The Town attorney confirms ordering police delivery of a FOIA response

A records response delivered by officers

Town Attorney Michael G. Turner’s September 23 letter confirms that he asked the Chief of Police and another Town officer to contact Kavonte Jones Sr., establish his whereabouts and deliver the Town’s official response.

This adds the Town’s own acknowledgment to Jones’s contemporaneous account of the delivery decision.

The six-page original packet is dated September 16 and includes a receipt with Jones’s signature and two witness signatures. Jones’s September 16 email identifies the officers as Chief Hewitt and a corporal.

He says they arrived without a prior call, email or appointment and that the receipt was signed on a car hood. Those details are his firsthand account.

The objection and the Town’s explanation

Jones said he found the procedure coercive or intimidating because it resembled formal service or enforcement for an administrative records matter. His contemporaneous email expressly said he was not attributing motive to either officer.

He requested email delivery or advance notice for collection at Town Hall.

Turner’s explanation is also part of the record. He cited unsuccessful telephone contact, uncertainty about Jones’s location, lack of assurance that earlier emails had been received, and concerns about email disputes or AI fabrication.

The letter did not present records establishing that Jones fabricated an email. Its general concern about electronic delivery should not be repeated as a finding about him.

The Town’s September 23 response said it would attempt future email and telephone notifications, followed by pickup and an acknowledgement before two Town employees. That described change addresses police involvement, while leaving the signature-and-witness procedure open to scrutiny.

A September 22 email said that if the Town received no reply by 4 p.m. that day, it would send two officers to explain the next step, after the September 16 objection. This documents the proposed repeat procedure; the retrieved record does not establish that the second visit occurred.

What the law says and what it does not decide

Virginia Code § 2.2-3704 sets out records access and written response requirements. The general procedure does not require sworn officers, a requester signature or two witnesses to deliver an ordinary FOIA response.

The letters reviewed do not identify another specific statute or written policy requiring that combination.

That absence supports asking why this administrative choice was made and what it cost. It does not alone prove unlawful harassment, retaliation or misuse of police authority.

Those conclusions would require additional facts and an applicable legal determination. The record also does not establish whether any delivery time was included in the disputed fees.

Why the distinction matters

Gretna Junction’s editorial position is that routine access to government records should be understandable and proportionate. Sending two officers to obtain a witnessed receipt creates an appearance of enforcement that officials should be prepared to explain.

Residents should not have to guess whether a paperwork encounter carries legal consequences beyond acknowledging delivery.

There are also correctable details: the September 23 letter says September 15 in one passage and September 16 elsewhere. The original dated receipt supports September 16.

The later email clarifies that inspection is available during regular weekday hours, so the record should not be characterized as a single same-day opportunity.

Jones is this publication’s publisher and the requester in the dispute. His experience is disclosed, the Town’s explanation is reproduced, and no adjudicated intimidation finding is claimed.