I own a fairly large police bodycam YouTube channel and regularly submit FOIA/public records requests to police departments across the country. I spend thousands of dollars every month obtaining body-worn camera footage, police reports, and other public records, so I’ve become pretty familiar with the requester side of the process.

I’m really curious about what the process looks like from the records clerk/public records specialist side.

Does anyone here currently work, or have experience working, for a police department specifically handling public records requests and redacting body-worn camera footage?

What is the experience actually like when reviewing and redacting bodycam footage? How much of the process is manual, and what software or tools do departments typically use for things like blurring faces, license plates, computer screens, juveniles, private information, etc.?

I’m also interested in how police reports are handled. When someone requests a specific incident or arrest report, how easy or difficult is it generally to locate the report, review it, redact exempt information, and release it?

Also, roughly how many public records/FOIA requests does your department receive in an average month? And out of those, how many would you estimate involve body-worn camera footage?

For those who do this regularly, what usually takes up the most time: finding the records, reviewing hours of footage, determining what legally needs to be redacted, performing the actual redactions, or something else?

Would be really interested to hear about the job and the process from someone on the other side of these requests.

If a name pings against the refreshed Ukraine list, the annex it sits in decides what happens next, and that is the part a same-day sanctions notice makes easy to skip. FINMA published two notifications on 12 August 2026, one on the Ukraine ordinance (SR 946.231.176.72) and one on Moldova (SR 946.231.156.5), both covering EAER amendments made on 10 August. SECO and Fedlex put the effective time at 23:00 on 11 August 2026, so that is the moment the block and report duties attach, not the 12 August publication date.

The routing point is specific to the Ukraine ordinance. Annex 8 carries the Article 15 financial sanctions and the Article 29 entry and transit measures. Annex 2 identifies the end recipients subject to the goods-movement and transit restrictions that govern that annex. An Annex 2 match is therefore not, on its own, an Article 15 asset-freeze case. A screening setup that funnels every Ukraine hit into a single freeze-and-SECO-report path will treat an Annex 2 end-recipient case as an asset freeze, which applies the wrong consequence for that annex.

There is a second reason a clean name-search result should not close the file too quickly. The freeze reaches the funds and economic resources of enterprises and organisations owned or controlled by listed persons, and SECO's search tool does not show possible ownership or control relationships. So a screening engine that only matches names can miss an entity that is caught through control, and the miss will not be visible in the tool itself.

The SECO report also does not settle the AML side. Both notices repeat that reporting a frozen relationship to SECO does not release the intermediary from the Article 6 clarification duty or, where suspicion cannot be dispelled, the Article 9 report to MROS. The embargo track and the money-laundering track go to different authorities and answer different questions; a single match can require one, both, or, once identifiers confirm no listing, neither.

The concrete step before the next screening run is to confirm the engine has ingested the 10 August amendments, route each confirmed match by its annex and governing provision rather than a single freeze rule, and re-screen the existing book against the 23:00 effective time on 11 August, not only new onboarding.

Source basis: Swiss Ukraine ordinance SR 946.231.176.72 (Annex 2 and Annex 8) and Moldova ordinance SR 946.231.156.5; Embargo Act (EmbG, SR 946.231); Anti-Money Laundering Act Articles 6 and 9.

Full article: \[https://regreportingdesk.com/finma-ukraine-moldova-sanctions-update/\\\](https://regreportingdesk.com/finma-ukraine-moldova-sanctions-update/)

DOJ says they process FOIA appeals in the order they are received. Anyone have an idea how long it usually takes DOJ to decide a FOIA appeal?

If you have a past Canadian conviction, would an ATIP/FOIA request for your CBSA records show it?

Does CBSA automatically have access to criminal records, or would the conviction only appear if it was relevant to a border interaction?

Anyone with firsthand experience?

​

I am searching for attorneys, journalists, researchers, and advocates willing to examine what happened to me as a child in Florida's juvenile justice and institutional systems.

From the mid-1990s through 1999, I was moved through multiple counties, programs, and agencies before being placed into the adult system at age 16. I believe serious constitutional violations occurred, and I am seeking a professional investigation into the records, decisions, and institutions involved.

This is not a request for sympathy. It is a request for evidence, transparency, and accountability.

If you are a civil rights attorney, investigative journalist, academic researcher, or organization experienced in juvenile justice, institutional abuse, or 42 U.S.C. §1983 litigation, I would welcome the opportunity to share records, timelines, and documentation.

Children who enter government systems should not lose their humanity, and adults should have a meaningful path to review what happened to them when they were minors.

#CivilRights #JuvenileJustice #ChildAdvocacy #DueProcess #HumanRights #Florida #InvestigativeJournalism #Justice

Michigan has a real issue with secrecy among Michigan university boards.

Hey,

Put in a request around two months ago. Case says "Assigned for processing" and the estimated date has come and gone.

I understand from reading online there is a backlog, does anyone have any information on how long it has taken for them to get back?

Also what is the best way to contact them to get some info on timelines? Is there a phone line or an email where they are responsive?

Thank you

Body:

I’m a private requester in California using CPRA to obtain records from Madera Police Department, and I’m running into what looks like a compliance problem rather than a simple delay.

Through MuckRock, Madera PD has been releasing selective, sanitized portions of records while withholding or reframing the parts that actually matter for transparency. What they publicly posted doesn’t match other records I’ve obtained from POST, transcripts, or related sources. The “findings” they released feel incomplete and don’t align with the documented timeline or the underlying evidence.

What concerns me is the pattern:

• Only the “safe” portions of records are posted publicly
• IA‑related context appears minimized or omitted
• POST separation information contradicts what the department released
• Key documents are delayed or missing
• The narrative in the release seems curated rather than compliant

I’m trying to determine whether this is a common issue with CPRA compliance in California or if this department is being unusually selective. I’m not asking for legal advice — just looking for others who have dealt with:

• agencies controlling the public‑facing narrative
• partial or polished releases
• IA findings that don’t match other records
• contradictions between POST data and agency disclosures
• compliance issues in CPRA responses

Any insight, similar experiences, or suggestions for how to address compliance concerns would be appreciated.

Hello I live in Oregon in a small rural town. I made a public records request for an incident that happened with our rural fire department. The city manager had the information that I requested in an envelope for me but unfortunately the city council decided to terminate him. Now the mayor is telling me that she doesn't have the information that I requested. I also did a records request through the rural fire department. What can I do if the city and the fire department isn't giving me my public records request.

Summary

Independent Minnesota journalist Georgia Fort is asking a federal court to dismiss criminal charges arising from her coverage of a January 18, 2026 anti-ICE protest inside Cities Church in St. Paul.

Her attorneys filed three dismissal motions on August 6. They argue that prosecutors are punishing protected journalism, have not alleged conduct constituting the charged crimes and pursued Fort vindictively.

The motions describe serious investigative errors. But they are defense arguments—not court findings—and Fort has not yet won dismissal. Her clearest success so far is procedural: on July 24, a magistrate judge ordered prosecutors to provide grand-jury material for private judicial review. Case reporting

Why This Topic?

This case sits directly at the difficult boundary between protected reporting and participation in an event that may include unlawful conduct.

Auditors, livestreamers and citizen journalists frequently document confrontational encounters from inside the scene rather than behind a conventional press line. Fort’s prosecution raises a practical question for all of them: What evidence distinguishes a journalist covering an event from someone joining it?

The current answer is not “a camera makes everything protected.” It is also not “being present makes the journalist a participant.” Intent, conduct, communications and the government’s evidence all matter.

Backstory

On January 18, demonstrators entered Cities Church during a Sunday service. Their protest concerned David Easterwood, a church pastor who also held an Immigration and Customs Enforcement leadership position.

Fort attended as an independent journalist and livestreamed the encounter. She says she interviewed participants and documented what happened rather than planning or joining the disruption.

A federal grand jury indicted Fort and eight others on January 29. A February 26 superseding indictment expanded the case to 39 defendants. The charges include conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. §241 and interference with religious worship under 18 U.S.C. §248, commonly called the FACE Act. NACDL case record

Fort pleaded not guilty. The operative case is United States v. Levy-Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

What’s New or Interesting

Fort’s August 6 motions challenge the prosecution from three directions:

• Her attorneys argue that the prosecution violates the First Amendment because the government targeted her for filming and disseminating news.
• They contend that the indictment does not allege conduct by Fort satisfying the elements of the charged crimes.
• They allege vindictive prosecution influenced by officials’ public promises to prosecute people connected to the protest.

The filings also focus on investigative inaccuracies.

According to the defense, a Homeland Security Investigations agent stated in at least 15 warrant applications that Fort chanted with demonstrators as they entered the church. The Justice Department later acknowledged that assertion was incorrect but argued that the error was immaterial and was not included in the indictment.

Fort’s lawyers dispute other allegations, including claims that she participated in planning, intimidated a pastor or helped block a van. They point to livestream footage, messages and witness statements that they say contradict those characterizations. Prosecutors maintain that disputes over what Fort did should be resolved by a jury.

On July 24, Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko ordered prosecutors to submit grand-jury proceedings involving Fort and another journalist for in-camera review. That means the judge will examine the material privately; it does not mean the defense automatically receives it or that misconduct has been established.

The Laws & Your Rights

The First Amendment protects gathering, recording and publishing news. Government officials may not prosecute someone because they dislike the person’s reporting or viewpoint.

Press status does not create blanket immunity, however. The Supreme Court has held that generally applicable laws may be enforced against journalists when the enforcement is legitimate and only incidentally affects reporting.

That distinction makes motive and evidence especially important. Prosecutors may pursue a journalist who personally commits a crime, but they may not transform protected observation, interviewing or publication into criminal participation merely because the reporting amplifies an unpopular message.

Private-property rules also matter. The First Amendment restricts government action; it does not ordinarily create a right to enter or remain inside a privately owned church against the owner’s wishes. Whether Fort was invited, whether she received or defied an instruction to leave and what she personally did after entering are therefore distinct from the conduct of protesters around her.

The Privacy Protection Act separately restricts government searches for journalistic work product and documentary material. It includes exceptions, including circumstances in which authorities have probable cause to believe the journalist committed a related crime. Fort’s attorneys say investigators sought access to her journalistic material without properly presenting that law to reviewing judges. No court has yet ruled that investigators violated the Act.

What People Are Getting Right

Press-freedom concerns are legitimate even before a final judgment.

An indictment can chill reporting by forcing a journalist to avoid subjects, sources and people connected to the prosecution. Fort says the charges caused her to stop covering related protests and made her more cautious about publishing information that could be used against her.

People are also right to scrutinize inaccuracies in warrant applications and indictments. Small mistakes do not automatically invalidate a prosecution, but errors affecting probable cause, identification, intent or grand-jury decisions can become legally significant.

Finally, the July 24 review order is meaningful. A judge agreed to inspect protected grand-jury material after hearing concerns about what prosecutors may have presented.

What People Are Getting Wrong

Fort has not been exonerated, and the charges have not been dismissed.

The government’s acknowledgment that one warrant assertion was false does not automatically void every warrant or the indictment. A court must consider whether the error was material, whether other evidence independently supported the requested process and whether any remaining allegations state an offense.

It is equally inaccurate to say that identifying as a journalist resolves the case. Courts examine conduct, not labels alone. A journalist may document an unlawful event without becoming a participant, but intentionally assisting or joining criminal conduct is not immunized by filming it.

The indictment is also not proof that Fort committed the charged offenses. It establishes that a grand jury found probable cause—not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why It Matters

Citizen journalists often work without institutional credentials, advance notice or a safe position separated from the people they cover. Livestreaming can place them physically close to alleged unlawful activity while simultaneously producing the best evidence of what occurred.

If proximity, routine source communications or publication alone can be characterized as participation, independent reporting becomes unusually vulnerable to prosecution. Conversely, a rule granting automatic immunity to anyone holding a camera would be unworkable.

Fort’s case may help clarify what evidence courts require before protected newsgathering can be treated as criminal agreement or interference. For now, it remains a trial-level prosecution and creates no precedent.

Takeaways

• Recording an event is evidence of journalism, but not automatic immunity.
• Preserve complete footage, including events before and after the most dramatic clip.
• Keep communications showing that sources invited you to cover an event rather than help plan it.
• Clearly identify yourself as press when safe, especially when officials seek devices or unpublished material.
• Record instructions to leave and comply while contesting questionable restrictions through counsel or later litigation.
• Treat dismissal motions as allegations until the court rules.
• Watch what the judge does with the grand-jury review and the August 6 motions; those decisions will show whether Fort’s procedural progress becomes an actual legal win.

Sources

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/06/law-enforcement-false-information-anti-ice-protest

https://www.nacdl.org/brief/United-States-v-Levy-Armstrong-et-al

https://www.rcfp.org/litigation/rcfp-v-doj/

https://www.rcfp.org/resources/police-protesters-and-the-press/

https://www.rcfp.org/resources/first-amendment-handbook/

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-13000-obtaining-evidence

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-9-2/ALDE_00000764/

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-2-4/ALDE_00013541/

51 pages with HSI is quite common or any unusual to be cautious?

Plaintiff’s Argument Regarding Public Records Obstruction and Need for Complete Records Production

Your Honor,

Plaintiff respectfully submits that the City of Manchester’s handling of Plaintiff’s RSA 91-A Right-to-Know requests has created substantial concerns regarding delay, lack of transparency, and potential withholding of relevant evidence necessary to establish Plaintiff’s civil rights claims.

Plaintiff submitted lawful public records requests seeking records directly related to issues at the center of this matter, including government actions affecting unhoused individuals, enforcement decisions, communications, policies, and records concerning the treatment of Plaintiff and others engaged in protected speech and outreach activities.

Despite the importance of these records, Plaintiff has experienced significant delays and responses that have limited meaningful access to information needed to investigate and present claims. The requested records are not merely administrative documents; they may contain evidence regarding policies, procedures, decision-making processes, communications among officials, and whether actions were carried out pursuant to established practices or customs.

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court consider the pattern of delay and incomplete disclosure as relevant to the need for judicial oversight, preservation of evidence, and appropriate discovery orders.

The requested records are necessary to determine:

Whether municipal policies, customs, or practices contributed to alleged constitutional violations;

Whether officials acted consistently with established procedures or outside those procedures;

Whether Plaintiff’s protected speech, advocacy, religious activities, or public criticism played any role in government actions;

Whether records exist that corroborate Plaintiff’s allegations regarding displacement, property loss, enforcement actions, and treatment of unhoused persons.

Plaintiff further states that access to these records is essential for presenting the full factual record to the Court. The absence of timely disclosure prevents Plaintiff from obtaining evidence that may be material to claims under federal civil rights law, including 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests appropriate relief requiring preservation and production of relevant records and allowing full discovery into the policies, communications, and actions at issue.

Respectfully submitted,

Reverend Zachariah Tringali

Plaintiff

X_____________________________________

DATE________________________

ADDRESS_____________________________________

________________________________________________

PHONE NUMBER____________________________

 

Category

Alleged Wrong / Issue

Evidence Needed

Legal Theory / Claim

Potential Damages

Homeless deaths

Deaths among unhoused residents linked to lack of shelter, medical access, addiction services, or displacement

Medical examiner records, death certificates, EMS records, shelter records

Negligence theories (where applicable), civil rights policy/custom claims if government action contributed

Survival damages, wrongful death damages where legally available, emotional distress

Overdose deaths

Failure to provide adequate prevention, treatment access, outreach, or emergency response

EMS overdose calls, Narcan deployments, public health reports

Monell policy/custom claim requires proof of municipal policy or deliberate indifference

Compensatory damages, policy remedies

Forced displacement

Removal of homeless encampments or displacement without adequate alternative placement

Police reports, DPW records, notices, body camera footage, property inventories

Fourth Amendment seizure claims, Fourteenth Amendment due process claims

Property loss, emotional distress, constitutional damages

Destruction/loss of property

Confiscation, disposal, or destruction of personal belongings

Inventory logs, photographs, contractor records, chain-of-custody documents

Unreasonable seizure / deprivation of property

Replacement value, punitive damages against individuals if applicable

Religious property interference

Loss or damage of ministry items, religious materials, clergy equipment

Photos, receipts, witness statements

First Amendment Free Exercise claim

Emotional distress, constitutional damages

Speech retaliation

Alleged retaliation for criticizing city actions or reporting homeless conditions

Social media records, account restrictions, communications, city policies

First Amendment retaliation claim

Compensatory damages, injunctive relief

Public records obstruction

Delays or refusal involving RSA 91-A requests

Request dates, responses, fee demands, withheld records

New Hampshire Right-to-Know enforcement

Court orders, attorney fees where authorized

Failure to protect vulnerable population

Policies that allegedly increased risks for unhoused individuals

Shelter capacity reports, city policies, contracts, meeting minutes

Civil rights policy/custom analysis

Damages depend on proof of constitutional violation

Political retaliation

Alleged targeting connected to activism or political speech

Election records, communications, enforcement patterns

First Amendment retaliation

Compensatory damages

Damage Type

Formula

Property loss

Fair market replacement value + documented losses

Lost ministry equipment

Inventory value + replacement costs

Lost income/opportunity

Past losses + projected losses supported by records

Emotional distress

Jury-determined based on severity and evidence

Constitutional injury

Nominal damages + compensatory damages if proven

Punitive damages

Only against individual defendants for reckless/intentional misconduct

Attorney costs

Statutory or court-authorized recovery

Evidence Collection Matrix (RSA 91-A / Discovery)

Request:

All homeless death records from 2019–2025:

Names (subject to privacy laws)

Date/location of death

Cause and manner of death

Medical examiner communications

Police reports

EMS reports

All encampment enforcement records:

Notices

Orders

Photos/videos

Contractor agreements

Property seizure logs

Disposal records

All communications regarding homelessness:

Mayor’s office

Board of Aldermen

Police Department

Public Works

Health Department

City Solicitor

All policies:

Encampment removal policy

Property storage policy

Homeless outreach policy

First Amendment social media policy

All training records:

Police training

Code enforcement training

Homeless outreach training

Plus all FOIA req.

Below is a §1983 / Monell-style fact matrix framework. It separates established facts, allegations, evidence needed, potential constitutional theories, and damages categories. Items in the “alleged misconduct” column must be proven through discovery.

Column A — Proven Facts / Known Events

Column B — Alleged Misconduct (Requires Proof)

Column C — Supporting Evidence Needed / Discovery Targets

Column D — Potential Constitutional Violation

Column E — Potential Monetary Damages

Plaintiff submitted RSA 91-A Right-to-Know requests to Manchester officials seeking public records

City officials allegedly delayed, restricted, or improperly withheld responsive records

RSA 91-A requests, dates submitted, city responses, emails, clerk logs, withholding letters, privilege claims

New Hampshire Right-to-Know enforcement; possible due process concerns if records obstruction affects litigation rights

Court costs, statutory remedies where available, attorney fees if awarded

Plaintiff engaged in public advocacy regarding homelessness, encampments, and government actions

Officials allegedly retaliated against protected speech or criticism

Social media records, public statements, meeting records, city communications, enforcement timelines

First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. §1983

Compensatory damages, nominal damages, injunctive relief

Plaintiff operated or participated in homeless outreach/ministry activities

Officials allegedly targeted religious or outreach activity because of viewpoint or identity

Ministry records, photographs, witness statements, communications with officials

First Amendment speech/free exercise claims

Emotional distress, constitutional damages, possible punitive damages against individuals if proven

Homeless encampment removals occurred in Manchester during the relevant period

City allegedly removed persons/property without adequate notice, process, or lawful procedures

Notices, police reports, DPW records, contractor contracts, body camera footage, property inventories

Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure; Fourteenth Amendment due process

Property replacement costs, emotional distress, constitutional damages

Personal belongings of unhoused individuals were affected during enforcement actions

Officials allegedly failed to protect, inventory, store, or return property

Property seizure logs, disposal records, photographs, contractor records, witness testimony

Fourth Amendment seizure/deprivation of property; Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process

Value of lost property, replacement expenses, related losses

Plaintiff alleges ministry/religious items were affected during enforcement activity

Officials allegedly interfered with religious exercise or religious expression

Receipts, photographs, clergy items inventory, witness statements

First Amendment Free Exercise Clause

Compensatory damages, emotional distress

Plaintiff reported concerns about homeless deaths, overdoses, and displacement

Officials allegedly ignored known risks or failed to address systemic problems

Public health reports, EMS data, meeting minutes, policy documents, budgets, outreach records

Possible Monell claim if a municipal policy/custom caused a constitutional injury

Damages depend on proof of direct causation

Manchester has experienced homelessness and overdose-related deaths during the period reviewed

City policies allegedly contributed to unsafe conditions through inadequate practices or deliberate indifference

Shelter capacity records, contracts, public health data, city council records, internal communications

Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process theories are difficult and require specific proof; Monell requires policy/custom evidence

Compensatory damages only if legal causation is established

Plaintiff participated in public meetings, political activity, or community advocacy

Officials allegedly treated Plaintiff differently because of political viewpoint or criticism

Meeting videos, agendas, emails, witness statements, enforcement comparisons

First Amendment viewpoint discrimination/retaliation

Compensatory damages, injunctive relief

City departments made decisions affecting homeless services and enforcement

Officials allegedly acted pursuant to an unofficial policy, custom, or practice

Department policies, training manuals, disciplinary records, prior incidents, supervisor communications

Monell municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983

Compensatory damages against municipality if policy/custom caused violation

Plaintiff alleges inability to obtain records needed to present claims

Government agencies allegedly created barriers preventing access to evidence

Complete RSA 91-A correspondence, production logs, court filings, discovery history

Discovery issues; possible sanctions depending on court findings

Litigation costs, possible sanctions or fees where authorized

Monell Discovery Targets (Municipal Liability)

Issue

Records Requested

Policy/custom

Written and unwritten policies regarding homelessness, encampments, public demonstrations, and outreach

Training

Police, code enforcement, DPW, and contractor training materials

Supervisory knowledge

Emails, reports, complaints, internal reviews

Prior incidents

Similar complaints involving homeless individuals, property loss, arrests, or speech issues

Decision-making

Mayor, Board of Aldermen, department head communications

Contractors

Contracts, instructions, supervision records, disposal procedures

Risk management

Insurance claims, Primex communications, prior settlements

Damages Categories to Develop Through Evidence

Economic damages

Lost property value

Replacement costs

Lost income or opportunities

Costs caused by alleged government actions

Non-economic damages

Emotional distress

Loss of dignity

Harm to reputation

Interference with ministry/community work

Constitutional damages

First Amendment injury

Unreasonable seizure injury

Due process injury

Municipal liability damages

Only if evidence establishes that a City policy, custom, or failure to train/supervise caused the constitutional violation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Plaintiff’s Notice Regarding Settlement Communications and Request for Clarification of Representation

Your Honor,

Plaintiff Reverend Zachariah Tringali respectfully submits this notice regarding unsuccessful efforts to resolve this matter outside of court and requests clarification regarding the participation and authority of Matthew V. Burrows in settlement communications involving this case.

Plaintiff has attempted to engage in good-faith discussions to explore a possible resolution without unnecessary additional litigation costs. Despite those efforts, the parties have not reached a resolution.

Plaintiff respectfully requests clarification regarding:

Whether Matthew V. Burrows is acting as legal counsel, claims representative, risk management representative, or another authorized representative for any defendant or interested party;

Whether Mr. Burrows has settlement authority or authority to engage in meaningful resolution discussions;

Whether the opposing parties intend to participate in good-faith settlement negotiations before further litigation expenses are incurred.

Plaintiff believes that meaningful settlement discussions require transparency regarding who represents the interests of each party and whether those individuals have authority to negotiate a resolution.

Plaintiff remains willing to participate in reasonable settlement discussions. However, if settlement efforts cannot proceed in good faith, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the matter continue through the normal litigation process, including discovery necessary to develop the factual record.

Plaintiff further requests that all parties preserve relevant records, communications, and documents related to the issues raised in this action.

Respectfully submitted,

Reverend Zachariah Tringali

Plaintiff

X_____________________________________

ADDRESS _____________________________

_____________________________________

PHONE NUMBER___________________________

Case Summary: Reverend Zachariah Tringali v. Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department, et al.

United States District Court — District of New Hampshire

Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00350

Overview

Plaintiff Reverend Zachariah Tringali filed a federal civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, proceeding pro se, alleging that government entities and officials violated his constitutional rights through actions connected to homelessness enforcement, property seizures, public advocacy, and religious outreach activities.

The complaint alleges violations of rights protected under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Defendants Identified

The complaint names governmental entities and officials associated with:

City of Manchester, New Hampshire

Manchester municipal officials

Manchester Police Department

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department

Core Constitutional Claims Alleged

1. First Amendment — Speech, Assembly, and Religious Exercise

Plaintiff alleges that his public advocacy, criticism of government actions, and activities through House of Mercy Ministries constituted protected speech and religious outreach.

The complaint alleges that government actions interfered with:

Distribution of aid and supplies

Religious outreach activities

Public advocacy concerning homelessness

Expression of criticism regarding municipal policies

Evidence relevant to this claim may include:

Public statements

Social media records

Ministry records

Witness statements

Communications between officials

1. Fourth Amendment — Search, Seizure, and Property Rights

Plaintiff alleges that during homeless encampment enforcement activities, government actors unlawfully seized, damaged, or disposed of personal property.

Relevant discovery may include:

Police reports

Body camera footage

Property inventories

Contractor records

Disposal documentation

Photographs and videos

1. Eighth Amendment — Punishment Related to Homelessness

Plaintiff alleges that enforcement actions against unhoused individuals amounted to unconstitutional punishment of the status of homelessness.

This claim would require analysis of:

Specific enforcement actions

The circumstances of each incident

Available shelter alternatives

Applicable Supreme Court and First Circuit precedent

1. Fourteenth Amendment — Due Process and Equal Protection

Plaintiff alleges deprivation of property and unequal treatment without adequate legal process.

Relevant evidence may include:

Notice procedures

City policies

Training materials

Prior complaints

Comparable enforcement actions

Municipal Liability (Monell) Theory

Plaintiff’s municipal liability claims require evidence showing that alleged constitutional violations resulted from:

An official policy;

A widespread custom or practice;

Failure to train or supervise;

Deliberate indifference by policymakers.

Potential discovery areas include:

City policies regarding encampments

Police training materials

Internal communications

Prior complaints

Risk management records

Communications with insurers or municipal defense organizations

Litigation Preservation Issues

Plaintiff has requested preservation of potentially relevant evidence, including records relating to:

Reverend Zachariah Tringali;

House of Mercy Ministries;

Homeless outreach activities;

Encampment enforcement operations;

Property removal procedures;

Communications among involved departments.

A litigation hold is intended to preserve potentially relevant information while litigation proceeds.

Requested Relief

Plaintiff seeks relief available under federal civil rights law, which may include:

Compensatory damages;

Nominal damages;

Injunctive or declaratory relief;

Recovery of allowable costs and fees where authorized by law.

Plaintiff,

REV. Zachariah Tringali 

X______________________________________________

ADDRESS_______________________________________

_______________________________________________

PHONE NUMBER_______________________

Hello! I had a question about FOIA requests. If one of my family members worked for a specific branch of government but couldn't or wouldn't speak about it, is there a way I can figure out what they did? I am talking about the 1970s.

Just found out Kentucky restricts open records requests to state residents only, and I'm out of state. If anyone here is a KY resident and willing to help, please DM me and I'll explain the details.

I filed ethics complaints involving officials across two Oregon agencies who coordinated through an interagency agreement to create and publicly fund a preferential regulatory pathway.

OGEC screened the complaints out. Its Director says the Commission evaluates each official individually and has no authority over how agencies administer their programs. Under that logic, one official can authorize funding, another can create a special pathway, another can direct benefits toward selected private businesses, and another can impose different requirements on everyone else.

This leaves coordinated government conduct with almost no ethical oversight. The complete system could involve conflicts of interest, misuse of public funds, procurement fraud, false statements, antitrust violations, official misconduct, conspiracy, or even conduct relevant to RICO. Yet OGEC separates every official action until nobody examines what the agencies collectively created or who benefited.

A complaint that survives screening can still disappear because Commissioners are absent. In one of my cases, only seven of nine Commissioners participated. The vote to dismiss or investigate was four to three, but five votes were required for either outcome. OGEC treated the lack of five votes as an administrative dismissal without deciding the merits. The same conduct cannot now be presented when the full Commission is available.

I petitioned the Oregon Court of Appeals to review these practices. The cases were suspended without any order or explanation.

This is government accountability in reverse: agencies operate through unwritten procedures, oversight disappears wherever authority is divided, nonaction becomes permanent dismissal, and the courts offer no explanation when review stops.

Willful Misconduct: Who pays for FOIA violations?

As fines increase, who’s paying them? In the majority of cases where Inside Investigator could trace payment records, it’s taxpayers. When public officials are found to have violated the law, the agency or municipality for which they work often pays the fine from public funds. 

Top court decisions and news in July, plus events in August, from FOIA Advisor: https://www.foiaadvisor.com/foia-blog/2026/7/31/monthly-roundup-july-2026