This page was read by OCR. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19,
basis for his request. Moments later, Respondent Stewart arrived on scene
and, without further discussion or warning, instructed officers to issue a
trespass citation.
Petitioner was not provided any explanation of the citation, no written notice,
and no opportunity to remedy or clarify the situation. The citation did not
result from any misconduct or disruption, but rather from Respondent
Stewart’s apparent discomfort with being held accountable and challenged on
matters directly within his oversight,
A subsequent FOIA response confirmed that NNPS has no written policy
governing trespass authority, public access restrictions, or appointment
requirements. The absence of any formal procedures renders such
enforcement actions arbitrary rather than grounded in established policy or
law.
Later that same day, Deputy City Attorney Lynn Spratley processed the
Petitioner’s request on an ad hoc basis as a verbal F OIA request. However,
because the request had been initially denied by Respondent Stewart and only
processed indirectly through a third party, Petitioner was never informed that
his request had been acknowledged, accepted, or that any records would be
provided. As a result of this breakdown in communication, the incorrect
document was ultimately requested and produced.
Ten days later, on April 14", Respondent Stewart issued a retroactive
“temporary ban” prohibiting Petitioner from accessing any NNPS property.
The ban referenced vague and unexplained conduct and offered no due
Process, appeal procedure, or exceptions—not even for student pickup, school
meetings, or participation in public functions.
The notice further stated that a panel would later be held to determine whether
a one-year ban would be appropriate. No details were provided regarding what
Jump to an indexed page (9 of 9)