you requested access to certain records under the Freedom of Information Law, N.Y. Public Officers Law (POL) §§ 84 et seq. (FOIL). Before a determination can be rendered, further review is necessary to assess the potential applicability of exemptions set forth in FOIL, and whether the records can be located. I estimate that this review will be completed, and a determination issued, within twenty business days of the date of this letter. This is not a denial of the records you requested. Should your request be denied in whole or in part, you will then be advised in writing of the reason for any denial. and of the name and address of the Records Access Appeals Officer.

~

t,

~

Richard

Lieutenant Records Access Officer

Jt!

COURTESY • PROFESSIONALISM

• RESPECT

Exhibit E

Family Sues Police in Death Of Daughter - WSJ.COJ11

hnp:llonl inc.wsj.corn/article/Sfs

1000 14240527023038

I6504577320 ...

I

I,
NEW YORK REGION

World
Wows

u.s.
SpQrl u Cunurc

Business ROJ~E-MJto

Tec.h

Personal

Fiu;U1CC

Life S. Culture

Opinion

Careers

. ROlli Eslilte

Small

BlJsincss

TOP $TQRIESIC'J

New York

Which l.uxurv Listing wm t'iJ!;': 'HIIIl~C of the W(:(,I;'
Ap'i12, 2012, 10.25 PfR!Or

Pier sixrv Swl'rWil1$ Record
S~ttlcl11l!l1t-

Family Sues Police in Death Of Daughter
Article

l'm;lIIl

f

¢>- ARTiCL E FREE ,'ASS ·:t'I~'·.-",,·...' !!-;~ t .~::;,,-;; -:»: t ,',: t ....•
I' ••,

By SEM.f GARDINER lawyers lor a mentally jlJ Queens woman are daiming she 'suffocated after four ponce

officers were pressing on her back \'mile trying to handcuff her so Ihey could take her to the hospital two weeks ago. On March' 15, the family of Shereese Francis, 29 years old, canso lor an arnbutance to come to their home at 132·33 15411'1Street in Jamaica. Queens. saying Ms..Francis. a scnizopnrenic. hadn't taken her medicines since early November and was aclinq irrationally, said a law-entcrcement official with knowledge of the incident. Police arrived around 10'20 th a t night and were told by Ms Francis's mother, Eleen Francis, th a l about three hours earlier her daughter had yelled at her and pulled her hair because she was upset that the 55-year,old mother had borrowed her makeup. the official said. The woman's moiner and sister told police tney then tried to convince Shereese Francis 10 valunlanly go 10 Ihe hospital because they wanted her 10 resume laking her medication, the officiat said When Ms. Francis refused. her sister. Shauna Francis. 31, called 311 asking for an ambulance. The 311 operator transferred her to who ccntacted police, Ihe official said. Available

to WSJ.com Subscribers

Optical Delusion? Fiber Booms, Despite

Bust

a 911 operalor

Oharna Warns

Supreme Court

The arriving omcers tried 10 talk Ms. Francis into going 10 the nosptal, Ihe official said.
Police reported that she refused and began arguing with them and eventually lunged at the oFfiCers when they tried to physically subdue her. Four officers struggled with Ms. Francis and pushed he< onto the mother's bed where they allempted to handcun her. The law-enforcement offIcial said Emergency Medical Service pa rarnedics inlelViewed

Canadian Bank Sued
Over Trades

after the incident reported that Ms. Francis was on the ground snu struggling with police when Ihey arrived but soon became pulseless, around 10:40 p m. The officers removed Ms. Francis's handcuffs and Ihe medics administered resuscitate her. Police at tM scene reported the resuscitation dead at 12:25 a.m, on March 16. Gl!t yOllr 3 wt1ek risk Iree trial The official said a coctor who treated Ms. Francis reported findmg no visible signs of trauma. Steve vaccero, an attorney for Ms. Francis's family, said he would answer questions relating to me Inddenl at a news conference scheduled for Tuesday atterncon. efforts inside Ihe home tast ed more than 40 cardiac drugs and attemoteo to

Spain Faces Risks in
Budget Refit

minutes before Ms. Francis was taken to Jamaica Hospitat where she was pronounced

Most Popular

loF3

41312012 2:08 PM

Family Sues Police in Death Of Daughier - WSlcom

hltp:llon line.wsj.com/article/Sls

I 000 1424052702303816504577320

...

A statement announcing the news conference staled that Ms. Francis was "suffocated in her home on March 15 by NYPD officers responding to a call to take herto the hospital A person close to Ms. Francis's family said II appeared mat ona 01 Ihe officers was hitting Ms. Francis in the head white trying to subdue her. Neither Ms. Francis's mother or sister, Ihe onty two witnesses to the incident. are recorded in police reports as having told investiqatcrs punched or struck. the law-enforcement official said. they saw Ms. Francis being
..!.;. ~! .

iVlosl Common

Tablet Mistakes

lU.'<!rill~ ('nul With r~k~")~tilli(",s

The statement announCing the news conference said that Ms. Francis's parents have filed a lawsuit requiring the New Yorl\ Police Department to preserve and tum over aU reports and evidence related to Ihe incident. Elten Sorakova. a spokeswoman for the city'S Medical Exarmner's Office. said the cause
Vh'ldhct· .hmrunl: wurm urul DI')' (O~, 'he week II warmir,g weaiher irend continuos (or Groater New Vorl<.with tomperatures widely expected 10 IeI' GO deGreo. on Tuesday. E• f e J. ... Udcr nrint;s s l Tech 10 Fonner Fashion Strip

of dealh is still pending. Paul Browne. the Nypiys spokesman. didn't immediately respond to a request tor comment Monday night Write to Sean Gardiner at sean.oardiner@,.:t5I.com ;\ u~rsirm (Jflhi~ (frn'de oppt!arc:;r/llpn"1 :1, :U)J:JJ 011 Jk1!lC" 19 It! ~:(m'(·l.J.s. £'dirium o/1'1u! 11-'(11{ Srn,,·~t JournuJ. l:..'lrh the I'wadj;m.:: P{:mi/y Sues Poli'el! i..Di;,';;uJr Of /J~wyh~a. 1
JOIN THE DlSCUSSlml MORE IN

E siee Lauder IS S!?( 10move offces for its online ecsrness into 1he rormer Stern 8ro!hers' cepartrneru store as ttldie~; l'lil.~e eecomes ilt'l 'i)x:en:s.io:l s(hcon AI\.o)'

0'

:\ Suarch Tnnl for Fiull11\).:. 1?4lJ :"\"'·w ~'ud ..es-s
>I

8e the first

to comment

New York

Ot-Cup.\''V,all St-eer RelurnS" to Oroul.:1yn Hr-idse
SUPCI'

P"C' Takes Aim. Ht 'rh.·t.:1': fi'llPC Il.H;um!jcnts

Prll11

Most Popular Video

Monga ge ROIDS Hit 2.50',. If youowD unaer S,29~ vou may Qualify fOI3.01% IIPR GO"t Refi Plalls. W'.w.t.t.tor!g;"ge.R..J~G~Expcr:s.ccn) A ;6 Triitlon Opportunity learn Why This Penny StOCk Could Go S!ralosphelie w*", ... er.nyS~ock'!"'Jrzardcom P Tni, Stock Will Expl<x!<! YO'J Nood to Know About this Ne"Xt AW8som~ Penny ·,w.-~'i.Pen:)yS!oc}<.CljCIl! cern
Got Brookoul Dally breakout Slock Ch~r1s ShY">:"pallems sent 10 yOUi' mccx.

,Ll'.;'JIII"}!,:IR l\:o;i:.! CI':O: ,'h~'l'm \ 1.,·:_,\'in,.,tlll: Han.k IJ:57

In .. idu a r

HHI:. ..

i.Jn

:\tillil)IJ\'Olc,h. 3;55

nillion:.lir-r'" ~.1nu

Hooru 'l'irnc~ (or l~ibcr Optic;- CahleCucstrucucn 2:31

Job Opportunities
S!ock! Read Morc

s~·tI'f!~;.:" A-::::1,;~;i'-~ Inch,Jding penny siock
!L'r{':

r~ldr.::::'Qj;J_

':Fa:::.: _. N"~i.\l.J j;:;t" ~ ·JM·.·.~.z.~if~
j.\!"~'~I:r·.~1r.a\e! .

....... · 'r·.~·.bre,UiJtsIO:,k.s..com

. So

r..:~·F~-,:,1' .

j ..

'u'i.~;

S\·~II~l:i-

RC~~l

~:3~

·i.:.,{:a,,~"i,";~¥

Add

a

Comment

·JOURNAL.

COMMUNITV

Community lo add a ccromeu pteasu

1\J1c:~

keyword
MOt=tE.J0135
f.J'oi'O

city. state. zip
CAREER NE\\'S T~t:!1~I~g::

_

r·u"![j:·... jer.::.l "''7-: Create an Account
YOLlr rell rt.Jrnz i3.roquilod tar 'Qn"1tJnt_iI1~.

J~t:s

r

SJ,~S,~ Mn:I-~Iir:']: .Ft1:.~o:;.

Login

fiNS

tor ErupJo),cr5

it Recr uncrs

II

More in New York
T$3CI( tephE'.!i

to my ccnrmum

1.'01'l{all~"·1. New "i.... i\ntl N(~h" Rival nrirt F:mlily Subscribe Now fOI Fu!IAccess
iO ~II('"$ P'(lJit"t'

irilkiliit

or llilu~htc:r

WSJ.COIl, and Gel

8 WEEKS FREE
Getting Around Greater New York
Stilrting Addtoss

OR trnersacnon
• Pcn.oflallz~ H.-'J:!'in;e u!
'rO,I~I!"rt~~

or Popular RcstauranUPlace

• Heard on the Streel~...:o to

~h~·mm

... ;,;:. f'l~/iS, WllJ 1'1i:"!'l:';l~ ..

:'~~I .;:II'"..;1's

In·,=,'i1jf';:~7~

~11.;J 111;J.H;ri?~

~ Core bUB Iness llelH'5:

·t~"·6t.$ r.t£~"N!:i . ~";.;

II~:~' .

It. il'~(.Ir.~:~I';';!:;.!'":,-C~'~~·'~

nestrnenen Address OR IntersCClirm or Popll!ar ResLauranllPlace
.. iM.A~J5IT DIRECTlON5

11l0D}',;;'

201'3

4/31201.2 2:08 PM

family Sues Police in Death Of Daughter"

WSJ .com

hllp:/ionl inc. wsj.corn/article/Sfs

I000 1424052702303816504577320

...

Pree!

we can gel your

Fast Busin

1::.5S

Loans

c ••s.ling business up 10 S750k in 1 week. AppIV

·,,,.... Fur..::::F actor cc:n/BuSlness . t.v Gct Free Slock Newsletter
Penn), Siock AIOr1s You Need To KOO"l\lFree Proven Pi,"ks~ 1'1\".'1.Plo1Lt!::-:::],'~~1~m~!l1 cern Full Color Busino'5S Cards • 14 -1Ep: Gfo!.$Y. Malle. Rec;,'ck.!d Gutltanteedl
\WI','···r;nl;l:tiIJlCCl:1'

Sion Up Fer

QUI

Of

Unecaied

Saustacncn

-------------~--.~-----~--..~----.-~-----"--.-------._----..
Editors' Picks
Chilll: ...:c (\llplica"r~ FlmJtJ u.s~Gr'::ulun.e SchnoL .. Opt1Ci.d Udus.;un? r:iLH:r
I1nmn.<.i. J)4!.o,;pilc B II st ]'\t:~'N t'u ThiElkin.~
'Kl~;':ll~:'J

,·\1run I

'M;:HI ,:r.Jcn.' :\ Cmn·cr- .... af·ion [S(·~I'iUn 5t Epi.... dc a') u

BACK TOTO?

.----Customer

..----,-,---.------

..

---.....~.~
WSJ.com:
S[:f!M;IP'

-----_
TOQIs.
&

..

__
con

..

_-----

Cemor:. M,,;.o;.ouru
My S!Ib-J:~~liot":S

Atlout: Hcr.r.niS
ACY.(:f'!i:i:/r'fj

Fom131S: mgil.\ V'.SJ.c.om
Mar x E!Wil!Ch 8.a,;;.:ll1sc,om

14.0lwor'ol

lieme VYi:Jt:CJ

C,rcalc

.lUI AC:COut'll~

Cla55Jfleil!.

uS
torecs r,',,'rkr.l~ M:t."r.t D;')to
';'~

Aovr....!.';<!' lOC"~J:'~· SI,;:Js:::;t;l.c I~ V~SJ "em
Si~r.lJj) ~Ot ;.',$.1 PIr;ftl!;j~I~;"i:!1 C.onierelltl,.!:;1 ;~OOU! Dow JClnU5

;"i-iir.iogsD

oC.QfTI

G,Jd~.s

FINS' rUl...1nre. IT JObs S~I~$lots E!9CI'101l't~ cum
':,t..-1uaIS!.r,r:4

Subsrnbe zc Y'/SJ \·;!'cclo.;::;t1!'! • Pill" ::6:;cn
Help

PnvQC)" Policy· lJPD.;r:.C !O.j~~l20'I '1';:-.... Ad Ch:;rU!:t

...
h~~l
CUI::.rti:" V~"SJ SOC1cl -t.;)b~<~1cit;c~") E P:l...~lSt'i.

EX::!'\.G.~il

&. ~nrQrm:..lion

Cc,ntcr:

sYt;:.:&c...1~,r.';';lfoa-moe;~ &.
TClr:"l~ Clf USIJ ~ L'pdil:;:;.c;
Cc-,,~Jr~)h1 PoliCy ...!cb5-

'l,,'SJ aao.n
Flo;'{lSSOf JOuiOoUl

Hl\1P
CLJ,stOtrtC(
Set'il<:,]

li~i,)f. C,:nlcn

'WSJ "ASJ ';/5..J

u.s
;"5W

EC;!I[;{';
EfJ111-Pn

at \I'VSJ ,,=.-::rn

G!COa! Su~iNr. Nc--fI'
en 1/~'SJ.com

RSS 1,.,,-'$J

~~(.-ds

Euro~~,:'~[joo
ril{;rl

,I';t,rnal Cr:mmurll!y SOI"iICC~

VlSJ IMia

Ptlm Sublui~r

en T,...,ttt)~
scceuco»
en r'::Llr:sq.\a.~~

v'r~C<'l
V.'SJ
SOl'~H~~~'l .

Foreign LOf\Ij;\J,oga Editions.: 'llSJ Cncrlf!;:i.~ ',NSJ

'S1.1~

V~

My JO-•.:~l'\::H f1ll'tlIO~Q

Japanese
PQnuG!.j_(·~o

Irfnm.:Hl.Q."".

'..... SJ

t..".'SJ SpanIsh .,.SJDeuzscJiiA_")d

30fJ

4/3(20122:08

PM

Exhibit F

Rankin & Taylor
Attorneys at Law
350 Broadway, Suite 701 New York, NY 10013 Steve@DRMTLaw.com Phone: 212-226-4507 Fax: 212-658-9480

DELIVERED BY HAND .... F ies«
April 3, 2011 Jonathan David Records Access Appeals Officer New York City Police Department One Police Plaza, Room 1406 New York. NY 10038-1497

c...~

"'ttl L

FOIL Request # 2012-PL-1652
Dear Mr. David: This letter constitutes an appeal from the Department's March 23. 2012 response to my March 2], 2012 request for information concerning the death of Shereese Francis under the provisions of the New York Freedom of Information Law. Article 6 of the Public Officers Law (the "Request"). Copies of the Request. and the Department's Response, are attached for ease of reference. The Department's March 23 response violates Public Officers Law Section 89(3)(a). because it states the Department will take 20 business days to determine the Request, and this delay is not reasonable under the circumstances. The relevant circumstance is that the NYPD has provided extensive. detailed information concerning the death of Shereese Francis, including confidential information concerning her medical treatment. to the Wall Street Journal. A copy of the report is attached. Clearly. NYPD possesses information within the scope of the Request that it has seen fit to make public. The Francises arc entitled to that information pursuant to the Request. Please determine this appeal as soon as possible and in any event within the ten
day period permitted.

Steve Vaccaro

Ih~

Family Sues Police in Death Of Daughter - WSJ.COIll

hnp.z/onlinc. wsj.corn/arricle/Sls 1000 14240527023038

16504577320 ...

r.ul:'lll!l

64<11':8"

NEW YORK REGION
rcoav's Paper ?eophJ In.Tho N6">"' rlll.ukcls. Vam~ BlOg~ Jeumal Ccmmumtv Life 8. Cullut"Q Ophlion Careers Real ESWIC"
SJ11:1rJ BU5incs~

World
t~ew'J

u.s,
Sporl;; Culture

Business RCJ! ES1~t-c

Persona! Finnnue

:011:" iOP STO.Rk!;S ItJ

a 0·':

New York

\Vhi<,h Luxurv Li$tillg Wi\! '1\1i,~
'House fifth..: \\'<:(·1;'

Pier Sixtv Stuff Win~ Record
S,·tth.:Il.,'111

A~lJIl 2. 201:?, 10.25

p.rn.

ET

Family Sues Police in Death Of Daughter
Articl~
_ .... ~, Comrneuts ... ....._ , ...._ .._~ ...... ......,-.. .."""'..""'*'--...,.... .... . ..... ,__ ...,.-u:_~~"'

__

.... . _

_

- I:',

r:· ;. ;';",~'

~ART1CL::

-.

.'

FrlEE ?i\SS

By SE',N

GARDINER

Lav'Yers for a menially ill Queens woman are clairninq she suffocated after four police officers were pressing on her back wnile frying 10 ha ndcuff her so lhey could lake her to Ihe nospnal two weeks ago. On Marcil 15. the family of Shereese Francis. 29 years old. called for an ambulance 10 come to their 110maat 132-33 154th Street in Jamaica, schizophrenic. irrationally. said a taw-enforcement Queens. saying Ms. Francis. a hadn't taken her medicines since early November and was acUng official with knowtedqe of Ihe mcioent.

.; S .~__:

__

J-IEI FER

Police arnved around 10'20 tnat night and were laid tly Ms Flanos's inotner, Eleen Francis, mat about three hours earlier her daughlcr had yelled at her and pulled her hair because she was upset that the 55·year·old mother had borrowed her makeup. uie offioal said The woman's rnotner ana sister told police Ihey then mec io convince Shereese Francis to vOlunlarily go to the hospital because they wanted her 10 resume laking her medication. the omctei said. When Ms. Francis refused, her sister. Shauna Francis. 31. called 311 asking for an ambulance The 311 operator transferred her 10a 911 operator who contacted police. Ille officiat said, The arriving officers tried 10 tafk Ms. Francis mto going to me nospitat, tne official said. Police reported thai she refused and began arguing wilh them and eventually lunged at Ihe officers when they tried to physically subdue ner. Four officers slruggled·.·.'lh Ms. Francis and pushed her onto the mother's bed where they attempted to handcuff her. The law-enrorcemenl official said Emergency Medical Servrce paramedics inlervlewed

Available to W5J.com Subscribers

UplicHI Delusion? Fiber Booms, Despite Bl1st

01)<1111:1 \V arns Supreme Courl

Cauudian Bank Sued
OverTrades

after the incident reported that Ms~ Francis was on tne ground SbUstruggling wilh ponca when they arrived but soon became pulseless, around 10:40 p m The officers removed Ms. Francis's handcuffs and the medics adminislered resuscitate he" Police at tne scene reported the resuscilallon dead at 1225 a.m, on March 16. Gt.-L your 8 wuek The otficial said a doctor who treated Ms. Francis reported f.ndlng no visible signs of trauma Steve Vaccaro. an attorney for Ms. FranCls's family. said he would answer questions relaling to the incident at a news conference SCheduled for Tuesday afternoon. risk free tria: _.
';"::'"i:.e$ ;(?

carciac drugs and atternpteo 10

~J'I~_

Spain Fnces Risks in BlIdgl~1 Rdit
ettorts inside Ihe home lasted more than 40

• r">,

,.

r

minutes tie fore Ms. Francis was taken to Jamaica Hospnat where she was pronounced

.~,,:~-';t:e

Most Popular

lof3

4/3/20112:08

pry!

Family Sues Police in Death Of Daughter - WSJ.COIll

hltp;!Jonline.wsj.comianicle/SB

I 000 14140527023038 16504577320...

A statement
A

announcing the news conference stated ll1al Ms. Francis was "sulrocalec

in

[\'los\ Common

Tablet Mistak!.':;

her home on March 15 by NYPDofficers

responding 10a call 10take her to the hospital"

person close 10 Ms. Francis's family said II appeared Ihal one 01 the Officers was hiaing

Ms. Francis in Ihe head while trying 10 subdue her. Neither Ms. Francis's molher or sister, the only two witnesses to Ihe incident. are recorded in police reports as having laid mvestlqators they saw Ms. Francis being puncned or struck, the law-entorcernent official said

The statement announcing lhe news conference said that Ms Francis's parents have fited a lawsuit requiring Ihe New York Police Deparlmenl reports and evidence related to lhe tncrdern, Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman lor Ihe city's Medical Examiners Office. said Ihe cause
V,"c;ll.ln:'I' .J(JlH"Hal~ \<\';II"'Jrl null .Dry {or the "1M. \'Vcck

10preserve and tv In over all

of dealh is sttll pending. Paul Browne, the NYPD's spokesman. dldn'llmmedialely respond to a request ror comment Monday night. Write to Sean Gardiner at se~l1.cardil1er(Q)".'is!,CO~,l
Jt
lief-sir/f,

AW2ir:1lng weather trend cenunccs for GrClllS'r Nf!',\· '{ark . whh temperaiures Widely exoectcd to top GO degrees on Tuesday. E!'>tc J ..audcl'
iu

Udi15-:s Tech

tu

For-mer- Fashion

Strip

or thi:_.:article
JOIl\'

(i]1pC(lr(·d Aprii

:~. ~Ol[!.

fill

Imyl: r\ I"

~·lJmf,' U.S. j'diliott.; oj

]11C

U"oll Slred

Journal,

'Wi/iJ ..he he.Q:fii':L': Fwr;{!y StlL"SI~{':c(~ ill n('mh () /J:HI:JiI:~'r.
THE DISCUSSiOM MORE IN

E sree Lauder IS 5e~ to move otnces for its online busmess into theformer StoOl Ilrolhor'So' ccpilr1monl stare as lad!es' t'.-~;_~e becomes Lin oxtensron 01 S.ltCCn AIIC!y

Be the first to comment

New York »

Un:up~'

'\'.d~

Sll'L't'!

Retur-ns

ro

llrcwld.\'1'!

nrid~t_·

S\ll'cl·I·:\C'r~lkc:j.j

Ajut

:11Thl"r.·'" NYC hH~UmZJoi:;,nt5

HSS

cec

Most Popular Video

Mortg.L\{Jc Ra1e!> Hit 2.50~;J If you owe under S729~ you may !i'r.·.".'d.tcr1Qa\J~RJ~-::sE :q;.;)(t:; ccn-

qualify for 3 0, % IIPR GO'JI Rofl Pions.
.LI',."IIlI·WII)l\;-.i:1 l'EO:\\'lH'I'1I1

A S6 Trillion Opror1unily Learn Why Ttl'S P-en:'ly S~ock Could Go Slf.HcsphcrlC vv"';..'[ Pcr,r;ySlcc;-, 't.JiZaI'Q earn
1....

This Stock Will ExplOde YO'.JNeod to Know' About 1hlS Nux I ... \wesame w\".v;,r.:nnySlO(f.C"c~cl' cern

.-.-----------~--Job Opportunities
S!odl:l Read Mo,e ",""",

1,I'a,iu):.:lill~ 1357

B:l11k

h ..... du u 1~1I._ i:ln i . .. nillinlJair("~ ~:JIIII '·;)(.h~ 355
?oJimll1l

Bool1l

0

1 ilJ1c\l

for

rihcr (JplLl' C',.hle'
l:i,~n.lOl.nlc:li,111

2 .. 1 3

Penny

Gel 8roakQlI~ Stcc k cnans Daily brcakou: stocx pauerns sent to your ,nbOx IncludIng penny sloe;.. WW'..'I bfaa:.::c....!tsl.xio:s. ccm
:;'.

Add a Comment

JOURhil''''-COMt,'UNrr'l'

Community rute s

keywolcl

cit).'_ stale. zip

To aO:l a ccmmef1l

pleasu

Login

Create an Account
Your teal nOln:'l! is rC;:julrtd fQr (onn~ ntir"lg.

More in New York
lQgin with Facc.book
_~ _~'~'~_L

_

Fill' Ibll!:l'l,
1-':1II lil:-: ~lIt!.':
S\'\'('IL ,~'III)nls

N['w I Ji'-Hirl r\lld ~e\,,- Rt\':,l

PI,I,n' in Deurh
(;:UII

or lt~nl,~hH:r

R(~I~lil!\'l''''

Subscribe

Now

tor Full Access

10 \'iSJ

com and Gel

8 WEEKS FREE
Getting Around Greater New York :",J "".. ... :.
. Personalized

"

.
~"J~I~I~~'

StolrtlO9

AadtQ!S 01

OR lrucrsecuon
~·I~I_"..:.:b1'"0.., 1,,;,·"::-:'
'::":: ;; ,I ...,u I'L_; ~'·.-'So ....

PODlIl", RaslauranuPlace

:ILI:~I'1~.'!"" _~~~: JI.:.iI!: !-",_;

'"He ard on thl~ Street: _o.: ~:.
• Core business

~l"L:.' 'i'I::~ .. ;";_" ,~~o,-.j.ll

nesu-mttcn Address

news:

' ..··,:'1:.

rl~ ...::

,,-::r;t:' .~,.',~

~~ ..

c:<-

OR tntersecuon or Popular ReslauranVPlace

i:

7~t,!J'" If OlRFCTlO!4f, QOO;· .. :'

fJ

ORIiIH.:G OlRi:CTIOt.j~

2or3

4/3/20122:08

PM

Family Sues Police in Death Of Daughter-

WSlcorn

http://onlinc.wsj.com/anicle/SBI

0001424052702303816504577320

...

F~J~E Business Loans Vole can gel your OXISltlng business up to S7!iOk In 1 week Apply Fm.Q! ".,'t,'.-,', Fur.oF.:.:!o: cc:nlO"'.!s.ni:ss Ge-l Free Stock Ncwstcucr Penny 510Ck AlcT1SYou Need To Knuw Free Sign Up For Ol!( p(Q~CI'\Pkks~ !V.'N," pr::!flkGni •.f tnuel ::::::'::1"1 Full C-olor Business carus • 14 -16p: Gf;:;ss,;'. M,att~. Recycled Cl uoccaree Gu.ilrameed~ \V'u -,·/ qorcnm cam Si:llIsfac:lcl1

Editors' Picks

Chi~'iI!,!<ICAppfienm ... Flcll1U u.s. Gr:ldu~}tf!SL:hIlUI."

()plic~11 l)clu"_i~IU:J l:iJlt' Ilntlnt. ..~ Ilc:·q.ilc nU~1

I.'

·I":·l~_\".o,'hi t..:l~yHl':"

'I'hinking .. \hil

II I

'Mad )ta.:u,';\
(Sea .. !!!).::;,

('.ml\t!J·:<~lliI"l

Ejli."Ulh~ :{)

BACK

TO TOP

customer Center.

About:
CCir.:C:~,1?~r1r.o~srr~

WSJ.com:

TOOl:;

t. FormJt!O:
V·."SJ.COOI

My:o,GC.Cu;'!:
M:l5!I~scn:::ti::::r.s

';dH:t"!~:.;ir;!J CroJIC R~)!ililt In Acco!.,l"!! 10: l_!...0;:~-C;~t:t..;$!: CI ....):;i.dit':J!r:

'\:J'~x se

Loc;,.~!'1

S~:J'~D'lbe to

,\SJ ::;r.~

C.a:',1~:cflC.U!>

;.r7r::flt:-SO
FINS'

cern
I

5.0r. up fer 'l~'SJ ?r.t;1f!S~lc::a! S~lh~Ctll::c ~o '-;'iSJ '!i..:,r.<"i;n:'l . Pf'llil Edl:.:cn £. 'n'ormiltion Center.
Pr ••'<lCY PCI:cy·

Frnn tee

r lohs

Sa!~:'-. JCC:;'

W'"D:·

T;::[:

IO.'I~·lull 3T~fm~;er U£.:!• Ur:! m~ C:;P:JII!Jht P'ohey
... c;;.~!> iJIV,,;'SJ -;r::: -r

vm.raf S~:'i':;'E (::.r:~I~~ 'l-:51 ;:;ac.D

Help Hl!ip

Sut:-sc.'"I:":.;: ;"9rQ'::flI~r.~

C.ustorncr Ser-•.,.::.·~

'.'SJ U.S
'..... .J 5
':'5'J

EI'!'lIC:"; Ed:11C-:
EC!lDn

p.s~ i:C:-os
.Jc...:njJl l

':"8..1

:lJro;...-.,;:

Gic~-d Nf!'N

$i.l~po:.
INSJ CCIT,

C:-:mrnun::y
T\\,U(l1

en

':~"SJen

FOfeign

LU"!_jlAJgi)

Edfl:o.nS.

''','3J en F=.Jrel.!:.!~~ S:il(.~~_!'..o.:' .
!":f::I:'G~i!J.·

V-~'5JC~r'i,.,:\,~

Se-c

l..

s

";~'f J':n.m.:H Po!1!ol,:,

VoSJ
,,\'$..I

SpaflTsh

D:e-.Jt"djl.'l.'"I:t

301'3

413/20122:08

PM

Exhibit G

POLICE DEPARTMENT Office of Deputy Commissioner, Legal Matters One Police Plazu,/Room 1406A New York, New York 10038 April IS, 2012 Steve Vaccaro Rankin & Taylor 350 Broadway, Suite 70 I New York, New York 10013 RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST: LBF # 12PLI01652 Re: Shereese Francis, Deceased LAW

Dear Mr. Vaccaro: This is in response to your letter dated April 3, 2011, postmarked April 4, 2012, purporting to appeal the letter from of the Records Access Officer (RAO), dated March 23,2012, which acknowledged receipt of your March 21, 2012 request for records from the New York City Police Department pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). Your appeal is premature because your FOIL request has not been denied. The RAO's initial estimated determination date of twenty business days from the date of the RAO's March 23, 2012 acknowledgment letter was consistent with the time frames set forth in the Freedom of lnfonnation Law and related case law. This matter is remanded to the RAO for continued processing of your FOIL request, which has been delayed by your premature appeal.
Sincerelv.
",
~~.

{J'onatl1aloavl /1.: Wr Irtf, .
j'Rccords c: Committee on Open Government

'-'}}/

Access Appeals Officer

Exhibit H

POLICE DEPARTMENT
F.O.LL UNIT, ROOM IIOC ONE POUCEPLAZA NEW YORK., N.Y. 10038

LEGAL BUREAU

April 27. 2012

Steve Vaccaro Rankin & Taylor 350 Broadway, Suite 701 New York, N.Y. 10013 RE: FREEDOM OF JNFORMATIONLAW REQUEST: #12PLI016S1

Dear Mr. Vaccaro: This is in further response to your Jetter dated March 21,2012, which was acknowledged on March 23, 2012, in which you requested access to certain records, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), NY Public Officer's Law (POL) §§ 84 et seq .• pertaining to the death ofShereese Francis.
A search for responsive records has been conducted. Pursuant to that search, 10 pages and an audio recording have been located and copied. They include a complaint report, aided report, sprint report and a compact disc containing audio from a 911 telephone call. Pages have been redacted pursuant to NY POL §§87(2)(b) and 89(2) because the disclosure of the redacted infonnation would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, Pursuant to the search, a medical record consisting of a NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner's (OCME) form was located. Disclosure of the OCME form is barred by POL § 87(2)(a)and NYC Charter § 557{g).
treatment

The search also located 8 pictures of a record compiled for the purpose of medical POL § 87(2)(8) and NY Public Health § 18 (1)(g) and (3) bars the release of these records. NY Public Health § 18 (1)(g) and (3) require a written release from a patient's estate explicitly authorizing the disclosure of medical infonnafion, These records will be made available to the next ofkin or their designee if a lawful release is provided to this office.

Pursuant to the search, a video clip and photograph of Shereese Francis were located. POL §§87(2)(b) and 89(2) bars the disclosure of these records because the release of these records would constitute an. unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, Should you provide this office with a written release from. the next of kin ofShereese Francis waiving their right to personal privacy of this video clip and photograph, these records will be provided.
Pursuant to the search, a memorandum. a handwritten note, police activity Jog (memo
book) entries. audio statements, and radio communications have been located. Because the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau is conducting an. internal police investigation, POL §§87(2)( e)(i) and (ii) bar the release of these records as their release would interfere with the ongoing COURTESY' PROF.ESSIONALISM • RESPECT

investigation. In addition, the search did not locate any complaint follow-up reports, finest messages, laser reports or a 684 fonn.

Upon the iemittance ofS 17.50 to the Records Access Officer, the complaint report, aided report, sprint report and a compact disc containing audio from a 911 telephone call will be disclosed.
APPEAL PROCEDURE

You may appeal this decision or any potion thereofinmimlg. within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, and forward it to: JoaathaD Bawd Records Access ... .1. Officer. N.Y.C.P .D••One Police Plaza - Room 1406. NYC 10038-1497

COURTESY· PROFESSIONALISM· RESPECT

Exhibit I

Rankin & Taylor
Attorneys at Law
350 Broadway, Suite 701 New York, NY 10013 Steve@DRMTLaw.com Phone:212-22~507 Fax: 212-658-9480

DELIVERED BY HAND May 25, 2012 Jonathan David Records Access Appeals Officer New York City Police Department One Police Plaza, Room 1406 New York, NY 10038-1497
FOIL Request # 12PLI01652 Dear Mr. David:

This letter constitutes an appeal from the Department's April 27, 2012 response to the March 21, 2012 request of George and Eleen Francis ("Requesters") upon the New York City Police Department, under the provisions of the New York Freedom of Information Law, Article 6 of the Public Officers Law (the "Request"). Copies of the Request, the Departments' Response, and of a prior administrative appeal letter dated April 3, 2012 are attached for ease of reference. The Department's April 27 letter states that eight pictures, a video clip and photograph of Shereese Francis were identified in response to the FOIL request, but will not be disclosed without certain authorizations from the Estate of Shereese Francis. Without conceding the validity or need under Public Health Law Section 18(1)(g) and (3) or Public Officers Law 87(2)(a)ofthe authorizations requested, Requesters will provide them. Requesters reserve their rights to appeal the validity of the required authorizations and/or of the adequacy of any disclosure made pursuant to same. As to the records listed in the sixth paragraph of the April 27 letter, Requesters appeal the decision to withhold such records from disclosure on the grounds of interference with an ongoing investigation, on the following grounds (0) NYPD has not made the requisite detailed particularized showing of interference; and (b) the records at issue, or substantial portions of them, have already been disclosed to and published by the Wall Street Journal, as explained in my appeal letter of April 3, 2012, and therefore further disclosure to Requesters cannot result in interference with any investigation. To the extent any records in the Department's possession that are responsive to

Jonathan David

2

May 25, 2012

the Request contain information provided to the Wall Street Journal, as described in my April 3, 2012 letter, Requesters hereby appeal the Department's failure to disclose such records. for the reasons set forth in that letter. Please determine this appeal as quickly as possible and in no case later than the ten-day period allowed by law.

fl.t(/~
Steve Vaccaro

Attachments

Exhibit

Fax;6d66108371

Jun 13 2012 05;OOpm

P001/003

NYC POLICE DEPARTMENT

LEGAL BUREAU One Police Plaza - Room 1406 New York, NY 10038-1496 Tel.: (646) 610-8382 Fax: (646) 610-8395

To:

Steve Vaccaro, Esq.

Tel # (212) 226-4507 Fax # (212) 658-9480 NO. OF PAGES: (including cover sheet)
DATE: 6/13/12

3

RE:

See attached letter dated 6/13/12.

(/R~~ords Appeals Officer Access

{k~'VijJJ

!1

/1);/

~ .. 't!..

....

Fax:6d6610B377 .~;.., -.

Jun .13 2012 05:00pm

P002/003

POLICE DEPARTMENT Office of Deputy Commissioner, Legal Matters One Police Plaza, Room 1406A New York, New York 10038
June 13,2012

Steve Vaccaro, Esq. Rankin & Taylor 350 Broadway, Suite 701 New York, N.Y. 10013 R£: FREEDOM OF INFORl\1ATION LAW REQUEST: LBF # 12PLI01652 Your File Re: Death of Shereese Francis Dear Mr. Vaccaro: This is in response to your letter dated May 25,2012, appealing the determination of the Records Access Officer (RAO), dated Apri127, 2012, regarding records requested from the New York City Police Department pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), N.Y. Public Officers Law (POL) §§ 84 ~. by letter dated March 21, 2012.

Preliminarily, it is noted that the May 25, 20121etter excluded from the scope of the
appeal, and consequently from the scope of the instant determination, the question whether the RAO's demand for written authorizations was appropriately made, and stated that the authorizations would be supplied. To the extent that you seek the right to appeal from the adequacy of any disclosure that would occur subsequent to the receipt of valid written authorization for such disclosure, any such appeal would be considered on its merits if timely received. To the extent that your letter can be deemed an appeal from the determination not to disclose photographs of a record compiled for medical treatment and a video clip and photograph of Shereese Francis without an authorization or release, the appeal is denied. Disclosure of a patient's medical information absent explicit authorization is barred by statute (N.Y. Public Health Law § 18 (1)(g) and (3»), and POL § 87(2)(a) exempts from disclosure under FOIL records which are exempt from disclosure by state or federal statute. In addition, disclosure of the images in question without written authorization would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to POL §§87(2)(b) and 89(2). The appeal is also denied because disclosure of the requested records is barred by POL

§§ 87(2)(e)(i) and (ii). Disclosure would interfere with the ordinary course of an internal police
investigation that is being conducted by the NYPD1s Internal Affairs Bureau (LAB). Identifying the existence of the ongoing law enforcement investigation is sufficient to invoke and fully explain the applicability of this exemption within the context of the instant administrative appeal. In addition, records that fall within the scope of the lAB investigation are deemed confidential and not subject to disclosure pursuant to }..TY Civil Rights Law § 50-a(1), and are therefore also exempt from disclosure pursuant to POL § 87(2)(a).

Fax_:6466108377

Jun 13 2012 05:01pm P003/003

Since the Wall Street Journal article that you mention and have attached to your earlier letter dated April 3, 2012, does not provide an indication that any copies of the requested records were made available to that newspaper, it has no bearing on the question whether the records you requested have previously been disclosed to the public so as to effect a waiver of the exemptions. As noted, inasmuch as the IAB investigation is ongoing, disclosure of the records would interfere with that internal police investigation.
The appeal is also denied because POL § 87(2)(e)(iv) exempts from disclosure records which would reveal non-routine investigative techniques or procedures, and because certain records contain confidential infonn_ation, and therefore: are exempt from disclosure pursuant to POL § 87(2)(e)(iii). The appeal is also denied because disclosure of requested records would create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to POL § 87(2)(b). Moreover, a diligent search was conducted and failed to locate any complaint follow up reports, finest messages, taser reports, or "6.84" forms.

Other exemptions under FOIL also may apply. You may seek judicial review of this determination by commencing proceeding within four months of the date of this decision.
an Article 78

Sincerely,

tI
cc: Committee on Open Government

~onatlianDaVld

/:!#fI!vIfl"~.,1'1 . t:.'
/! J ..

"//'1 Aj

Record Access Appeals Officer

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful