Post by WaTcHeR on Nov 29, 2006 11:22:00 GMT -5
11.29.2006 - In our open society, police are given necessary but extreme powers, including the ability to enter your home, take away your freedom and use deadly force.
It's essential that these powers are used judiciously and that the rare abuse of power is properly addressed.
That's why we are opposed to legislation that has been revived for the lame-duck sessions of both the state House and state Senate. Ostensibly, the bills would protect officers from self-incrimination when ordered to answer about questionable behavior by themselves or others. In reality, it is unnecessary legislation that will make it even harder to shred the veil of secrecy — the code of honor known as the "thin blue line" — that already makes it difficult to unravel inappropriate police behavior.
It's already darn near impossible to get obviously public information from police agencies that want to close ranks. Here are two recent examples:
State police at the Brighton post refuse to release the name of the man who apparently killed himself after shooting his wife to death in their Brighton Township home more than a year ago. The trooper in charge of the case says it is inappropriate to name a suicide victim even though the man murdered his wife. We found the names on our own and printed them, but this information is obviously public record.
Washtenaw County officials refuse to release search warrant information that was used to arrest a Putnam Township man, search his home, take a DNA sample from him and lock him up for two nights. Then he was released without charges. The Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department rejected our Freedom of Information Act request for the search warrant details, citing an ongoing investigation. That's an exemption that could be used indefinitely.
We are not suggesting anything inappropriate was done in either case. But if you were yanked from your home, jailed for two days and then released, wouldn't you want to know the basis for the search and detainment?
Our point here is that police already can go to great lengths to shield information from the public, even if there is nothing to hide.
Now, Sen. Alan Sanborn, R-Richmond, has resurrected SB 647, which could give police even greater protection from public scrutiny, even when officers have abused the public trust. Rep. Joe Hune, R-Hamburg Township, has co-sponsored a similar bill in the House.
The bill deals with cases in which a police department threatens to discharge a police officer who declines to answer questions about an internal investigation. If passed, the bill says that information could not be divulged to a third party — a newspaper, for instance, but also a future employer — without the officer's consent.
Proponents say such a law would protect the police officer from self-incriminating statements. But police already have that protection, according to a U.S. Supreme Court case.
Instead, this law allows a police investigation to be hidden in secrecy, thereby preventing the victim of police abuse, for example, from discovering if an officer told the truth to investigators. It would also prevent future employers from learning about pertinent activities involving the officer.
Police are held to a higher standard than the general public. This law would actually lower the bar. The public and most law enforcement officers would agree that there is little good to come from sheltering bad police actions.
This is a lame bill, even for a lame-duck session.
www.dailypressandargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061129/OPINION01/611290310
It's essential that these powers are used judiciously and that the rare abuse of power is properly addressed.
That's why we are opposed to legislation that has been revived for the lame-duck sessions of both the state House and state Senate. Ostensibly, the bills would protect officers from self-incrimination when ordered to answer about questionable behavior by themselves or others. In reality, it is unnecessary legislation that will make it even harder to shred the veil of secrecy — the code of honor known as the "thin blue line" — that already makes it difficult to unravel inappropriate police behavior.
It's already darn near impossible to get obviously public information from police agencies that want to close ranks. Here are two recent examples:
State police at the Brighton post refuse to release the name of the man who apparently killed himself after shooting his wife to death in their Brighton Township home more than a year ago. The trooper in charge of the case says it is inappropriate to name a suicide victim even though the man murdered his wife. We found the names on our own and printed them, but this information is obviously public record.
Washtenaw County officials refuse to release search warrant information that was used to arrest a Putnam Township man, search his home, take a DNA sample from him and lock him up for two nights. Then he was released without charges. The Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department rejected our Freedom of Information Act request for the search warrant details, citing an ongoing investigation. That's an exemption that could be used indefinitely.
We are not suggesting anything inappropriate was done in either case. But if you were yanked from your home, jailed for two days and then released, wouldn't you want to know the basis for the search and detainment?
Our point here is that police already can go to great lengths to shield information from the public, even if there is nothing to hide.
Now, Sen. Alan Sanborn, R-Richmond, has resurrected SB 647, which could give police even greater protection from public scrutiny, even when officers have abused the public trust. Rep. Joe Hune, R-Hamburg Township, has co-sponsored a similar bill in the House.
The bill deals with cases in which a police department threatens to discharge a police officer who declines to answer questions about an internal investigation. If passed, the bill says that information could not be divulged to a third party — a newspaper, for instance, but also a future employer — without the officer's consent.
Proponents say such a law would protect the police officer from self-incriminating statements. But police already have that protection, according to a U.S. Supreme Court case.
Instead, this law allows a police investigation to be hidden in secrecy, thereby preventing the victim of police abuse, for example, from discovering if an officer told the truth to investigators. It would also prevent future employers from learning about pertinent activities involving the officer.
Police are held to a higher standard than the general public. This law would actually lower the bar. The public and most law enforcement officers would agree that there is little good to come from sheltering bad police actions.
This is a lame bill, even for a lame-duck session.
www.dailypressandargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061129/OPINION01/611290310