Last week, I received an email from the Chula Vista Police Department that was at once familiar and frustrating.
Familiar because its contents were essentially identical to the previous 43 emails I have received from the department in response to two requests for related public records. Those emails usually contain some version of: “Your request still requires the need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a number of separate and distinct records…”
Dreadful words to a reporter.
Frustrating because I requested these records on Oct. 7, 2025 – more than a year ago.
Meanwhile, the police department has failed to explain with any specificity why it’s taking this long to provide the full records and when exactly they will be provided.
Instead, they’ve sent me the nearly exact same email every few weeks for the past 12 months, saying they need more time for my request. In that time, they have provided just two documents, both of which were policies from the department handbook available online.
They did add this to an email on Sept. 10: “Thank you for your continued patience. This request is in final review.” That was after I asked them to explain the delay. Later that month, they added: “Please be advised, your request requires the need to search for, collect, and…”
The records I requested could shed light on whether the Chula Vista Police Department is working with immigration authorities and in what capacity.
Specifically, I wanted to know whether the department has shared police surveillance equipment, such as drones, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Border Patrol. Chula Vista police pioneered the “drone as first responder” program now replicated at departments across the country with the aim of reducing 911 response time.
The prospect of such local collaboration with immigration enforcement is an issue in a state that limits it by law and for advocates who say it leads to lower trust and willingness to report crimes in immigrant communities. We don’t know if this type of collaboration is happening, but the full release of records could help us understand if it is.
By law, government agencies in California are allowed to ask for extensions to fulfill record requests from the public. In some cases, they’re allowed to withhold records from the public, but they must provide an explanation for why the records are exempt from release.
Chula Vista has not said the records are exempt — they’ve simply said they need more time.
After a year of waiting, when will time be up?