GCSO Bodycam Withheld after Attempted Murder of Patrick Cline by Andrew Lehman in Galveston

The Redacted GCSO Report from Galveston regarding Andrew Peter Lehman’s Attempted Murder of Patrick Cline with Monica Riley As Accomplice

JUL 25, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 27, 2023

SCENE SUMMARY:

7120 E Hunter Dr. Hitchcock, Texas is an orange in color elevated home with a porch located in the unincorporated area of Galveston County.

DETAILS:

While enroute dispatch advised the alleged victim, later identified as Patrick Cline W/M DOB: [redacted], drove down HWY 6 and stopped in front of Big D Marine and Powersports. I arrived at Big D Marine and Powersports and made contact with Patrick.

Patrick stated he was at 7120 E Hunter Dr. earlier in the day working for his boss, identified as Andrew Lehman. W/M, DOB: [redacted].

Patrick stated he was working on Andrew`s Jaguar and then left around 7pm when Andrew left for groceries. Patrick stated Andrew then called him back later to come back and work on the car once again around 10pm.

Patrick advised Andrew had some friends come over and Andrew began rushing him to leave and advised him he did not want him on the property anymore. Patrick stated he left around 1:30am

Patrick stated he arrived at Andrew`s house and observed him to be sitting on his couch under the home.

Patrick stated he tried to get Andrew`s attention advising him he just wanted his beer and he would leave but Andrew continued to ignore him.

Patrick stated he then walked onto the property which sparked an argument with Andrew. Patrick stated Andrew was telling him to leave but Patrick advised he just wanted to get his beer and go.

Patrick stated he began walking up the stairs to go to the front door but was stopped by Andrew`s girlfriend, identified as Monica Riley B/F DOB: [redacted], at the top of the stairs holding a shotgun.

Patrick advised Monica was pointing the shotgun at him telling him to leave.

Patrick stated he agreed to leave and began walking towards the gate.

Patrick advised he then observed Andrew walk upstairs and take the shotgun away from Monica.

Patrick then stated Andrew shot one round from the shotgun but Patrick was unsure if he was shooting at him.

Patrick stated he then began walking to his car and got inside.

Patrick advised his car was facing HWY 6 with the passenger side facing the front of the house.

Patrick stated he backed up some and then began driving towards HWY 6 when Andrew shot at him in the car striking the vehicle.

Patrick stated he then drove down to the current location and waited for the police to arrive.

NASSAU BAY v GALVESTON

Private Lawyer Chris Gregg for City of Nassau Bay protectin’ Thug Lehman not once, but twice, and continues to provide incomplete info.

A Private Law Firm who represents Galveston provided way more info. on the first PIA request
A Hat tip to Olsen n Olsen https://t.co/Zpwsbek8wc pic.twitter.com/EOhIPi9O7J

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) July 27, 2023

Andrew stated he had not called or invited Patrick over at all today nor has he asked him to do some work for him.

Andrew stated he had given Patrick multiple criminal trespass warnings and had told him to stay off his property.

Andrew advised he had arrived home at approximately 4pm and found Patrick asleep on the couch outside and downstairs.

Andrew stated he told him to leave and not come back.

Andrew stated Patrick came back to the house at some point while he had company over and he had to make him leave once again.

Andrew stated Patrick again arrived on scene approximately 40 minutes before we were called.

Andrew stated Patrick began honking from outside of the gate asking to get his beer while Andrew sat on the couch.

Andrew advised Patrick continued to ask for his beer as he walked up the stairs.

Andrew stated Monica was at the top of the stairs with his shotgun.

Andrew stated she pointed the shotgun at Patrick to prevent him from entering the home and advised him to leave the property.

Andrew stated Patrick agreed to leave and began walking towards the front gate.

Andrew stated he walked up the stairs to the porch and took the shotgun away from Monica.

Andrew stated he shot off a round from the shotgun aimed at the ground towards the field across the street from the front of his home.

Andrew stated Patrick still didn’t leave so he shot off another round in the same direction as the first to scare him off.

Andrew stated Patrick finally came from behind the pole and got into his car, backed up and then left location.

Andrew stated he never shot at Patrick while he was in the vehicle.

I contacted on call ADA A. Kao and advised her of the details of the case.

ADA Kao advised to refer the case to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for further investigation.

I then contacted oncall CID Detective Uvalde and advised her of the details of the case.

Detective Uvalde later made location and the scene was released to her.

H C S O

Still waitin’ for @HCSOTexas call back since early this morn’ re following notice and subsequent call with “Charlene”. She advised y’all need explicit GPS coordinates to video surveillance equipment in your own courthouse buildings which y’all monitor for the courts. pic.twitter.com/ANCcxwVAtA

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) July 21, 2023

Public Information Act Request Received July 11, 2023

Requestor: Mark Burke Reference: P230041 (Burke23-182)

Dear Attorney General:

The Galveston County, Texas, Sheriff’s Office (the “GCSO”) received a public information request on July 11, 2023. [EXHIBIT 1] The 10th business day after the date of the request is July 25, 2023.

In accordance with Texas Government Code § 552.301(e), the GCSO now timely submits this brief or other written comments stating the reasons why the information requested is excepted from disclosure.

The requestor is seeking information related to a specific incident. The responsive information is attached for your review. [EXHIBIT 2]
Texas Occupations Code §1701.

The GCSO notes that a portion of the responsive information to the request includes body worn camera recordings. Body worn cameras are subject to Chapter 1701 of the Occupations Code.

Chapter 1701 provides the procedures a requestor must follow when seeking a body worn camera recording. Section 1701.661(a) – (d) provides:

(a) A member of the public is required to provide the following information when submitting a written request to a law enforcement agency for information recorded by a body worn camera:
(1) the date and approximate time of the recording;
(2) the specific location where the recording occurred; and
(3) the name of one or more persons known to be a subject of the recording.

(b) A failure to provide all of the information required by Subsection (a) to be part of a request for recorded information does not preclude the requestor from making a future request for the same recorded information.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), information recorded by a body worn camera and held by a law enforcement agency under this subchapter is not subject to the requirements of Section 552.021, Government Code.
(d) Information that is or could be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution is subject to the requirements of Section 552.021, Government Code.

A T T E M P T E D M U R D E R

Patrick stated Andrew Lehman shot one round from the shotgun…Patrick began walking to his car and got inside. Patrick backed up and then began driving towards HWY 6 when Andrew shot at him in the car striking the vehicle. https://t.co/3GvA8qsuBf pic.twitter.com/KBDa2oNXrP

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) July 26, 2023

The requestor has complied with the requirements of Occupations Code Section 1701.661(a).

Notwithstanding the requestor’s compliance, pursuant to Occupations Code Section 1701.662, the responsive information is still subject to the requirements of Government Code Chapter 552.

Thus, the GCSO contends that the information is further excepted from disclosure:

§552.101 w/ Citizen Date of Birth

The responsive documents contain birth dates of public citizens. Section 552.101 of the Texas Government Code encompasses the doctrine of common-law privacy.

Indus. Found. v. Tex. Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 685 (Tex. 1976).

Under the common-law right of privacy, an individual has a right to be free from the publicizing of private affairs in which the public has no legitimate concern.

Id. at 682.

In considering whether a public citizen’s date of birth is private, the Third Court of Appeals looked to the Supreme Court’s rationale in Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Attorney General of Texas, 354 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2010). Paxton v. City of Dallas, No. 03-13-00546-CV, 2015 WL 3394061, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin May 22, 2015, pet. denied)(mem. op.)

The Supreme Court concluded public employees’ dates of birth are private under section 552.102 of the Texas Government Code because the employees’ privacy interest substantially outweighed the negligible public interest in disclosure.

Texas Comptroller, 354 S.W.3d at 347-48.

Based on Texas Comptroller, the Court of Appeals concluded the privacy rights of public employees apply equally to public citizens, and thus, public citizens’ dates of birth are also protected by common-law privacy pursuant to section 552.101.

City of Dallas, 2015 WL 3394061, at *3.

Thus, the GCSO may withhold all public citizens’ dates of birth under section 552.101 of the Texas Government Code.

§552.108(a)(1) and (b)(1)

The information is excepted from disclosure under the Public Information Act by Texas Government Code Sections 552.108(a)(1) and (b)(1).

According to the GCSO, this is an active case.

This case, which involves violation of criminal statutes and imposition of criminal penalties upon conviction, is pending and the documents contain information that may be introduced at trial.

The criminal prosecution may rest on the ability of law enforcement officials to protect information until enough facts and evidence have been developed in order to put forth a successful prosecution.

Facts are still being gathered relating to this offense, and release of the requested information may ultimately hinder the investigation and prosecution of this case due to the potential for obstruction by outside influences.

The GCSO recognizes, however, certain information in the documents provided herein is not excepted, pursuant to Houston Chronicle Publishing Company v. City of Houston, 531 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1975), writ ref’d n.r.e. per curiam, 536 S.W.2d 559 (1976).

This information has been released to the requestor.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you should require more information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

“You have to make your own justice [in lawless Texas]”https://t.co/6Wb7x3GTq2 @WayneDolcefino @KPRC2RandyMc @Friendswood_PD @KHOU @TexasTribune @politico @propublica @JudgeClayJ @Public_Citizen @JusticeWillett @BrettBusby @IrishTimes @10DowningStreet @NGRPresident @nypost @ABC https://t.co/WKiNwMtZXm pic.twitter.com/aZ4DfWJbJ8

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) July 17, 2023