Post by KC on Sept 26, 2006 20:39:58 GMT -5
September 26, 2006 - For the last three years, the Mississippi Sheriff’s Association and the Mississippi Press Association and others have battled over the question of just how much the public has a right to know about crime in their cities and counties.
Sheriffs and others opposed to a legal requirement that very basic criminal incident report information be available to the public and the press say the public only has a right to know what they decide to tell when they decide to tell them and if they choose to tell them.
Shields powerful?
That means if a sheriff or police chief or other law enforcement agency wants to shield someone with political clout or influence who commits a crime from public scrutiny, that’s their choice. That also means if they choose to fail to tell the public about crimes in a certain area, they can do that.
A sheriff worried about re-election can simply refuse to release criminal incident report information until it suits his or her fancy. That’s not the intent of the state’s open meetings and open records laws and it’s not in the public’s best interests.
Let’s say a county’s arrest docket reflects a series of purse snatching or strong-arm robberies over a period of two-to-three weeks and no arrests have been made — hence, there’s nothing on the public record arrest docket.
Suppose all those crimes took place in a specific mall or shopping center or grocery store parking lot at night. Without criminal incident reports that provide the basic “who, what, when, where and why” information, the public can’t know to keep Momma or Grandma out of that parking lot at night.
Mississippi’s newspapers aren’t interested in getting forensic criminal evidence details on every crime and they aren’t interested in publishing information that causes crimes not to be solved. But providing basic information about crimes is a central mission of journalism in the role of alerting the public to dangers or potential dangers.
Accountability
Back in January, Forrest County Sheriff Billy McGee successfully lobbied against a bill that would require basic criminal incident reports to be public record, saying to The Hattiesburg American: “We shouldn’t have to give (the media) anything that makes our job harder.”
That’s not a particularly valid interpretation of this state open meetings and open records laws. Those laws were created to provide the public access to information held by government entities where the government likes releasing it or not.
Sunshine laws are about accountability. If Sheriff McGee believes that providing information to the media about crime incidents is a bad thing, I’m sure he’ll opt the Forrest County Sheriff’s office out of the Amber Alert program.
More to the point, some law enforcement opponents battle open records because such records make them more accountable to the public, the voters and to defense attorneys.
Mississippians have a right to free access to basic criminal incident information and that right shouldn’t be sacrificed to the political whims of law enforcement officials who don’t want to operate under fair public scrutiny. The Legislature should endorse that right in 2007.
More -
www.leadercall.com/cnhi/leadercall/opinion/local_story_266220055.html?keyword=topstory
Sheriffs and others opposed to a legal requirement that very basic criminal incident report information be available to the public and the press say the public only has a right to know what they decide to tell when they decide to tell them and if they choose to tell them.
Shields powerful?
That means if a sheriff or police chief or other law enforcement agency wants to shield someone with political clout or influence who commits a crime from public scrutiny, that’s their choice. That also means if they choose to fail to tell the public about crimes in a certain area, they can do that.
A sheriff worried about re-election can simply refuse to release criminal incident report information until it suits his or her fancy. That’s not the intent of the state’s open meetings and open records laws and it’s not in the public’s best interests.
Let’s say a county’s arrest docket reflects a series of purse snatching or strong-arm robberies over a period of two-to-three weeks and no arrests have been made — hence, there’s nothing on the public record arrest docket.
Suppose all those crimes took place in a specific mall or shopping center or grocery store parking lot at night. Without criminal incident reports that provide the basic “who, what, when, where and why” information, the public can’t know to keep Momma or Grandma out of that parking lot at night.
Mississippi’s newspapers aren’t interested in getting forensic criminal evidence details on every crime and they aren’t interested in publishing information that causes crimes not to be solved. But providing basic information about crimes is a central mission of journalism in the role of alerting the public to dangers or potential dangers.
Accountability
Back in January, Forrest County Sheriff Billy McGee successfully lobbied against a bill that would require basic criminal incident reports to be public record, saying to The Hattiesburg American: “We shouldn’t have to give (the media) anything that makes our job harder.”
That’s not a particularly valid interpretation of this state open meetings and open records laws. Those laws were created to provide the public access to information held by government entities where the government likes releasing it or not.
Sunshine laws are about accountability. If Sheriff McGee believes that providing information to the media about crime incidents is a bad thing, I’m sure he’ll opt the Forrest County Sheriff’s office out of the Amber Alert program.
More to the point, some law enforcement opponents battle open records because such records make them more accountable to the public, the voters and to defense attorneys.
Mississippians have a right to free access to basic criminal incident information and that right shouldn’t be sacrificed to the political whims of law enforcement officials who don’t want to operate under fair public scrutiny. The Legislature should endorse that right in 2007.
More -
www.leadercall.com/cnhi/leadercall/opinion/local_story_266220055.html?keyword=topstory