The Unresolved Cancellation Text

Case 23-009185 | Card 24 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

On August 21, 2025, the inspector stated at the doorstep of 4880 T Street that the representative had not told him that day's inspection was canceled. An owner-side screenshot shows a text sent the previous morning to a thread labeled "Paul" postponing the visit, and the produced file does not show whether that text reached him. The case note for that day records the dispute: the caretaker "wanted to cancel the inspection," and the City responded that it would move forward with an inspection warrant because the inspection was not being allowed M035. On the doorstep recording, the caretaker says the inspection cannot happen without Karen (V1.T line 1), and the official states the warrant predicate at the door (V1.T line 6).

The denial is on the recording: at the door, the official says, "Because she can't cancel. She didn't tell me she canceled" (V5.T lines 7-8). S3 shows a text in a thread labeled "Paul," stamped "Wed, Aug 20 at 9:48 AM," postponing the visit with "you and Doug"; the year is inferred from the August 21, 2025 visit. During the standoff, porch CCTV shows Paul holding or handling a phone-shaped device at 11:40:12 a.m. V6, and his note records that roughly thirty minutes after the officials left, he received a call from Karin and then contacted Principal Building Inspector (PBI) Bo Cosley M035. None of this establishes that the S3 text reached a City work device. The produced record leaves the contact channel unresolved. A June 23, 2026 CPRA request, 26-2491, seeks the texts and delivery-channel records behind the cancellation; it remained open as of the July 9, 2026 portal capture R.26-2491.2.

IN PLAIN TERMS

At the door, the inspector said the representative had not told him the inspection was canceled. A screenshot from the owner side shows a text sent the day before to a thread labeled "Paul," saying the visit with "you and Doug" would be postponed. This card does not say the text reached a City work phone. It says the produced file does not answer that question, even though the same event included phone contact with Karin and PBI Cosley. In June 2026 a public-records request asked for the texts and delivery records behind the cancellation; the City asked for Karin Owens's phone number, the requester answered that no private number was sought and that the City should search its own systems, and the request was still open as of July 9, 2026.

RECORD CHAIN

  1. The note records the warrant predicate. M035 states the caretaker wanted to cancel and that, because the inspection was not being allowed, the City would move forward with an inspection warrant.
  2. The recording corroborates non-entry that day. The caretaker says the inspection cannot proceed without Karen (V1.T line 1). The official responds with the warrant statement (V1.T line 6).
  3. The doorstep statement denies the cancellation. The inspector said, "She didn't tell me she canceled" (V5.T line 8), and repeated it when asked (line 10).
  4. Porch CCTV shows a device in Paul's hand during the exchange. The footage shows Paul holding or handling a phone-shaped device at 11:40:12 a.m. V6. The clip does not establish that the screen was active or that the device was the one used for work contact.
  5. An owner-side screenshot shows a prior-day postponement text. S3 shows a text in a thread labeled "Paul," stamped "Wed, Aug 20 at 9:48 AM," saying Jackie Baritell would postpone the visit with "you and Doug" and that she had been told to call that day too. The year is inferred from the August 21, 2025 visit.
  6. The recording includes requests to proceed that day without Karen. The inspector said, "We don't necessarily need Karen if we just gona take a peek in the back" (V5.T line 16), and asked, "Would you let her know it's pretty important that we just take a peek today?" (V5.T line 24).
  7. The inspector's note records phone contact the same day. M035 records that roughly thirty minutes later the inspector received a call from Karin and then contacted PBI Cosley. Those entries do not show that the S3 text reached the same device.
  8. A follow-up request seeks the delivery-channel records. On June 23, 2026, Request 26-2491 was filed for the Lovato/Owens texts and delivery-channel records behind the same August 20-21, 2025 cancellation, attaching the same S3 screenshot R.26-2491.2. On June 26, 2026, at 10:32 a.m., the City Clerk asked the requester to "provide the specific phone number for which you are requesting the search (Karen Owens)" — the spelling in that message — stating "The City does not maintain a database of phone numbers" and setting a June 30, 2026 deadline. On June 28, 2026, at 3:11 a.m., a portal "Message from requester" stated, "I am not requesting public disclosure of any private telephone number for Karin Owens or any other non-City person," that "Any private telephone numbers appearing in responsive records may be redacted," and asked the City to search its own custody — Paul Lovato's City-issued or City-managed device and account, City messaging systems, telecom and mobile-device-management records, backups, and case-file contact fields — and to conduct a custodian inquiry to Lovato, "consistent with City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608." On June 30, 2026, at 1:39 p.m., the City invoked additional time "due to the volume of materials required to be searched, collected, and examined for responsiveness (permitted under Government Code 7922.535 (c)(2))," stating it would notify the requester "on or before Tuesday, July 14th 2026." At 2:01 p.m. the same day, the City wrote, "Thank you for responding to our request for clarification. However, you did not provide a phone number for Karin Owens," and asked for a response "by 9 AM on Wednesday, July 8th 2026." The request remained open as of the July 9, 2026 portal capture R.26-2491.2.

FULL CIRCLE

The City may argue: the text may have gone to a personal or non-official number, or may not have reached the work device, so the inspector's doorstep statements were accurate to his knowledge.

The produced record does not exclude that possibility. The record contains the owner-side S3 text to the thread labeled "Paul," the doorstep statement that the representative had not canceled (V5.T lines 7-8), and owner-side V6 footage of a device in Paul's hand during the standoff. The City-produced note separately records phone contact with Karin and PBI Cosley shortly afterward M035. A delivery or channel record could resolve the question; the produced file contains none. Request 26-2491, filed June 23, 2026, seeks those delivery-channel records and remained open as of the July 9, 2026 portal capture R.26-2491.2. The cancellation question therefore remains open within the same event addressed by Card 22, Card 21, Card 23, and Card 4.

The finding is limited to that gap: the doorstep denial and the prior-day text both appear in the record, and the produced file does not show whether the text reached any City device.

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES