Dear Mr. Murphy,
I am writing to follow up on my letter requesting your personal review of
the concerns surrounding the Menlo Park Police Departments handling of my
attempt to report criminal conduct. To date, I have received neither an
acknowledgment nor a substantive response.
I find the absence of any response particularly troubling given the Citys
handling of my administrative complaint. My complaint alleging
command-level (Sergeant Aaron Dixon) misconduct was opened, purportedly
investigated, closed, and deemed to require no further administrative
action within only four days. Yet the far more significant questions
concerning the integrity of that process itself—questions directed to the
Citys chief administrative officer—have gone unanswered.
Over the past several months, I have repeatedly presented straightforward
factual questions concerning the Police Departments refusal to accept and
document reported crimes, the inconsistent explanations subsequently
offered to justify that refusal, and the Citys continued reliance upon
evidence that it refuses to disclose or meaningfully explain. Rather than
addressing those questions, the Citys responses have followed a consistent
pattern. Either no response is provided, or I receive the conclusory
assertion that the matters have "previously been reviewed and addressed,"
without identifying who conducted the review, when it occurred, what issues
were actually reviewed, or where the specific questions I have raised were
substantively answered.
This pattern has now extended beyond the Police Department and the City
Attorneys Office to the City Managers Office itself.
The factual inconsistencies remain unresolved. When I initially attempted
to report the theft of approximately $750,000 and related criminal conduct
occurring within Menlo Parks jurisdiction, I was informed that the matter
was essentially civil in nature. Later, command staff asserted that the
Department lacked jurisdiction to investigate. Those explanations are
materially different, and in my view neither accurately reflects California
law governing the acceptance and documentation of crime reports. Rather
than reconcile these inconsistent positions, the City has simply declined
to answer the questions identifying the factual basis for either
explanation.
Equally concerning is the Citys continued refusal to produce or
meaningfully explain the audio recording upon which Sergeant Swanson
expressly relied in reaching factual conclusions adverse to me. The City
now contends that the recording is exempt because it constitutes part of a
police investigation, yet Sergeant Swanson expressly represented that he
conducted only an "initial review" and concluded that the Police Department
did not investigate the crimes I reported. Despite repeated requests, the
City has never identified the investigation upon which it relies or
explained how these positions can both be true.
The Citys refusal to answer these straightforward questions creates the
appearance that relevant evidence is being withheld because it may
undermine the narrative now advanced by the City. More broadly, it raises
concern that the administrative review process may be serving not to
objectively evaluate complaints, but instead to retrospectively justify
decisions already made.
If the Department refused to accept a crime report and subsequently
generated changing administrative explanations to defend that refusal, that
would raise serious concerns regarding accountability, transparency, and
compliance with the Departments reporting obligations. Those concerns
cannot be resolved through silence or by repeatedly asserting that the
matters have already been addressed when the underlying factual questions
remain unanswered.
Transparency and accountability are among the most fundamental obligations
of local government. When a citizen presents documented concerns regarding
police reporting practices, public confidence is strengthened through
openness and reasoned explanation—not through the refusal to acknowledge
correspondence or answer legitimate questions.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that you advise whether you intend to
personally review these matters or assign them to an individual independent
of both the Police Department and the City Attorneys Office. If it is the
Citys position that no response will be provided, I ask that you state
that directly so there is no misunderstanding regarding the Citys position.
Absent a substantive response, I will conclude that the City has exhausted
its willingness to address these issues through its administrative
processes. I will then present these matters to the Mayor and the City
Council and consult legal counsel regarding all available legal remedies.
My objective has never been litigation for its own sake. Rather, it is to
ensure accountability, transparency, and adherence to the obligations that
government owes to the public. Allegations of police misconduct,
governmental opacity, and the possible withholding of evidence are matters
of legitimate public concern. They are not frivolous issues, but questions
that deserve meaningful review whenever public confidence in governmental
institutions is at stake.
I respectfully request that you acknowledge receipt of this correspondence
and provide a substantive response within seven (7) business days.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Nikolai Gallo
On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 10:05 AM Nikolai Gallo
wrote:
> Dear Mr. Murphy,
>
> I am writing to request your personal review of a matter that I have
> attempted, without success, to resolve through the Citys normal channels
> over the past several months.
>
> Because Ms. Nira Doherty has advised that she is out of the office until
> July 27, and because my repeated requests for clarification have not
> resulted in substantive responses, I believe it is appropriate to bring
> these concerns directly to your attention.
>
> This matter extends well beyond my original attempt to report what I
> believe to be a substantial fraud involving the theft of approximately
> $750,000 and related misconduct. My growing concern is that the Citys
> handling of my complaint itself reflects broader issues that warrant
> independent review.
>
> Specifically, I am concerned by what appears to be a pattern in which the
> Menlo Park Police Department declines to accept or document reported
> crimes, later creates administrative narratives to justify those decisions,
> and then relies upon those narratives while refusing to disclose the
> underlying evidence upon which they are based.
>
> In my case, Sergeant Swanson acknowledged conducting only an "initial
> review" and concluded that the Police Department did not investigate the
> crimes I reported because they allegedly fell outside the Departments
> jurisdiction and expertise. The City now refuses to produce the audio
> recording upon which Sergeant Swanson relied, claiming instead that it is
> exempt because it is part of a police investigation. Despite repeated
> requests, the City has never identified the investigation upon which that
> claim is based or explained how these positions can both be true.
>
> I am further concerned that the recorded conversations between myself and
> Police Department personnel may demonstrate that different and inconsistent
> explanations were given for refusing to accept a police report. If so,
> those recordings would be highly relevant to determining whether my
> complaint was handled appropriately. The Citys continued refusal to
> disclose or meaningfully explain those recordings creates the appearance
> that they may undermine the narrative the City now seeks to defend.
>
> These concerns are not limited to my individual complaint. If reports of
> alleged criminal conduct are being declined, not documented, or
> recharacterized through administrative reviews rather than accepted and
> assigned case numbers where appropriate, it raises broader questions
> regarding the integrity of the Departments reporting practices and,
> potentially, the accuracy of publicly reported crime statistics used to
> evaluate departmental performance. I am not asserting that this has
> occurred in other cases, but the circumstances surrounding my own complaint
> raise sufficient concerns that I believe they merit independent review.
>
> Equally troubling is the Citys pattern of responding through conclusory
> assertions that matters have "already been reviewed and addressed," while
> repeatedly declining to answer straightforward factual questions or
> identify the basis for its positions. In my view, that approach is
> inconsistent with the transparency and accountability the public should
> expect from its local government.
>
> Accordingly, I respectfully request that you conduct, or assign someone
> independent of the Police Department and City Attorneys Office to conduct,
> an objective review of these matters, including:
>
> - the refusal to accept and document my reported crimes;
> - the basis for withholding the audio recording under Government Code
> section 7923.600;
> - whether any investigation actually exists to support that claimed
> exemption;
> - whether the Police Departments handling of my complaint complied
> with applicable law and departmental policy; and
> - whether any corrective action is warranted.
>
> I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns with you and
> provide the underlying correspondence and supporting documentation.
>
> Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Nikolai Gallo
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 9:48 AM Nikolai Gallo wrote:
>
>> Ms. Doherty,
>>
>> I am writing one final time before escalating this matter to the City
>> Manager and Mayor.
>>
>> For months, the City has either failed to respond or asserted that these
>> issues were “previously reviewed and addressed,” without identifying who
>> conducted the review, when it occurred, what was reviewed, or where any
>> substantive response can be found.
>>
>> The central question remains unanswered: what police investigation does
>> the City contend supports withholding the recording under Government Code
>> section 7923.600?
>>
>> Sergeant Swanson stated that he conducted only an “initial review” and
>> that the Police Department did not investigate the reported conduct. The
>> City now claims the recording is part of a police investigation. Those
>> positions appear inconsistent, yet the City refuses to explain them.
>>
>> This pattern of avoiding direct factual questions while threatening
>> attorney’s fees is unprofessional and inconsistent with the transparency
>> expected of counsel for a public agency.
>>
>> Please either answer the questions previously presented or state
>> unequivocally that the City does not intend to answer them.
>>
>> Absent a substantive response, I will conclude that further
>> correspondence with counsel is futile and will present the matter directly
>> to City leadership.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Nikolai Gallo
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 7:34 PM Nikolai Gallo wrote:
>>
>>> Ms. Doherty,
>>>
>>> I am writing once again because, despite many months of correspondence,
>>> the City still has not provided substantive responses to the
>>> straightforward factual and legal questions that have repeatedly been
>>> presented.
>>>
>>> Instead, the Citys responses have followed a consistent pattern. Either
>>> no response is provided at all, or the City simply asserts that the matters
>>> have "previously been reviewed and addressed," without identifying when
>>> they were reviewed, who conducted the review, what issues were actually
>>> considered, how they were addressed, or where the Citys purported
>>> responses may be found. Simply repeating that these matters have already
>>> been addressed does not constitute a substantive response when the
>>> questions themselves remain unanswered.
>>>
>>> Your most recent correspondence continues that pattern. While you again
>>> cite Government Code section 7923.600 as the basis for withholding the
>>> audio recording, you decline to answer the central question that has now
>>> been asked repeatedly: what investigation is the City referring to?
>>>
>>> As I have previously explained, Sergeant Swanson did not state that he
>>> conducted a police investigation. Rather, he expressly wrote, "I have
>>> conducted an initial review of the events described in your email." He
>>> further concluded that the Menlo Park Police Department did not investigate
>>> the crimes I reported because they allegedly fell outside the Departments
>>> jurisdiction and expertise.
>>>
>>> The Citys current position therefore appears fundamentally inconsistent
>>> with Sergeant Swansons own written representations. If Sergeant Swanson
>>> merely conducted an initial review and concluded that no criminal
>>> investigation by the Menlo Park Police Department was appropriate, then it
>>> remains entirely unclear what "investigation conducted by a local police
>>> agency" the City now contends gives rise to the exemption under Government
>>> Code section 7923.600.
>>>
>>> The City cannot simultaneously maintain that no police investigation was
>>> conducted because the matter allegedly fell outside the Departments
>>> jurisdiction while also invoking an exemption that applies to records of a
>>> police investigation without explaining how those two positions can both be
>>> true.
>>>
>>> This is precisely why I have repeatedly requested that the City
>>> identify, with specificity:
>>>
>>> - the investigation upon which it now relies;
>>> - whether it was a criminal investigation, an administrative review,
>>> an Internal Affairs investigation, or some other proceeding;
>>> - when it was initiated;
>>> - whether a case or investigation number was assigned;
>>> - who conducted it;
>>> - whether the audio recording was created as part of that
>>> investigation or merely reviewed during Sergeant Swansons initial review;
>>> and
>>> - whether the City now contends that the Menlo Park Police
>>> Department did, in fact, investigate the matters I reported.
>>>
>>> To date, neither you, the Chief of Police, nor Sergeant Swanson has
>>> answered these straightforward factual questions.
>>>
>>> I also remain concerned by the Citys continued refusal to produce the
>>> audio recording upon which Sergeant Swanson expressly relied in reaching
>>> factual conclusions adverse to me. Given the Citys unwillingness to answer
>>> even the most basic questions concerning that recording or the
>>> investigation that supposedly justifies withholding it, the Citys conduct
>>> creates the appearance that the recording may not support Sergeant
>>> Swansons written account or the position the City now seeks to defend. If
>>> that appearance is incorrect, it could easily be dispelled by answering the
>>> questions that have now been presented on multiple occasions.
>>>
>>> Accordingly, I again request that the City provide substantive responses
>>> rather than conclusory assertions that these matters have already been
>>> addressed.
>>>
>>> If, however, it is the Citys position that it simply does not intend to
>>> answer these questions, I ask that you state that directly. Doing so will
>>> eliminate any misunderstanding and allow me to determine the appropriate
>>> next steps without the need for further, unproductive correspondence.
>>>
>>> Should the City once again decline to provide meaningful responses, I
>>> will conclude that further correspondence with counsel is unlikely to be
>>> productive. In that event, I intend to bring these matters directly to the
>>> attention of the City Manager and the Mayor, including the Citys repeated
>>> refusal to answer straightforward factual questions concerning the Police
>>> Departments handling of my complaint, its reliance upon evidence that it
>>> continues to withhold, and its refusal to explain the factual basis for
>>> doing so.
>>>
>>> Finally, I wish to make one point unmistakably clear. Neither the Citys
>>> continued refusal to respond, its repeated assertions that these matters
>>> have somehow already been addressed when they plainly have not, nor the
>>> suggestion that I could be subjected to attorneys fees or litigation for
>>> exercising my rights to seek transparency and accountability in government
>>> will deter me from continuing to pursue these issues. If anything, the
>>> Citys persistent refusal to answer legitimate questions only reinforces
>>> the need for further scrutiny.
>>>
>>> Public confidence in government depends upon transparency,
>>> accountability, and a willingness to answer legitimate questions—not upon
>>> conclusory assertions that matters have been addressed when the record
>>> demonstrates otherwise.
>>>
>>> I therefore once again request substantive responses to the specific
>>> questions previously identified. If the City does not intend to provide
>>> those responses, please state so unequivocally so that I may proceed
>>> accordingly.
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>>
>>> Nikolai Gallo
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 3:44 PM Nikolai Gallo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Ms. Doherty,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your response.
>>>>
>>>> After reviewing your email, I believe the Citys current position
>>>> raises several significant inconsistencies that I respectfully request you
>>>> clarify.
>>>>
>>>> Your response states that the City withheld the requested audio
>>>> recording pursuant to Government Code section 7923.600 because it
>>>> constitutes a "record[] of investigations conducted by local police
>>>> agencies."
>>>>
>>>> However, that position appears inconsistent with the Citys previous
>>>> representations.
>>>>
>>>> In his November 20, 2025 letter, Sergeant Swanson expressly concluded
>>>> that the Menlo Park Police Department did not have the resources or
>>>> jurisdiction to investigate the crimes I reported, that the matter instead
>>>> belonged with the San Mateo County District Attorney, the California
>>>> Department of Justice, or the State Bar of California, and that Sergeant
>>>> Dixon acted appropriately in declining to take a police report and
>>>> referring me elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> If that remains the Citys position, then it is unclear what
>>>> "investigation conducted by a local police agency" the City now contends
>>>> gives rise to the claimed exemption.
>>>>
>>>> The Citys correspondence therefore appears to assert all of the
>>>> following simultaneously:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The Menlo Park Police Department did not investigate the crimes
>>>> because they allegedly fell outside the Departments jurisdiction or
>>>> expertise;
>>>> 2. Sergeant Swanson nevertheless reviewed evidence, made factual
>>>> findings regarding disputed events, and concluded that Sergeant Dixon acted
>>>> appropriately; and
>>>> 3. The recording supporting those findings is exempt because it is
>>>> part of a police investigation.
>>>>
>>>> These positions are difficult to reconcile.
>>>>
>>>> Accordingly, please identify with specificity:
>>>>
>>>> - the investigation to which the City refers;
>>>> - whether it was a criminal investigation, an administrative
>>>> investigation, an Internal Affairs investigation, or some other form of
>>>> investigation;
>>>> - when the investigation was initiated;
>>>> - whether an investigation or case number was assigned;
>>>> - the subject matter of the investigation;
>>>> - whether the recording was created as part of that investigation
>>>> or merely reviewed by Sergeant Swanson while preparing his response; and
>>>> - whether the City now contends that the Menlo Park Police
>>>> Department did, in fact, investigate the matters I reported.
>>>>
>>>> These are straightforward factual questions. Without identifying the
>>>> investigation itself, the City has provided only a conclusory assertion
>>>> that Government Code section 7923.600 applies. Merely citing a statutory
>>>> exemption and *Haynie v. Superior Court* does not explain how that
>>>> exemption applies to the specific recording at issue or resolve the
>>>> apparent inconsistency between the Citys current position and Sergeant
>>>> Swansons prior representations.
>>>>
>>>> There is another point that remains unexplained.
>>>>
>>>> Sergeant Swanson expressly relied upon the recording in reaching
>>>> factual conclusions adverse to me, writing:
>>>>
>>>> "After reviewing the audio recording of your phone conversation with
>>>> Sergeant Aaron Dixon, I found this to be inaccurate."
>>>>
>>>> The recording therefore became affirmative evidence relied upon by the
>>>> City in support of its factual conclusions. My request has never been
>>>> limited to whether the recording is presently subject to disclosure under
>>>> the California Public Records Act. Rather, I sought confirmation that the
>>>> recording exists, has been preserved, and is being maintained because it
>>>> constitutes evidence that the City affirmatively relied upon in responding
>>>> to my complaint.
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate the Citys confirmation that preservation measures have
>>>> now been implemented.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, I am concerned by the Citys statement that any action seeking
>>>> disclosure would be "frivolous" and that the City intends to seek
>>>> attorneys fees.
>>>>
>>>> Respectfully, requesting that the City identify the investigation upon
>>>> which it relies before invoking an investigatory exemption is neither
>>>> frivolous nor unreasonable. It is a fundamental request for the factual
>>>> basis supporting the Citys claimed exemption. Indeed, where the Citys own
>>>> prior correspondence repeatedly asserted that the Menlo Park Police
>>>> Department did not investigate the reported crimes, clarification of the
>>>> investigation now being relied upon is both appropriate and necessary.
>>>>
>>>> I therefore respectfully request that the City answer the factual
>>>> questions set forth above rather than simply restating the statutory
>>>> citation.
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to your response.
>>>>
>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>
>>>> Nikolai Gallo
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 11:37 AM Doherty, Nira F.
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mr. Gallo,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The City has received your additional communication and is taking
>>>>> steps to preserve records. In addition, as to your assertion that the City
>>>>> has not provided justifications for withholding a video recording, I wanted
>>>>> to clarify the City has clearly done so in compliance with the Public
>>>>> Records Act. On December 12, 2025, the City meticulously processed your
>>>>> repeatedly expanding request, and in doing so also provided justification
>>>>> for withholding various records requested, which included the following
>>>>> justification:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that additional records responsive to your request have
>>>>> been withheld pursuant to Government Code section 7923.600 et seq., as
>>>>> records of investigations conducted by local police agencies are exempt
>>>>> from disclosure, and such records include body camera and other recordings.
>>>>> (*Haynie v. Superior Court *(2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061, 1071 - 1072).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the clear statement for justification for withholding police
>>>>> records of investigation, including video recordings, a court will likely
>>>>> find that any action to seek disclosure of these records is frivolous and
>>>>> the City will seek all costs and attorney fees. (Gov. Code, § 7923.115.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Nira F. Doherty* | *Partner*
>>>>>
>>>>> *she, her, hers*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Burke, Williams* *&* *Sorensen, LLP*
>>>>>
>>>>> 181 Third Street - Suite 200, San Rafael, California 94901
>>>>>
>>>>> *D* 415.755.2603 | *O* 415.755.2600 | *F* 415.482.7542
>>>>>
>>>>> ndoherty@bwslaw.com | vCard
>>>>>
>>>>> | Bio |
>>>>> LinkedIn |
>>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbwslaw.com&c=E,1,PI1I27vos1CCy-Mo6YsX0wot4QaNrDhm8AUTs3qGyRa_SC0ERPn2OZhM-nhaZm1F8b5Nw9igUdrfezQqJRtbaMUXPZzkzdqSx-M05w66iz-_&typo=1
>>>>>
>>>>> [image: photo]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
>>>>> the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The
>>>>> information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or
>>>>> represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file
>>>>> copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the
>>>>> designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for
>>>>> delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document
>>>>> through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination,
>>>>> distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is
>>>>> strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE
>>>>> NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT
>>>>> 800.333.4297. Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [image: __tpx__]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Nikolai Gallo
>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 24, 2026 9:34 AM
>>>>> *To:* Doherty, Nira F.
>>>>> *Cc:* Kelp, Victoria D. ; Allen M. Swanson <
>>>>> AMSwanson@menlopark.gov>; policechief ;
>>>>> Dani OConnor ; bnash@menlopark.gov;
>>>>> jicmurphy@menlopark.gov
>>>>> *Subject:* Formal Request for Preservation of Documents and Evidence
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *[EXTERNAL]*
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Ms. Doherty,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am copying the City Manager and Mayor because this correspondence
>>>>> concerns the Citys legal obligation to preserve evidence that may become
>>>>> relevant to anticipated litigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Over the past several months I have repeatedly sought responses to
>>>>> specific questions concerning the Menlo Park Police Departments handling
>>>>> of my complaint, the refusal to accept and document reported crimes, and
>>>>> the Citys responses to my California Public Records Act requests.
>>>>>
>>>>> To date, neither Sergeant Swanson nor the Chief of Police has provided
>>>>> any substantive response to the issues raised. More recently, both the City
>>>>> Attorneys Office and the Police Departments Management Analyst have
>>>>> stated only that the matters have previously been "reviewed and addressed."
>>>>> However, neither communication identifies:
>>>>>
>>>>> - when the review occurred;
>>>>> - who conducted the review;
>>>>> - which specific issues were addressed;
>>>>> - how they were addressed; or
>>>>> - where any substantive responses may be found.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result, despite repeated requests, the questions raised in my
>>>>> correspondence remain unanswered. The Citys responses have been conclusory
>>>>> rather than substantive, making it impossible to determine whether the
>>>>> issues have in fact been investigated or addressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of particular concern is the audio recording referenced by Sergeant
>>>>> Allen Swanson in his November 20, 2025 correspondence, in which he stated:
>>>>>
>>>>> "After reviewing the audio recording of your phone conversation with
>>>>> Sergeant Aaron Dixon, I found this to be inaccurate."
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite multiple California Public Records Act requests specifically
>>>>> seeking this recording, it has never been produced, nor has the City
>>>>> explained whether it exists, whether it has been preserved, or the legal
>>>>> basis for withholding it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Importantly, Sergeant Swanson expressly relied upon this recording in
>>>>> reaching the conclusions set forth in his letter. Because the recording was
>>>>> affirmatively cited as evidence supporting the Citys position, it is
>>>>> plainly a potentially significant piece of evidence. Its preservation is
>>>>> therefore essential irrespective of any dispute concerning whether it is
>>>>> ultimately subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the Citys repeated failure to provide complete responses and
>>>>> the continued absence of records specifically identified by City personnel,
>>>>> I have concluded that judicial intervention may ultimately be necessary to
>>>>> obtain compliance with the Citys statutory obligations. Accordingly,
>>>>> litigation is now reasonably anticipated.
>>>>>
>>>>> For that reason, this correspondence constitutes a formal request that
>>>>> the City immediately preserve all documents, electronically stored
>>>>> information, recordings, emails, text messages, notes, investigative
>>>>> materials, complaint records, dispatch records, CAD records, body-worn
>>>>> camera records, call recordings, metadata, audit logs, and any other
>>>>> materials relating to these matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> This request specifically includes, without limitation:
>>>>>
>>>>> - the audio recording referenced by Sergeant Swanson in his
>>>>> November 20, 2025 correspondence;
>>>>> - any recordings of my communications with Sergeant Aaron Dixon;
>>>>> - all records concerning my California Public Records Act requests
>>>>> and the Citys responses;
>>>>> - all internal communications concerning my complaints and
>>>>> correspondence;
>>>>> - all records relating to Complaint No. 60;
>>>>> - all communications among the Police Department, the City
>>>>> Attorneys Office, the City Managers Office, the Mayors Office, and any
>>>>> other City personnel concerning these matters;
>>>>> - all drafts, notes, memoranda, investigative materials, and
>>>>> complaint files;
>>>>> - any records reflecting decisions regarding whether to produce or
>>>>> withhold responsive records; and
>>>>> - any backup media, archived data, or other electronically stored
>>>>> information from which responsive materials may be recovered.
>>>>>
>>>>> To the extent any routine document retention or deletion policies may
>>>>> affect potentially responsive materials, I request that those policies be
>>>>> immediately suspended with respect to all information relating to these
>>>>> matters so that no responsive evidence is deleted, overwritten, modified,
>>>>> or destroyed while these issues remain pending.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please also ensure that all City employees, officers, agents,
>>>>> contractors, and departments with possession, custody, or control of
>>>>> potentially relevant information are notified of their obligation to
>>>>> preserve such evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence and confirm that the
>>>>> City has implemented appropriate preservation measures with respect to all
>>>>> potentially relevant documents and electronically stored information.
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to
>>>>> your confirmation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nikolai Gallo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>> From: *Nikolai Gallo*
>>>>> Date: Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 12:04 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Request for Review of Sergeants Refusal to Take Felony
>>>>> Report and Related Concerns
>>>>> To: Dani OConnor
>>>>> Cc: Doherty, Nira F , policechief <
>>>>> policechief@menlopark.gov>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ms. OConnor,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for confirming receipt of my complaint.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your email states that "the matters raised have previously been
>>>>> reviewed and addressed." I am not aware of any prior response that
>>>>> addressed the specific questions raised in my complaint or my June 18, 2026
>>>>> correspondence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you please identify:
>>>>>
>>>>> - when these matters were reviewed;
>>>>> - who conducted the review;
>>>>> - how the matters were addressed; and
>>>>> - where I can find the Citys responses to the specific questions
>>>>> I raised.
>>>>>
>>>>> In particular, I have not received responses to, among other things:
>>>>>
>>>>> - why the audio recording referenced by Sergeant Swanson was not
>>>>> produced in response to my CPRA requests;
>>>>> - whether the City continues to stand behind Sergeant Swansons
>>>>> legal and factual positions;
>>>>> - if not, what corrective action, if any, has been taken; and
>>>>> - the factual and legal basis for the Citys position regarding
>>>>> the refusal to accept and document the reported crimes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the Citys position is that these questions have already been
>>>>> answered, I would appreciate being directed to the specific correspondence
>>>>> or documents containing those responses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to your reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nikolai Gallo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 11:36 AM Dani OConnor <
>>>>> DOConnor@menlopark.gov> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> *Mr. Gallo,*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *This email confirms receipt of your complaint regarding Sergeant
>>>>> Swanson. The matters raised have previously been reviewed and addressed. No
>>>>> further administrative action is warranted, and the complaint has been
>>>>> closed.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * Dani OConnor*
>>>>> Management Analyst I
>>>>> Police Department
>>>>> 701 Laurel St.
>>>>> tel 650-330-6326
>>>>> menlopark.gov
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Nikolai Gallo
>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 18, 2026 9:47 AM
>>>>> *To:* Doherty, Nira F
>>>>> *Cc:* policechief
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Request for Review of Sergeants Refusal to Take
>>>>> Felony Report and Related Concerns
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ms. Doherty,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am following up because I have not received a response from you, the
>>>>> Chief of Police, or Sergeant Swanson regarding the matters raised in this
>>>>> email thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the absence of any response, I formally submitted a complaint
>>>>> against Sergeant Swanson earlier today through the Citys online complaint
>>>>> portal. The portal indicated that it was Complaint #60; however, I did not
>>>>> receive any confirmation that the complaint was received. Please confirm
>>>>> that the City has received my complaint and advise me of its assigned
>>>>> complaint number and current status.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since my prior correspondence, I have reviewed these matters in
>>>>> greater detail and have become increasingly concerned that there may be a
>>>>> broader pattern of failing to properly document reported crimes and public
>>>>> complaints. If accurate, such practices would inevitably affect the
>>>>> integrity and accuracy of the Departments crime reporting. Because these
>>>>> issues are matters of significant public interest, I intend to present my
>>>>> concerns to the Menlo Park City Council and the San Mateo County Civil
>>>>> Grand Jury.
>>>>>
>>>>> Accordingly, I respectfully request that the City respond to the
>>>>> following:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Why was the audio recording referenced by Sergeant Swanson in
>>>>> his November 20, 2025 correspondence never produced in response to my
>>>>> California Public Records Act requests?
>>>>> 2. Does the City agree with and continue to stand behind Sergeant
>>>>> Swansons written positions, including his refusal to document the crimes I
>>>>> reported and the legal and factual explanations offered in support of that
>>>>> decision?
>>>>> 3. If the City does not agree with Sergeant Swansons position,
>>>>> what corrective action, if any, has been taken or is being considered?
>>>>>
>>>>> For reference, the following article illustrates why the proper
>>>>> documentation and classification of reported crimes is an issue of
>>>>> substantial public concern:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwjla.com%2fnews%2flocal%2fdc-police-crime-administrative-leave-officers-termination-review-jeffrey-carroll-data-numbers-probe-commanders-agency-internal-investigation-washington-manipulation-alleged-numbers&c=E,1,05s7zK7B1FkB5sTfZTMCnkyKzrAR0bmuTVzYwXDasXYl2veczysvzYPZeiyakqsriQD2fv6Vz2lXmxDqzy0b8PGGLq0G5TFwDLS2CCM-gfk-96qrjXl-cUdMcA,,&typo=1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am also concerned that all communication from the City ceased after
>>>>> I identified what I believe to be significant factual and legal
>>>>> inconsistencies in Sergeant Swansons response. If the City believes
>>>>> Sergeant Swansons actions and conclusions were appropriate, I respectfully
>>>>> request that it explain the legal and factual basis for that position. If
>>>>> it does not, I would appreciate knowing what steps, if any, the City
>>>>> intends to take to address these issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would appreciate a substantive response within seven (7) business
>>>>> days so that I may determine the appropriate next steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nikolai Gallo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 10:24 AM Nikolai Gallo
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> *Ms. Doherty,*
>>>>>
>>>>> To clarify my request regarding the City’s failures to produce records
>>>>> pursuant to its statutory obligations under the Freedom of Information
>>>>> laws, I would like additional information concerning a specific omission.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the email thread below, Sergeant Swanson states:
>>>>>
>>>>> “After reviewing the audio recording of your phone conversation with
>>>>> Sergeant Aaron Dixon, I found this to be inaccurate.”
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I do not see the referenced audio file included in the City’s
>>>>> production. If this recording has already been produced, please identify
>>>>> when and how it was provided so I may locate it. If it has not been
>>>>> produced, please explain the basis for the omission and confirm when it
>>>>> will be made available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, and I look forward to your prompt clarification.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nikolai Gallo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>> From: *Nikolai Gallo*
>>>>> Date: Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 9:16 AM
>>>>> Subject: Fwd: Request for Review of Sergeants Refusal to Take Felony
>>>>> Report and Related Concerns
>>>>> To: Doherty, Nira F.
>>>>> Cc: , , <
>>>>> jnwise@menlopark.gov>,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ms. Doherty,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am writing to follow up on the communication below.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am increasingly concerned by what appears to be a pattern in which
>>>>> City representatives — including command staff within the Police Department
>>>>> — cease communication once significant legal and procedural inconsistencies
>>>>> are identified. As reflected in the correspondence below, Sergeant Swanson
>>>>> has not responded after the factual and statutory irregularities in his
>>>>> written response were specifically addressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> This lack of response creates the appearance that the Department may
>>>>> be declining to take formal crime reports in matters it does not wish to
>>>>> investigate. Instead of documenting a report and creating an official
>>>>> record, the explanations provided to date appear inconsistent with both the
>>>>> evidence presented and the Department’s mandatory reporting obligations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Accordingly, I request clarification of the City’s position on the
>>>>> following:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Whether the Menlo Park Police Department intends to accept and
>>>>> document a formal crime report based on the evidence previously provided.
>>>>> - Why the in-person interaction referenced by Sergeant Swanson
>>>>> does not appear in the City’s production, despite multiple Freedom of
>>>>> Information Act / CPRA requests.
>>>>> - Whether the City maintains that directing a resident to bypass
>>>>> local law enforcement and contact the District Attorney directly satisfies
>>>>> the Department’s statutory duties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the documented inconsistencies and the absence of further
>>>>> response, please confirm the City’s position so that I may determine the
>>>>> appropriate next procedural steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would appreciate your reply within seven (7) business days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>> Nikolai Gallo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>> From: *Nikolai Gallo*
>>>>> Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 7:44 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Request for Review of Sergeants Refusal to Take Felony
>>>>> Report and Related Concerns
>>>>> To: Allen M. Swanson
>>>>> Cc: , , Combs, Drew <
>>>>> dcombs@menlopark.gov>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sergeant Swanson,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am writing again regarding my prior correspondence, for which I have
>>>>> received no reply. At this point, the lack of acknowledgement is
>>>>> concerning—particularly given the number of legally significant points
>>>>> raised in my original letter, and the fact that your previous statements
>>>>> appear to conflict with POST-mandated reporting obligations and statutory
>>>>> jurisdictional requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be clear, the absence of response creates the appearance that the
>>>>> original explanations provided to me may have been inaccurate or
>>>>> misleading. I would prefer not to draw that conclusion, and I would welcome
>>>>> the opportunity for clarification so that this matter can be resolved
>>>>> cooperatively and professionally. However, failure to respond only limits
>>>>> my ability to interpret the situation in any other light.
>>>>>
>>>>> For transparency:
>>>>> What I am asking for is simple
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Acknowledgment of receipt of my previous correspondence, *and*
>>>>> 2. Clarification as to whether you intend to respond to the
>>>>> substantive legal analysis provided.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the department’s position is that no further reply or action will
>>>>> be taken, please state so directly, so that I may proceed accordingly
>>>>> through formal channels.
>>>>> Jurisdiction and duty remain unchanged
>>>>>
>>>>> As previously outlined—with citations provided for ease of
>>>>> reference—Penal Code §830.1, POST reporting requirements, and Government
>>>>> Code §815.6 and §26500 collectively establish that:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Menlo Park PD has a mandatory duty to take a crime report,
>>>>> - A lack of investigative specialization does *not* create lawful
>>>>> discretion to refuse intake, and
>>>>> - Referral to the DA or DOJ can only occur after report
>>>>> documentation—not in place of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrative or State Bar avenues concern licensing and discipline,
>>>>> not criminal jurisdiction. Criminal conduct by attorneys does not bypass
>>>>> local law enforcement.
>>>>> Next procedural step
>>>>>
>>>>> I am affording you one final opportunity to clarify the department’s
>>>>> position before I escalate through appropriate mechanisms, including formal
>>>>> written intake to the District Attorney, City Council, and—if
>>>>> necessary—civil remedies to compel compliance with reporting duties.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am requesting your response within *7 business days* of this
>>>>> message so that I may proceed without delay.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>> *Nikolai Gallo*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 1:15 PM Nikolai Gallo
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sergeant Swanson,
>>>>>
>>>>> As you search for the in-person interaction referenced in my
>>>>> communication to the Police Chief, I would appreciate your consideration of
>>>>> the following clarifications regarding the jurisdictional and legal points
>>>>> raised in your email. I am using your language as a framework. If any
>>>>> aspect of this analysis is incorrect, please advise.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. *“Municipal police departments do not possess the specialized
>>>>> resources or training necessary for the type of investigation you
>>>>> described.”*
>>>>>
>>>>> A lack of specialized resources does not relieve MPD of its mandatory
>>>>> duty to accept a crime report.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Under Penal Code §830.1, municipal police officers have full
>>>>> peace officer authority to investigate violations of the Penal Code
>>>>> occurring in their jurisdiction.
>>>>> - Under POST standards, officers must accept and document all
>>>>> crime reports, including fraud, forgery, and economic crimes.
>>>>> - If additional expertise is required, the correct procedure is:
>>>>> (a) take the report,
>>>>> (b) assign a case number, and
>>>>> (c) refer the matter to the District Attorney or an appropriate
>>>>> investigative agency.
>>>>>
>>>>> A lack of internal specialization cannot be used as a basis to refuse
>>>>> a report.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. *“Complaints against attorneys or individuals acting as
>>>>> attorneys fall under the jurisdiction of the State Bar of California.”*
>>>>>
>>>>> This conflates administrative discipline with criminal jurisdiction.
>>>>>
>>>>> - The State Bar handles professional and ethical violations.
>>>>> - It does not investigate or prosecute criminal conduct.
>>>>> - Criminal acts committed by attorneys—such as fraud, forgery,
>>>>> embezzlement, and conspiracy—remain matters for law enforcement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Business & Professions Code §6086.7 requires the State Bar to refer
>>>>> suspected criminal conduct to law enforcement, confirming that criminal
>>>>> jurisdiction lies with police agencies.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. *“The types of crimes you referenced are investigated by the
>>>>> Corporate Fraud Section of the California Department of Justice.”*
>>>>>
>>>>> The DOJ Corporate Fraud Section becomes involved only when a case is:
>>>>>
>>>>> - first reported locally,
>>>>> - documented, and
>>>>> - properly referred up the chain by law enforcement or the
>>>>> District Attorney.
>>>>>
>>>>> A private citizen cannot initiate a DOJ corporate fraud investigation.
>>>>> The correct entry point is the Menlo Park Police Department, which may
>>>>> route the case upward if appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. *“Sergeant Dixon’s guidance was correct” in directing me to
>>>>> contact the County DA’s Investigations Office directly.*
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully, this is legally incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Under Government Code §26500, the District Attorney prosecutes
>>>>> cases based on reports submitted by law enforcement.
>>>>> - The DA cannot initiate an investigation without a police report
>>>>> number and an investigative packet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Directing a resident to bypass MPD and contact the DA’s investigators
>>>>> directly is effectively a refusal to take a report. This conflicts with
>>>>> Penal Code §830.1, Government Code §815.6, and POST-mandated reporting
>>>>> standards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only law enforcement—not private individuals—can properly initiate a
>>>>> District Attorney investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. *“Any reasonable officer would have assumed the matter had been
>>>>> resolved.”*
>>>>>
>>>>> Regardless of any assumption, police have a non-discretionary duty to
>>>>> document a report when a resident presents evidence of a crime.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Request*
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the above, I respectfully request that MPD:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Take a formal police report,
>>>>> 2. Assign a case number,
>>>>> 3. Document the evidence already provided, and
>>>>> 4. Forward the case to the District Attorney’s Office, as required
>>>>> by California law.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will ensure compliance with statutory requirements and POST
>>>>> obligations and prevent further jurisdictional confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please clarify any parts of this analysis that are inconsistent with
>>>>> the facts of the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>> Nikolai Gallo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 8:44 AM Allen M. Swanson <
>>>>> AMSwanson@menlopark.gov> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mr. Gallo,
>>>>>
>>>>> This letter is in response to your email to Chief Norris dated
>>>>> November 13, 2025. In your message, you stated, “My objective is not
>>>>> disciplinary action against individuals. It is to ensure proper procedure
>>>>> and accountability going forward.” With that understanding, this matter is
>>>>> not being treated as a formal personnel complaint at this time. If I have
>>>>> misunderstood your intent, or if you wish to file a formal complaint
>>>>> regarding the sergeant you spoke with, please let me know, or you may
>>>>> submit a complaint directly through the Menlo Park Police
>>>>> Department’s website
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> I have conducted an initial review of the events described in your
>>>>> email. You wrote, “Despite this, when I attempted to report this matter,
>>>>> the sergeant on duty refused to take a report,” and provided extensive
>>>>> reasoning as to why you believed the Menlo Park Police Department should
>>>>> have taken a crime report.
>>>>>
>>>>> After reviewing the audio recording of your phone conversation with
>>>>> Sergeant Aaron Dixon, I found this to be inaccurate. Sergeant Dixon advised
>>>>> you to contact the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Investigations
>>>>> Office and provided their contact information, which you acknowledged and
>>>>> accepted. He also informed you that you could call him back if you
>>>>> encountered any further difficulties. To my knowledge, no additional
>>>>> communication occurred. Under these circumstances, any reasonable officer
>>>>> would have assumed the matter had been resolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> With respect to the jurisdictional concerns, Sergeant Dixon’s guidance
>>>>> was correct. Municipal police departments do not possess the specialized
>>>>> resources or training necessary for the type of investigation you
>>>>> described. Complaints against attorneys or individuals acting as attorneys
>>>>> fall under the jurisdiction of the State Bar of California
>>>>> .
>>>>> Additionally, the types of crimes you referenced are investigated by the Corporate
>>>>> Fraud Section of the California Department
>>>>> of Justice under the Attorney General’s Office.
>>>>>
>>>>> For your convenience, I have included links to the appropriate
>>>>> agencies. I regret that we are unable to be of further assistance in this
>>>>> matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> Allen Swanson
>>>>> Administrative Sergeant
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * Allen M. Swanson*
>>>>> Police Sergeant
>>>>> Police Department
>>>>> 701 Laurel St.
>>>>> tel 650-330-6300
>>>>> menlopark.gov
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>