Hicks received an advance copy of League City’s request to block the release of domestic disturbance police reports • League City issues report defending actions in blocking the release of Jan. 4 and Jan. 5 police calls to embattled councilman’s house EDITOR'S NOTE: The attached PDFs include the city-issued report from February 3, the city's initial request from the Texas AG to withhold information and i45NOW's initial response to the city, which was also sent to the Texas Attorney General. As promised by Mayor Nick Long, the city of League City on Monday released a 5-page report providing a timeline and its justifications for seeking a Texas Attorney General’s opinion on whether the city can withhold all or part of police reports of a domestic disturbance incident at Councilman Justin Hicks. While much of the report reviews the legal reasons the city seeks to block the release of the police report, it also provides a timeline of how the city handled the request. That timeline reveals information not previously disclosed in interviews, media statements, or requests to the attorney general. The report, which is attached to this story, reveals that before submitting the request to the AG and providing a copy to i45NOW as the law requires, Hicks asked for and was given a copy of the city’s attorney general opinion request first. According to the city’s timeline at 11:15 AM on January 14, “Councilmember Hicks reached out to the city attorney for an explanation of PIR procedure and asked for a copy of AG letter, which is public information when it was finalized.” On January 16 at 3:10 PM, “The city attorney emailed a copy of AG letter to Councilmember Hicks.” The city attorney submitted its request for an opinion through the Texas Attorney General’s online portal at 9:20 a.m. on January 17. At 10:01 AM, the city attorney’s office, via the League City Police Department records division, emailed a copy of the opinion request to i45NOW owner TJ Aulds. At 10:50 AM, Hicks confirmed the receipt of the AG letter and asked additional questions about the PIR procedure and the next steps. Contacted soon after the report was issued, Long - who said he reviewed the report on Sunday - said after he read the report, he was “satisfied” with how the city attorney’s office handled the request for records. That was until Aulds notified him; the timeline shows Hicks twice contacted the city attorney’s office and received an advance copy of the city’s request, even before it was submitted to the attorney general or i45NOW. ‘It’s certainly unusual treatment,” Long said when asked if it was proper that Hicks was communicating with the city attorney and provided information ahead of all others, even though the domestic disturbance call to his house was not connected to his duties as a city official. The mayor said he would contact the city attorney about what the timeline revealed. Through a written statement, the city has maintained it treated Hicks the same as it would any resident in the city. Further, i45NOW has only requested basic information contained in the police reports. That would include the time of the call for the police, names of the responding officers, address of the call for police, nature of the call, and the time the call ended. The department publishes such information daily on its Police 2 Community website and includes the names of those involved, even when only a traffic citation is issued. The news agency specified it only sought that information and agreed that any information the law requires to be withheld should be redacted. The daily bulletin report involving the call to Hicks’s house isn’t among those listed, possibly because no one was arrested or issued a citation. The third request seeks copies of the dispatch calls. That information is likely to contain private information that cannot be released as prescribed by law, and again, i45NOW agreed in advance that information should be withheld and redacted.

Posted by i45NOW TJ Aulds at 2025-02-03 21:22:39 UTC