Page 3 of 4
"[Code 293] doesn't apply, 'cause she's not a victim in this case," said Officer Scott King, who took the initial police report, in sworn court testimony. "I mean, we knew that or I knew that at the time, but we did it anyway, to try to keep her name out of this report per a request of hers. ... She just didn't want her name to get out, again, as issues came up about her husband and the child custody issues."
Four years after the incident, the San Carlos Police Department still won't give out information regarding the disturbance -- although no charges were filed as a result.
"The report was classified under 293 as confidential," says Spagnoli, in response to a reporter's question about details of the incident. "If it's classified that way, the report is not subject to disclosure. But you can search the public records at San Mateo County, and you'll get all the information there."
The copy of the police report on file at the courthouse, with the names of Gatto and Bready blackened throughout the document, is stamped "San Carlos Police Department Confidential For Use By Law Enforcement Personnel Only." But in her court testimony, Spagnoli said all reports leaving the police station bear this stamp.
"Any police report that we give to anyone outside of the police department, we stamp that on so that we know ... they can't release that information," Spagnoli testified. "[I]t is my understanding that, you know, information within police reports is confidential unless there is a law or some sort of other reason to release that information."
The California Public Records Act, however, says differently, and states that the details of police reports -- including names, addresses, descriptions, and statements of the involved parties -- are public information "unless the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation."
As San Mateo Deputy County Counsel Leigh Herman puts it: "Police officers are not lawyers, and it is sometimes difficult for them to read these statutes. Sometimes it's confusing to the officers what they have on their hands when they take the initial report.
"I'm not surprised they're confused," she adds. "This was initially confusing to a number of people."
Especially, it seems, to Ramona Gatto. "They told me you couldn't get a copy of [the report] yourself, if you were in it, without a court order," she says. "I didn't want to be part of something that was going to be passed around."
In sworn court testimony, Gatto said she had trouble remembering exactly which officers promised what -- in part because of the punches she took in her kickboxing career, which left her with a seizure disorder that, coupled with medication, causes problems with her memory. But she said that she received several assurances the report would be flagged confidential, and that police were apologetic when they realized the information might be released.
"Legally, if [the police] make a promise to a witness that something will be held confidential, that's almost a contract between a government and a witness," says San Francisco attorney Robert H. Gold, one of Ramona Gatto's lawyers. "By releasing that information to [Timothy] Gatto, [the county] is starting a policy where their word, their promise, of keeping confidentiality is now cracked. Down the road, when they tell someone else, 'We'll keep this confidential,' how pristine is that word?"
After her ex-husband took legal action seeking custody, in a court battle that she says cost at least $50,000, Ramona Gatto retained custody of Marina. "That's the worst discrimination I've faced," says Marina, echoing the sentiments she expressed to Katie Couric. "The threat of being ripped away from the two people I love most in life, my moms, because of this complete stranger that I've never had any contact with."
Once the custody battle was finished, Ramona Gatto filed a federal lawsuit against Jim Fox and the county of San Mateo for "outing" her. Well, not "outing" her, exactly, because as Ramona says: "To say that I was 'outed' is to say I was once in something. And I've always just been who I am, living my life, and I'm very proud of who I am."
Still, she says, Fox's actions, and the resultant custody battle, caused her untold emotional distress, trauma, anxiety, embarrassment, and pain. Her lawsuit alleges that the actions of Fox and Pitt were extreme, outrageous, and beyond the scope of conduct in a civilized society, and that the two men inappropriately used their power to try to help a county employee win back custody of his daughter. Her causes of action include, but are not limited to, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of civil rights, negligence, and negligent selection and training of employees. She's seeking damages against the county, Fox, and Pitt, as well as reimbursement of her legal costs for a lawsuit that she says never should have happened.
"I won't lie to you; I was hysterical," Ramona Gatto recalls when she learned of the district attorney's disclosure. "What world am I living in when I get sued for being a homosexual and raising this child? I'd been a lesbian before -- the only difference is that a very powerful, religious man found out about it and decided to push his friend toward getting custody." Her eyes narrow. "The only reason [Timothy] came back for her is that he found out I'm a big, huge, flaming dyke."
Others, however, had apparently known about Gatto's sexual orientation long before the custody battle rejoined. In sworn court testimony, both of the police officers involved in the disturbance at Gatto's home say that -- although they were discreet and rarely openly affectionate in public -- they attended gay bars with Ramona and occasionally introduced each other to co-workers and friends.
