By Robert Haugh
Santa Clara News Online (SCNO) has uncovered serious issues with how the Santa Clara Police Department (SCPD) is handling a domestic disturbance incident involving City Councilmember Kevin Park.
Despite clear legal requirements, the City is keeping crucial information under wraps.
On July 22, 2025, award-winning San Francisco Chronicle investigative reporter Lance Williams filed a Public Records Act (PRA) request for communications between Assistant Police Chief Wahid Kazem and Park from June 11 to July 22, 2025.
Williams’ request sought emails, texts, memos, and details about the incident involving Park. Williams cited Government Code Section 6254(f). That part of the law mandates disclosure of names, statements, and witness testimonies in such incidents, excluding confidential informants.
“Local law enforcement must release the names of those involved and the statements of witnesses,” Williams wrote.
SCPD’s response was a 36-page packet, nearly all of it blacked out or redacted.
Here’s a sample page:
In their reply, the City cited several legal justifications for withholding records:
- Preliminary Drafts and Notes: Under Government Code § 7927.500, records considered drafts, notes, or internal memoranda not typically retained were withheld.
- Deliberative Process Privilege: Citing Government Code § 7922.000, the City claimed certain records are protected under the deliberative process privilege.
- Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine: The City cited legal protections under Government Code § 7927.705, subd. (k), Evidence Code § 954, and Code of Civil Procedure § 2018.030, subd.(c).
- Personal Privacy Exemption: The City also redacted information it claimed would violate personal privacy under Government Code § 7922.000.
However, the City failed to explain how these provisions applied to the specific records requested, leaving many questions unanswered.
According to a reliable source, Assistant Police Chief Kazem was involved in the decision to redact the information.
This is not the first time Kazem has been involved in a Park incident.
In 2021, Kazem instructed Santa Clara resident Debbie Algieri to destroy reports on two previous domestic disturbance calls involving Park at his home.
The very next day, Kazem appeared with Park at a Silicon Valley Korean American Federation event, where Kazem received an award and posed with Park.
The City’s refusal to release basic information—like the names of those involved or witness statements—raises serious concerns in the community about transparency, selective disclosure, or even a possible coverup.
SCNO will continue to cover this developing story.
Editor’s Note: SCNO made a PRA request on July 22, 2025, asking SCPD for information about the Park incident or the legal justification for not providing it. According to the law, the City must respond in 10 days, or state a reason why more time may be needed. It’s been 22 days without a response, even after follow-up email reminders.
[…] clear legal requirements, the City is keeping crucial information requested by SCNO and the San Francisco Chronicle about Park under […]
Hey Danny Garza
Could I ask you to email me at jamesdad1@msn.com I need some help with something not related to this article I know you are respected in your community and I need some help
Thanks
Dear Community,
When Council woman Carrasco would not come forward with the name of the Police Officer that told her, NOT TO TALK TO ME.
I started a lawsuit.
I got my answer soon enough.
Try it, it works.
In Community Spirit,
Danny Garza
President
Plata Arroyo Neighborhood Association and Gateway East N.A.C.
Request body cam footage and CAD logs…
“award-winning San Francisco Chronicle investigative reporter Lance Williams”
Lance Williams!
Lance FRIGGIN Willams!
Dude, there’s blood in the water!
The City’s response appears to be in violation of the requirements of the California Public Records Act. When entire documents are blacked out, this is not a redaction, it is a wholesale refusal to produce the record. The City’s citations are also completely inadequate. For example, when the “deliberative process” exemption is invoked, the City must demonstrate that the public interest in withholding the record outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The City has made no showing to justify its refusal to disclose the record. Unfortunately, transparency in City government sure has gone downhill since Jed York got me fired from the City Attorney position.
Brian Doyle, so many people agree about the state of city government since you and Santana got the boot for such ridiculous charges. Has anyone counted how many assistant city managers are “working” at City Hall these days??? How many do you need Jovan Grogan?
Park should be indicted instead of protected for so many violations dating back to 2020 but all charges seem to disappear into the ether by his complicit colleagues and maybe the FPPC??? How far does Jed York’s political influence and tentacles go? And the “good citizens” of Santa Clara kept Park in his seat in 2024 to represent District 4? Whadda state…of affairs especially when Jed York is buying your seat!
And now we have the young children like girls who are at the effect of Park’s behavior? Are there boys too? SCUSD and Santa Clara Sister Cities are you paying attention? Are we setting up Santa Clara for another Dominic Caserta disgrace? Haven’t we learned anything???
😵💫🤯😡🙈🙉🙊💩🤦♀️
May 2025
Cpra 25-397
Cpra 25-399
Records of Jain and Park corresponding with Becker on sentencing
DELAY, DELAY
TODAY, CITY DELAYED PRODUCTION OF RECORDS TILL END OF AUGUST.
WHY????
This is not a civil case that requires the involvement of the Civil Grand Jury. This should be investigated by the DA and CPS. A Criminal Grand Jury would be involved in a conspiracy to coverup or destroy evidence.
Though I am a critic of Brian Doyle, he was unfairly dismissed and has a legitimate case against Park and Jain. Doyle has rights as does Santana and those rights were violated. Park set up Kathy and I learned that, I retracted my criticism of Watanabe. Santa Clara has been polluted by corruption. Once Park and Jain are gone, the toxic waste will cease.
@Matt Dillon, let’s hope the Santa Clara voters are more aware than they were in 2020 and 2024. Change will only come if people are paying atension and vote against Jed York.
Good stuff, Robert. Keep reporting. It’s clear that someone has something to hide. It’s a shame that sometimes good people do indefensible things. But it happens, and it should be exposed.
Open card
Can someone name a Park, a program, a senior center program, a commission, a youth program, a school, a community benefit that Kevin Park has initiated.
Is Kevin Park the new Jeffrey Epstein of Santa Clara? Redacted pages like the report in DC that people can’t see? SCPD is a disgrace! Let’s get subpoenas issued and DEMAND an answer to this BS coverup!
For gawd sakes kids especially young girls are involved.
Civil Grand Jury has received request to review incidents
Kevin Park
Complaint
Willful and deliberate misconduct as a public official
1. Park has acted to violate free speech of critics.
2. Park has been a co-conspirator of Anthony Becker regarding leaking of documents
3.Park has falsely accused public officials, their wives and even their children of embezzlement.
4.Park used his position as presiding officer to humiliate a member of the public.
5.Park has a history of being belligerent to residents.
6. Park refuses to comply with public record requests.
7.Park has dismissed commissioners for no reason.