I’m a public records researcher in Thurston County, Washington, and I wrote the article linked at the bottom. I’m posting here mainly to share the methods, since several of these sources are free and underused.

What I was trying to answer
Across five school districts, how did misconduct cases involving staff end (prison, plea, resignation, settlement)? Did districts meet Washington’s 48-hour reporting requirement (RCW 26.44.030) and the 2004 hiring-check law (RCW 28A.400.301)?

Free sources that did most of the work

1. OSPI Disciplinary Action Notices. Washington’s education agency posts every educator certificate suspension, revocation, reprimand and surrender, usually with the full order as a PDF. Orders list the certificate number, criminal convictions, and the statute used. Tip: search by certificate number, not just name, since names change.
2. OSPI statewide school personnel files (S-275). Under “SAFS Data Files,” OSPI publishes a yearly spreadsheet of every public school employee in the state: name, district, building, job title, FTE, salary and certificate number. Downloading several years and comparing them shows when someone left a district and whether they turned up anywhere else in the state. This one source answered questions that would otherwise have taken a records request.
3. State Auditor fraud investigation reports. Searchable by agency, these documented a staff member at one district taking thousands in student fees, with confirmed and “questionable” loss amounts.
4. Court opinions and dockets. State Supreme Court opinions are free online. One local case, W.H. v. Olympia School District (2020), made districts strictly liable for staff sexual misconduct. That’s part of why school insurance rates rose 45% statewide this year.

Records requests (RCW 42.56)

• Agencies must respond within five business days, but that response is often just an estimate. Some of my requests took months.
• You don’t have to say why you want records, and that helped.
• Police reports gave me exact dates. Comparing when staff first learned of a concern with when police were called is how I measured reporting delays. In two districts, it took several days.
• Even after paying for records, I had to serve formal legal demands before one district released them. Keep every email and invoice.
• Using “records sufficient to show...” language (separation date, type of separation, reports to police or OSPI) gets faster, narrower responses than asking for “all records.”
• RCW 28A.400.301 bars districts from using resignation or settlement agreements to hide misconduct findings. Citing it in a request can help.

What didn’t work

• Some district board portals block automated access, so plan on reading minutes manually or requesting them.
• The state’s public certificate lookup link I expected to use no longer exists. The discipline notices page and the certification office (by email or phone) were the workarounds.

What I’d do differently
Get hire dates early. A commenter in another sub pointed out that one case predates the 2004 hiring law, and I’m correcting that. Lining up hire dates against when each law took effect matters.

Happy to answer questions about the process or hear how others handle stalled requests. My full write up with sources listed is below: https://ewyattmendel.substack.com/p/quiet-exits-what-happens-when-thurston?r=8wwcsh&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

Story based on documents received after four years of a public records fight in Massachusetts.

Since I'm banned from that platform.

To those that filed FOIA for CBP, what information came out? did you see a transcript of secondary inspection question and answers you gave?

I had a very specific request that I submitted to the department of education in 2025. I received notification that it was in process on November 21st 2025. I haven't heard ANYTHING since then. No status change. No reaching out. No requests for clarification etc. Nothing.

I've contacted my senator's office and they put in an additional request on my behalf and they also stated that it's typically 9+ months before they get a response.

Can I get some non-political perspective on whether these FOIA's have been slowing down, or why it's taking so long, or if this normal?
Also at this point, what other options do I have?

Hey everyone,

I run a YouTube channel focused on educational commentary using law enforcement body-worn camera (BWC) footage. I am building out automated public records workflows to source closed, non-violent incident footage (such as commercial shoplifting, defiant trespassing, prowler reports, public disturbances, and code/ordinance enforcement contacts).

To make my public records (FOIA) requests as targeted and efficient as possible, I am looking for U.S. police departments, county sheriff offices, or municipal open-data portals that publish downloadable, multi-year bulk CAD (Computer-Aided Dispatch) call logs, incident tables, or arrest datasets in CSV/JSON format.

Specifically, I am looking for datasets that include:

1. Exact CAD / Incident Report Numbers (agency case identifiers so I can request specific BWC video).
2. Multi-Year History (6 to 36 months of past data to ensure court cases are closed and videos are cleared for release).
3. Call / Offense Classifications & Dispositions (so non-violent cases with completed reports can be isolated).
4. Publicly Accessible Open Data Portals (like Socrata, CKAN, or municipal open-data sites).

While portals like NOPD (New Orleans) and Orlando Open Data provide great historical CSVs, I want to expand my target footprint across other transparent, open-records states (such as Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, Arizona, Washington, etc.) to find lesser-known agencies.

My Questions:

• Which specific police departments or sheriff offices have you found easiest to pull multi-year bulk incident or CAD CSVs from?
• Are there specific city/county open-data portals where historical dispatch or arrest logs are readily downloadable for public records workflows?

Thanks in advance for any portal links, agency recommendations, or advice!

My grandfather was an Italian immigrant who served in the army during the 1950s. We have very little documentation or information about the specifics of his time in the military. Is it possible to submit a FOIA for any related documents and information tied to his service records? Is there a different route we should be considering to seek this information?

There has to be some kind of recourse for organizational and technologically enabled waste of time in conditions where there is a relationship of formal inequality. Has anyone ever heard of this .... if someone is being obstructed or interfered with enough to file a request for secret information about government operations concerning them ... there has to be some kind of way to be officially compensated for attentional resources lost having ones attention captured by an actor with the resources to do such a thing ... what are the legal arguments and options in this case? How amenable are ngos and media organization to this sort of mediation?

I got the extension letter via email at 2:52 pm est time.

4:34 pm it was granted in full. But was it really?

Doing geneology research on someone who applied for a US passport (they were born in America raised abroad) We have the passport. We're trying to get a sense of the data that is contained within the application itself. Would it have their foreign address?

I submitted a foia request for myself to the fbi and got this back.

For context, I had reasons to believe my mom has been using my information illegally (cars in my name I don't have, finding a piece of mail from when I was 12 saying I have car loans, mom having random lump sums of money etc). And her getting defensive when I asked her directly about it.

I got my foia back and this is what it says. Can anyone dumb it down and explain if this means something or not? Thanks in advance!

Have fun.

In a letter organized by Freedom of the Press Foundation, the press rights groups argued that Moore’s policy amounts to unlawful retaliation.

“It is particularly jarring that, while government agencies under your watch stonewall reporters based on flimsy pretexts, you take to the airwaves to condemn the Trump administration’s unconstitutional ban of news outlets the president doesn’t like from the White House. Yes, Trump frequently turns his personal grudges into censorial government policy, to the detriment of the public. But your own conduct appears not much different,” the letter to Moore said.

“We urge you to instruct all Maryland agencies that Smith’s lawsuit against you is a personal matter and not an excuse to send media requests into a legal review black hole, and to cease any other unlawful retaliation against news outlets you personally dislike,” the letter added.

Sharing this here to. Chuck is the incubant.

What are the laws surrounding filing FOIA requests in NYS? Do all requests have to come from state residents or are out-of-state requests honored as well?

Just wondering. I know time on calls is logged I'm sure. But what about the actual call and transcript.

How much power does a judge have? Can a judge intervene in a case and issue an allegedly false or procedurally invalid endorsement based on fraud, false statements, or other misconduct for his or her own interest?

Attached is the cover (first) page of an endorsement issued by Justice Akazaki, which I contend was issued illegally and is procedurally invalid. I contend that it was issued without jurisdiction, without a scheduled motion, without notice, without a hearing, without the participation of the alleged participants, and without proper access to the court file and/or despite the contents of the file.

Contrary to what Justice Akazaki wrote, I, Behrouz Salehi, never appeared or participated in the court proceeding referred to in the endorsement. I have never seen Justice Akazaki. I am also certain that the other persons identified as participants did not appear or participate in the proceeding.

The role of the alleged participants identified by Justice Akazaki in the endorsement is not consistent with the court file.

Justice Akazaki stated that Daniel J. Abrahams represented Professional Engineers Ontario, whereas Mr. Abrahams was self-represented. This raises an important question: Can a self-represented person represent an entity?

Moreover, Daniel J. Abrahams had no role in this proceeding, as far as the court record shows. The fact that he was identified as representing Professional Engineers Ontario raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the endorsement and about Justice Akazaki's understanding of the procedural circumstances of the case.

Justice Akazaki also stated that “the entity incorporated in 1922 by patent under Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990.” I contend that this is factually incorrect and raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the endorsement and the judge's understanding of the underlying facts.

The issuance of an endorsement based on an event that did not occur is not merely a disagreement with judicial reasoning. It raises serious concerns regarding judicial integrity, impartiality, accountability, and the accuracy of the judicial record.

These circumstances raise the question of why Justice Akazaki became involved in this matter and issued two endorsements containing what I consider numerous factual errors, incorrect assumptions, and false statements.

Justice Akazaki's statement that there were five participants is, in my view, inconsistent with the court record and the events that actually occurred. I contend that this statement raises serious concerns under sections 380 and 131 of the Criminal Code, although I recognize that the application of those provisions is ultimately a matter for the appropriate legal authority or court to determine.

I also contend that Justice Akazaki's initiation of the proceeding without a motion from any defendant raises serious concerns regarding obstruction of justice under section 139 of the Criminal Code and breach of trust by a public officer under section 122. These are serious allegations that require proper investigation and legal determination.

Justice Akazaki also appears to have incorrectly stated that Bernard Charles LeBlanc and Anastasia-Maria Hountalas represented Natasha S. Danson. I contend that this statement is inconsistent with the court record.

Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) has incurred or paid confidential legal expenses that I understand to total $12,856,881.00. I contend that these expenditures and the circumstances surrounding this litigation require transparency and investigation, particularly in light of my allegation that efforts were made to prevent the matter from proceeding to a trial and to avoid liability. I believe that this information may be relevant to understanding the actions of Justice Akazaki and others.

What document, information, or communication did Justice Akazaki rely upon when identifying the persons who allegedly appeared and identifying their respective legal representation?

I’m in Victoria but this relates to Queensland Police and the Queensland Right to Information Act.

I was the victim in a serious criminal investigation in Queensland several years ago. Multiple people were charged and the matter progressed to committal proceedings, but ultimately did not proceed further.

Earlier this year I submitted an RTI application to QPS requesting the records relating to me and the investigation. I requested things such as the QPRIME/occurrence records, investigation reports, crime scene photos, forensic material, police notes, correspondence, briefs of evidence, CCTV/body-worn camera footage and other records relating to the investigation.

I have been waiting for 5 months and there have already been extensions. On the date I was expecting the documents, I instead received a Notice under s 41 stating that QPS intends to refuse to deal with the application unless I change the scope.

QPS says they’ve already spent 10 hours on my application and preliminary searches have identified 420+ pages and more than 15 hours of video. They estimate approximately 252 hours to process the footage and 21+ hours to review the documents. They have suggested that I narrow my entire application down to just the occurrence report and my own witness statement (which I already have from when I wrote it). 

I really do not want to do that. These records relate to an extremely significant criminal investigation, and obtaining a comprehensive understanding of what occurred during the investigation is very important to me. 

I completely understand that 15+ hours of body-worn camera footage may create an unreasonable workload, and I am willing to substantially narrow or even exclude that footage from this particular application if necessary. However, I would really like to retain as much of the documentary investigation file as reasonably possible rather than receiving only two documents.

I have now been given 10 business days to consult with QPS and revise the scope. The letter also says that if I narrow it and the revised scope is still considered an unreasonable diversion of resources, I will not receive another opportunity to consult, so I’m nervous about agreeing to anything without understanding the consequences. 

What are my options here? Is there a way to negotiate a reasonably broad scope rather than accepting their suggestion of only two documents? Can QPS progressively process/release records? If I exclude video footage now, can I make a separate, much narrower RTI application for specific footage later? Is there any mechanism for voluntarily paying additional processing costs/resources? Would it be worthwhile getting an RTI/privacy lawyer or advocate involved during the consultation period?

I’m also wondering whether anyone has successfully challenged a QPS s 41 “substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources” decision, or has experience negotiating the scope of a large QPS RTI request.

I’m not trying to make an unreasonable demand on staff. I just don’t want to inadvertently give up access to potentially important parts of the investigation file because I don’t understand the RTI process well enough.

Any Queensland RTI experience or suggestions about what I should do before formally narrowing the application would be greatly appreciated.