Post by Critique on Jan 26, 2007 1:26:56 GMT -5
January 25, 2007
By DENNIS HUSPENI
An officer’s right to privacy outweighs the public’s interest when alleged misconduct is investigated internally, an attorney for the Colorado Springs Police Department said Wednesday in court.
That was among the reasons attorney Greg Garland used to justify the Police Department’s refusal to release an internal investigation report of a former officer who allegedly beat a suspect with his metal flashlight in 2005.
The American Civil Liberties Union requested the file last year, and the city sued the ACLU in June — asking a district judge to allow it to keep the file secret.
The ACLU is not representing a man whose claim that he was the victim of police brutality led to the internal investigation, but wants to investigate how the department handles brutality complaints.
ACLU attorney Brandee Caswell said it’s important for the public to know how the department polices itself when misconduct allegations are investigated.
The ACLU filed a countersuit seeking its attorneys fees from the city. It thinks all internal affairs investigations are criminal justice records and subject to open records laws.
The two sides made final arguments in the case Wednesday before 4th Judicial District Judge Larry Schwartz, who said he’ll issue a ruling within about two weeks. He ordered Garland to hand over the file so he could review it.
The case involves a July 2, 2005, traffic stop in south Colorado Springs made by officers K.D. Hardy and Jackson Andrews.
Delvikio Faulkner, a passenger in the vehicle, gave police a false name and made a sudden movement, according to police. Hardy, who has since been fired after an internal affairs investigation in an unrelated complaint, said in his report he struck Faulkner several times with a metal flashlight as he was trying to pull away. Andrews said in his account that Hardy struck Faulkner after he stopped trying to flee.
Faulkner had to have seven staples to close the head wound, Caswell said Tuesday.
Department officials have already released the police reports regarding the incident, Garland said, and “Faulkner knows what happened.” He said the department considers internal investigation reports a personnel matter, not a public record.
He argued that because Hardy was fired before any possible discipline was meted out, the public has no interest in knowing what the investigation entailed. Out of fairness, Garland said, Hardy should get to present a defense.
“Hardy has no chance to defend himself, or to vindicate himself,” Garland said. “He’ll be tried in the court of public opinion.”
Releasing the file will also discourage whistle-blowers from coming forward if they know their names will be published, Garland said.
Caswell countered that police officers have no right to privacy when their on-duty actions are being investigated. The ACLU told the city it could redact any personal information from the file — such as Social Security numbers or home addresses.
“The public has at least the right to know what discipline, if any, was handed out,” Caswell said. “Even that single piece of information the public is not going to get from this Police Department.”
www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1329206&secid=1
By DENNIS HUSPENI
An officer’s right to privacy outweighs the public’s interest when alleged misconduct is investigated internally, an attorney for the Colorado Springs Police Department said Wednesday in court.
That was among the reasons attorney Greg Garland used to justify the Police Department’s refusal to release an internal investigation report of a former officer who allegedly beat a suspect with his metal flashlight in 2005.
The American Civil Liberties Union requested the file last year, and the city sued the ACLU in June — asking a district judge to allow it to keep the file secret.
The ACLU is not representing a man whose claim that he was the victim of police brutality led to the internal investigation, but wants to investigate how the department handles brutality complaints.
ACLU attorney Brandee Caswell said it’s important for the public to know how the department polices itself when misconduct allegations are investigated.
The ACLU filed a countersuit seeking its attorneys fees from the city. It thinks all internal affairs investigations are criminal justice records and subject to open records laws.
The two sides made final arguments in the case Wednesday before 4th Judicial District Judge Larry Schwartz, who said he’ll issue a ruling within about two weeks. He ordered Garland to hand over the file so he could review it.
The case involves a July 2, 2005, traffic stop in south Colorado Springs made by officers K.D. Hardy and Jackson Andrews.
Delvikio Faulkner, a passenger in the vehicle, gave police a false name and made a sudden movement, according to police. Hardy, who has since been fired after an internal affairs investigation in an unrelated complaint, said in his report he struck Faulkner several times with a metal flashlight as he was trying to pull away. Andrews said in his account that Hardy struck Faulkner after he stopped trying to flee.
Faulkner had to have seven staples to close the head wound, Caswell said Tuesday.
Department officials have already released the police reports regarding the incident, Garland said, and “Faulkner knows what happened.” He said the department considers internal investigation reports a personnel matter, not a public record.
He argued that because Hardy was fired before any possible discipline was meted out, the public has no interest in knowing what the investigation entailed. Out of fairness, Garland said, Hardy should get to present a defense.
“Hardy has no chance to defend himself, or to vindicate himself,” Garland said. “He’ll be tried in the court of public opinion.”
Releasing the file will also discourage whistle-blowers from coming forward if they know their names will be published, Garland said.
Caswell countered that police officers have no right to privacy when their on-duty actions are being investigated. The ACLU told the city it could redact any personal information from the file — such as Social Security numbers or home addresses.
“The public has at least the right to know what discipline, if any, was handed out,” Caswell said. “Even that single piece of information the public is not going to get from this Police Department.”
www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1329206&secid=1