RICO: Corrupt Former Detective Sgt. Jeff Plunkett seeks help from state- *DENIED*
|Visitor Analysis & System Spec|
|Search Referral Time:||https://www.google.com/ (Encrypted Search)|
19 Dec 2013 11:48:14 AM
|Blog Name:||Corruption Sucks Blog||Browser:||Chrome 31.0|
|IP Address:||22.214.171.124 — [Label IP Address]||Operating System:||Win7|
|Location:||Washington, District Of Columbia, United States||Resolution:||1680x1050|
|Visit Length:||15m 26s||ISP:||Executive Office Of The President|
Non-Resident mercenary cop, corrupt River Market Sergeant seeks help from Arkansas State Attorney-Denied
Pictured: Crooked Former Detective & River Market Cop Jeffrey Plunkett under corruption investigation against the Houma-Choctaw People.
This list reveals which personnel work within Little Rock but doesn't live here. Otherwise known as non-resident mercenary cops. They are hired to possibly shoot & kill citizens in a city that they are NOT required to live in, share our plights within, send their kids to our schools... It's a hell of a lot easier to be a corrupt piece of shit when you don't have to run into the citizens that you are screwing over, indeed. Enjoy that bloody paycheck, we are watching you. It's ironic that every single cop that I have had a problem with over the past SEVEN years has been a non-resident mercenary cop (except for that backstabbing-ass, whip-holdin' bo-bo,still in-the-closet, Sgt. Willie Davis). They simply don't give a shit because they don't have to live here, hell, why should they?
LRPD loves to talk about how they are having trouble finding qualified people and must outsource well-paying jobs to nonresidents. NO, your problem is that it is a shitty job full of favoritism & racism within & without and most "qualified" people wouldn't work for a hypocritical Police Chief Stuart Thomas or his handpicked good 'ol boy cronies. That is this city's pervading & corrosive problem and until there is a genuine change in leadership, this most obvious & corrupt shit will continue to bleed on with this Chief's well-practiced silence & duplicitous blessings (just don't shoot nobody or piss-off someone rich).
Just look at how they just recently gave Little Rock Traffic Judge Vic Fleming preferential treatment last week when he drove his vehicle HEAD-ON (no major injuries) into another vehicle while travelling in the WRONG lane. LRPD refused to give him a ticket even when he requested a supervisor. What was the bullshit excuse spouted-out from the LRPD? Well, it is up to the "discretion" of the investigating officer whether to issue a citation when it is "unclear" as to whom is at fault. Here's a friggin' hint, maybe it's the Bozo travelling in the WRONG LANE. Looks like another keystone cop no-brainer to me but hell, they know better right? I wouldn't want to be the one giving him a ticket either. Speaking of Judge Fleming, I have heard his Spanish speaking in court & it is NOT good enough for him to be administering any type of so-called Little Rock justice to Hispanics without an interpreter BY FAR.
Citizen's sorely distrusting cop's & the LRPD as a legitimate and just institution as a whole, will continue to be the status quo here in Little Rock, Arkansas for quite sometime to come I'm sad to say.
Is it consistent with the FOIA for the custodian of records to release a list that states the name, position, and city of residence of all current full-time LRPD employees? RESPONSE: The decision to release the name and position is consistent with the FOIA. It is not entirely clear from the correspondence what information the custodian has decided to release regarding the city of residence.
|12/10/2013||Plunkett, Jeffery Sergeant, Little Rock Police Department||HTML PDF|
Opinion No. 2013-152
December 10, 2013
Sergeant Jeffrey Plunkett
Little Rock Police Department
700 W. Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Sgt. Plunkett:
You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Your request is based on A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2013). This subsection authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of personnel or employee evaluation records to seek an opinion from this office stating whether the custodian’s decision regarding the release of such records is consistent with the FOIA.
Your letter indicates that someone ( Chief Elder E. Ean Lee Bordeaux, pro per) has sent an FOIA request to the Little Rock Police Department for three categories of information on “all current full-time employees.” For this group, the requester seeks the “employees’ names and positions with the designation of who lives in Little Rock and who does not.” The custodian has determined that the names and positions qualify as “personnel records” under the FOIA and should be released. The custodian has also cited the FOIA exception (section 25-19-105(b)(13)) for “personal contact information,” which includes “home addresses.”
You object to the release of your name and position because of who the requester is and what the requester might plan to do with that information. You also object to the release of your “address.” But the custodian has stated that “[y]our address is covered under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).” It thus does not appear from the records before me that the custodian intends to release your address. Consequently, I will confine this opinion to a review of the custodian’s decision regarding your name and position.
My statutory duty is to state whether the custodian’s decision is consistent with the FOIA. Because I have not reviewed any specific records, I can only opine more generally about how the FOIA applies to the release of public employees’ names and positions.
This office has consistently held that a public employee’s name and position qualify as “personnel records” under the FOIA. The FOIA requires that personnel records be disclosed unless doing so constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of the employee’s personal privacy. This office has repeatedly held that the release of a public employee’s name and position rarely rises to that level. This is particularly the case where (as you say here) the requester already has your name, position, and photograph.
Therefore, the custodian’s decision to release your name and position is, in my opinion, consistent with the FOIA.
You also ask me to address several questions relating to the requester’s identity, how he intends to use the information he obtains, and the circumstances surrounding his request. My authority under the FOIA only extends to reviewing the custodian’s decision about whether to release certain employee-related records in response to an FOIA request. Thus, I am unable to address your several specific questions, all of which fall outside the scope of my authority.
Assistant Attorney General Ryan Owsley prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
See Op. Att’y Gen. Nos. 2011-114, 2011-045.
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
See Op. Att’y Gen. 2011-045.
See Op. Att’y Gen. Nos. 2013-088, 2010-140, and 1996-386.