Post by KC on Mar 12, 2006 23:33:52 GMT -5
03/11/2006 - They still don't get it. A year after an audit by The Journal News of Lower Hudson Valley police departments found that most didn't comply with the state Freedom of Information Law, a selective new survey by the newspaper shows that local cops still greet requests with suspicion, ignorance, red tape and, in many cases, outright refusal.
"You won't even tell me why you want it," an agitated North Castle police officer said when a reporter who did not identify herself was persistent in asking for two days' worth of arrest information. "It's not happening."
On Monday, March 6, reporters went to 20 Westchester, Rockland and Putnam police departments and asked for the names, addresses and charges against everyone arrested over the previous Saturday and Sunday. They did not identify themselves as journalists unless asked.
Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, has said that anyone should be able to obtain such routine information "without hesitation."
"There are no secret arrests in this country," Freeman has said.
The newspaper found plenty of hesitation and confusion by police, and ultimately received the arrest data from only six departments, five of which did not comply until discovering that the request was being made by a journalist. The reporter sent to the state police barracks in Brewster was unable to make the request because no one was there. The barracks is not staffed full time.
Although the law does not require people to identify themselves or say why they want the information, almost every department asked.
A woman at the Harrison police records office said she had to know why the information was being requested. She then asked if the woman seeking the records was "with a newspaper." When the reporter said that she was, the clerk replied that "you should have said that," and proceeded to provide the information.
A Hastings-on-Hudson officer said he needed to know why the request was being made because he didn't know whether it would be used to "plan something against someone."
In Mount Vernon, a reporter was told to glean the information, which was incomplete, from the criminal calendar on a City Court bulletin board.
In White Plains, a reporter was directed to the night desk at 4:20 p.m. Once there, the desk officer discovered that the reporter worked for the newspaper and told her to see the public information officer, who was gone for the day.
At the 3rd Precinct in Yonkers, the desk officer said the information could not be released because it was confidential.
The woman at the Clarkstown police headquarters records window seemed dumbfounded at the request.
"You want information on all the people arrested over the weekend in Clarkstown? I can't just give you that," she said.
Freeman said he wasn't surprised by the results of the newspaper's audit.
"It seems that there is more resistance to releasing public information within the law enforcement community than in other agencies," he said. "The police are supposed to comply with the law, which says that records are presumed to be available to the public. And they shouldn't have to jump through a lot of hoops for something as routine as arrest information."
While few departments provided the information when it was requested, half asked visitors to put their requests in writing and provided forms to do so. Some sent reporters to the town or village clerk's office to make written requests. Most of the forms, apparently created by the individual departments, asked why the information was being sought.
"That's not something they're entitled to," Freeman said. "Whether you're talking about the letter of the law or the spirit of the law, the police don't have the right to ask you why you want information."
He also said the FOI Law "does not distinguish between those who seek records. The media does not have any special rights. A record that is made available to the media should be made just as available to a member of the public."
The law gives agencies five business days to acknowledge receipt of the request; by Friday a handful of police departments had done so.
Brian Nickerson, director of Pace University's Michaelian Institute for Public Policy and Management, said police "may be more skeptical of information requests because of the amount of media attention they receive. They already feel like they're operating in a fishbowl."
He said that while "the backroom management — the upper-level supervisors — may not share that attitude, it hasn't trickled down to the frontline people who deal with the public."
The only law enforcement agency that passed The Journal News audit with somewhat flying colors was the Carmel Police Department. A woman at the records bureau had a visitor fill out an FOI form and suggested that she "just wait till tomorrow — it will be in the paper. That's probably fastest."
She was wrong.
A short time later she took the form to a back office. A uniformed officer returned and provided copies of arrest records from a binder marked "Arrest log." In last year's audit, Carmel police failed to respond to a request for arrest information.
"I'm glad to hear that we did well this year," said Carmel Lt. Michael Cazzari, who handles FOI requests for the department. He said the department asks that requests be made in writing "as a record-keeping mechanism," but "we try to give people routine information like this without making them wait."
State police in Cortlandt and Somers also gave a visitor the information requested, after discovering that they were dealing with a reporter.
Lt. Glenn Miner, spokesman for the state police, said that while the agency "goes out of our way to cooperate with the media in a timely fashion," people making information requests as private citizens would normally be asked to fill out an FOI form and go through a review process.
"We do feel that it's important for the media to fulfill its role as representatives of the public," he said. "We actually get more freedom of information requests from the public than we do from the media, but they usually call and are directed to my office or to the records division to file their requests."
Freeman said the newspaper's audit is indicative of a trend that has occurred since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
"Unfortunately, withholding information seems to be more acceptable at all levels of government in recent years, and particularly among law enforcement agencies," he said. "I'm hoping that those attitudes will change, but from what you've found, that certainly isn't the case with police departments."
"You won't even tell me why you want it," an agitated North Castle police officer said when a reporter who did not identify herself was persistent in asking for two days' worth of arrest information. "It's not happening."
On Monday, March 6, reporters went to 20 Westchester, Rockland and Putnam police departments and asked for the names, addresses and charges against everyone arrested over the previous Saturday and Sunday. They did not identify themselves as journalists unless asked.
Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, has said that anyone should be able to obtain such routine information "without hesitation."
"There are no secret arrests in this country," Freeman has said.
The newspaper found plenty of hesitation and confusion by police, and ultimately received the arrest data from only six departments, five of which did not comply until discovering that the request was being made by a journalist. The reporter sent to the state police barracks in Brewster was unable to make the request because no one was there. The barracks is not staffed full time.
Although the law does not require people to identify themselves or say why they want the information, almost every department asked.
A woman at the Harrison police records office said she had to know why the information was being requested. She then asked if the woman seeking the records was "with a newspaper." When the reporter said that she was, the clerk replied that "you should have said that," and proceeded to provide the information.
A Hastings-on-Hudson officer said he needed to know why the request was being made because he didn't know whether it would be used to "plan something against someone."
In Mount Vernon, a reporter was told to glean the information, which was incomplete, from the criminal calendar on a City Court bulletin board.
In White Plains, a reporter was directed to the night desk at 4:20 p.m. Once there, the desk officer discovered that the reporter worked for the newspaper and told her to see the public information officer, who was gone for the day.
At the 3rd Precinct in Yonkers, the desk officer said the information could not be released because it was confidential.
The woman at the Clarkstown police headquarters records window seemed dumbfounded at the request.
"You want information on all the people arrested over the weekend in Clarkstown? I can't just give you that," she said.
Freeman said he wasn't surprised by the results of the newspaper's audit.
"It seems that there is more resistance to releasing public information within the law enforcement community than in other agencies," he said. "The police are supposed to comply with the law, which says that records are presumed to be available to the public. And they shouldn't have to jump through a lot of hoops for something as routine as arrest information."
While few departments provided the information when it was requested, half asked visitors to put their requests in writing and provided forms to do so. Some sent reporters to the town or village clerk's office to make written requests. Most of the forms, apparently created by the individual departments, asked why the information was being sought.
"That's not something they're entitled to," Freeman said. "Whether you're talking about the letter of the law or the spirit of the law, the police don't have the right to ask you why you want information."
He also said the FOI Law "does not distinguish between those who seek records. The media does not have any special rights. A record that is made available to the media should be made just as available to a member of the public."
The law gives agencies five business days to acknowledge receipt of the request; by Friday a handful of police departments had done so.
Brian Nickerson, director of Pace University's Michaelian Institute for Public Policy and Management, said police "may be more skeptical of information requests because of the amount of media attention they receive. They already feel like they're operating in a fishbowl."
He said that while "the backroom management — the upper-level supervisors — may not share that attitude, it hasn't trickled down to the frontline people who deal with the public."
The only law enforcement agency that passed The Journal News audit with somewhat flying colors was the Carmel Police Department. A woman at the records bureau had a visitor fill out an FOI form and suggested that she "just wait till tomorrow — it will be in the paper. That's probably fastest."
She was wrong.
A short time later she took the form to a back office. A uniformed officer returned and provided copies of arrest records from a binder marked "Arrest log." In last year's audit, Carmel police failed to respond to a request for arrest information.
"I'm glad to hear that we did well this year," said Carmel Lt. Michael Cazzari, who handles FOI requests for the department. He said the department asks that requests be made in writing "as a record-keeping mechanism," but "we try to give people routine information like this without making them wait."
State police in Cortlandt and Somers also gave a visitor the information requested, after discovering that they were dealing with a reporter.
Lt. Glenn Miner, spokesman for the state police, said that while the agency "goes out of our way to cooperate with the media in a timely fashion," people making information requests as private citizens would normally be asked to fill out an FOI form and go through a review process.
"We do feel that it's important for the media to fulfill its role as representatives of the public," he said. "We actually get more freedom of information requests from the public than we do from the media, but they usually call and are directed to my office or to the records division to file their requests."
Freeman said the newspaper's audit is indicative of a trend that has occurred since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
"Unfortunately, withholding information seems to be more acceptable at all levels of government in recent years, and particularly among law enforcement agencies," he said. "I'm hoping that those attitudes will change, but from what you've found, that certainly isn't the case with police departments."