Albuquerque Police Dept. 'Complies' With Records Request By Releasing Password-Protected Videos... But Not The Password

from the still-feeling-above-the-law,-thanks-for-asking! dept

If there's one thing the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) does well -- or at least, frequently -- it's shoot and kill Albuquerque residents. Its officers' obvious preference for excessive and/or deadly force attracted the notice of the DOJ, which issued a (mostly) scathing review that was tempered somewhat by the DOJ's appreciation of the inherent risks of the job, as well as all the hard work the city's officers do when not shooting Albuquerque residents.

On May 3rd of last year, Gail Martin called the APD to help her when her husband, Armand Martin, threatened her and her two children with a gun. This turned into a lengthy standoff which finally ended when APD officers shot Martin as he ran from the house. According to the police, Martin was holding two guns at the time.

The APD released a number of records, including footage captured before and after the shooting, but nothing containing the shooting itself. Local law firm Kennedy Kennedy & Ives, representing Gail Martin for a possible civil rights lawsuit, requested a copy of police recordings containing the actual shooting under New Mexico's Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA).

Over a month later, the APD responded. Sort of.

The Kennedy Kennedy & Ives Law Practice in the lawsuit said the department in mid-August released six CDs containing records on the May 3 shooting death of Armand Martin, a 50-year-old Air Force veteran, in response to the firm’s records request. But three of the CDs were password protected.

Now, this could have been a simple oversight, but if so, the problem would be solved already. Instead, it looks as though the APD is looking to keep the law firm from viewing the videos it requested.

The firm has tried to get the password from APD records, evidence and violent crimes personnel to no avail, according to the complaint…

Now the APD's being sued. The firm is seeking not only access to the password-protected videos, but also damages and legal fees. According to the firm, access to these videos is crucial to determining whether or not Gail Martin has a legitimate civil rights case. Without them, the firm is no better positioned to make this call than the general public, which has only seen the lead-in and aftermath of the shooting.

This isn't the APD's only legal battle related to its IPRA non-compliance. Late last year, KRQE of Albuquerque sued it for "serial violations" of the law. That's in addition to the one it filed over a 2012 incident, in which the PD stalled on its response to a journalist's public records request before releasing the requested footage at a press conference, basically stripping the reporter of her potential "scoop."


It's common knowledge that law enforcement agencies are less than helpful when it comes to releasing documentation of alleged wrongdoing. It's the one part they can't completely seal off when circling the wagons. This leads to weeks, months… even years of obfuscation. And this often leads to lawsuits, paid for by the same public it doesn't want to hold it accountable.

Filed Under: albuquerque, albuquerque police department, armand martin, gail martin, new mexico, open records

How Do You Have A Town Of 300 Residents... And 100 Police Officers? You Let Anyone 'Buy' A Job As A Cop

from the another-ISIS-threat-thwarted! dept

Oakley, Michigan has only 300 residents. Up until very recently, it also had 100 police officers. How does a town end up with a police force equal to one-third of its population? To answer that question, you have to go back to when it had a single police officer.

Oakley, Mi. is barely a town at 300 people, only one streetlight and, until recently, one police officer. The one cop was good at his job, reports Vocativ's M.L. Nestel, until he was forced to step down after getting caught stalking a teenage girl.

A new chief, Robert Reznick, was installed. He immediately began hiring new officers. The one officer that had policed the town for several years without incident was replaced with twelve full-time officers. Then Reznick went further, allowing civilians to buy their way onto the police force.

Here's how the chief's program works: The wanna-be officers pay about about $1,200 for a uniform, bullet-proof vest and gun, and some make additional donations to the police department. In return, they get a police badge and the right to carry their gun almost anywhere in the state, including places that people with normal gun permits can't, like casinos, bars, stadiums and daycare centers.

This proved to be very popular, even pulling in a couple of non-resident NFL players as auxiliary officers. Needless to say, running a pay-to-play police force tends to generate problems. Complaints were raised about the heightened police presence at a local event that had run peaceably (if rather rowdily) for years.

The concerns raised echo those stated by Oakley Bike Run President Randy Sutter back in 2011.

"We have successfully held this event in its current location, in this village for 13 years without a single major incident. In past years, the one Oakley Police officer provided the necessary presence for the entire weekend without a problem. This year, we were adorned with 15 police officers, uniformed and undercover, two police cars, a golf cart and a K-9 unit. The view down Main Street looked as if the village had been locked down from some deadly viral outbreak and at any moment the National Guard would be rolling in with personnel carriers to escort us all into a containment zone."

Sutter went on to claim that the number of officers negatively affected participants' perception of event's safety and was causing harm to both his event and the businesses supported by the influx of non-residents.

2014's complaints included further instances of perceived abuse and misconduct.

Brandi Bitterman, a member of the family that owns the Oakley's Family Tavern, claimed her fiance was wrongfully arrested and harassed during bike weekend. The man, who was arrested at the Family Tavern, refused to provide his name.

This wasn't Chief Reznick's first tangle with Bitterman and her bar. In 2013, Reznick was accused of harassing one of the tavern's bartenders.

Reznick has defended his out-sized police force and his actions even as council members have called for his dismissal. Since that point in early September, the police force has been shut down and revived several times.

The police force was suspended due to its lack of insurance coverage. It later put itself back to work -- without a council vote -- after purchasing $500,000 in coverage from a company willing to overlook numerous ongoing lawsuits against the department, as well as its large number of honorary gun toters.

Since that initial shutdown failed to take, the stakes were raised by a county court, which ordered the disbandment of Reznick's ad hoc police force. It also ordered the return of all equipment in use by the numerous auxiliary officers. Chief Reznick refused to comply with the order, resulting in many items being forcibly retrieved by outside law enforcement agencies.

Now, with several news agencies looking to obtain the names of the auxiliary officers "employed" by Reznick, an unlikely person has stepped in to block the release of this information.

Herschel Fink, a longtime First Amendment defender who has represented several Detroit area TV networks (along with some national outlets), is the man standing between the media (and the plaintiff of a lawsuit against Chief Reznick) and the list of auxiliary officers.

Fink, in defending this action, cites both the FBI and Chief Reznick in what has to be one of the most ridiculous defenses of self-serving opacity ever.

In the undated email, Fink cited an Oct. 13 bulletin by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security that ISIS had called for attacks against law enforcement and government workers.

"To release identifying information about law enforcement personnel under such circumstances would not only result in damages against the Village, and everyone involved in such a release, it would likely be considered as having been done with malice, opening the door to punitive damages," wrote Fink.

So, why has Fink decided to argue against the freedom of information? Here's the answer, as noted by M.L. Nestel of Voacitv back in October.

Another guy who bought himself a badge and gun from Reznick is a white-shoe lawyer named Herschel Fink, who serves as the editorial counsel for The Detroit Free Press. Calls made to Fink's office weren't returned.

Fink is for free speech except when his position as a amateur cop is threatened. That's sickening and hopefully the Detroit Free Press will reconsider his employment in light of this hypocrisy.

Despite all the indications that Reznick's inflated police force is a bad idea for Oakley and its residents, the town may have no choice in the matter. Circuit Judge Robert Kaczmarek issued an injunction suspending the force until after last Tuesday's election. That election saw four candidates backed by the auxiliary police force elected, giving them a majority on the seven-member city council.

If you're looking for the nadir of terrorism-based rationalizing, this legal battle over the names of those "employed" in Reznick's rent-a-badge scheme is very likely it. No terrorist group would care about a loose collection of imitation cops who chipped in at least $1,200 each in exchange for some extra rights. If anything, they'd point to it as evidence of American corruption and hypocrisy -- and they'd be right to do so.

Filed Under: foia, hershel fink, michigan, oakley, open records, police, rent-a-cop, robert reznick

Texas A&M Threatens Professors Who Suggest Students File Open Records Requests

from the the-future-of-journalism dept

A large group of journalists are publicly protesting a policy at Texas A&M University, which effectively threatens professors who suggest students file open records requests to do investigative reporting on the University itself. The specific policy, which has been in place for a while, officially bars university employees from filing open records requests as a part of their jobs. But it appears that Texas A&M is now interpreting this to mean that journalism professors cannot suggest that journalism students use open records laws in investigating the university itself. In other words, the university wants its staff to teach journalism, but not if that journalism involves uncovering wrongdoing by the university itself. Not surprisingly, the "clarification" of the rules came after some students filed open records requests showing that an A&M campus (Tarleton State University) "failed to fully comply with a federal law requiring schools to disclose crimes on and adjacent to campus."

Filed Under: journalism, open records, texas a&m

Can Alcoa Get Reporters' Notes Under Open Records Laws If The News Organization Is Connected To A State University?

from the protecting-journalists-vs.-freedom-of-information dept

JJ points us to an interesting situation in North Carolina. Apparently, Alcoa, the aluminum giant, is demanding all of the reporting documents associated with a segment done about the company, concerning its attempt to renew its 50-year lease for its facilities on the Yadkin River. Now, normally, a news organization wouldn't turn over such information, but there's a bit of a twist here. The reporting was done by UNC-TV, which is connected to the University of North Carolina. Thus, Alcoa makes the case that it is subject to North Carolina's "Open Records" laws, and it appears that the folks at UNC-TV are realizing they need to comply.

This certainly raises questions about how any news organization that is somehow connected to a gov't entity can feel its reporting is protected. This is also worth remembering as we keep hearing more and more newspapers insist that government subsidies are the best way to save newspapers. Doing so could, potentially, open up similar claims by private entities wishing to dig deeper into a reporters' notes.

Filed Under: freedom of information, journalism, north carolina, open records, shield laws
Companies: alcoa, unc-tv

Obama Fighting For His Blackberry... But May Be Losing

from the the-lawyers-win!-the-lawyers-win! dept

Right after the election, there was plenty of talk about how President-elect Obama would need to give up email just as President Bush did when he took office eight years ago. As plenty of people pointed out at the time, this seems like a pretty silly concept. There should be at least some way to allow Obama to continue to use this important and useful form of communication -- if only to allow him some access "outside the bubble" of DC. And, indeed, Obama made it clear that he would fight to figure out some way to keep emailing -- especially via his precious Blackberry. However, the latest news isn't looking good -- as Obama is noting that he still has been unable to convince both the security folks and the lawyers that he should be allowed to keep the Blackberry. Apparently, there are times when it's not so good to be the king.

Filed Under: barack obama, email, open records, president

It Makes No Sense For The President To Not Use Email

from the get-with-the-times dept

Eight years ago, we noted that newly elected President George W. Bush had given up email, in order to avoid problems with open records laws on Presidential communications. Not surprisingly, there's now a lot of speculation concerning whether or not President-Elect Barack Obama will now have to give up email as well. In the intervening eight years, email has become much more important, and, of course, Obama is a known Blackberry fanatic.

Eight years ago we thought this was a silly turn of events, and today it seems even more ridiculous. Email is an important and useful form of communication. It seems silly not to allow Obama to use email, and it's difficult to see what the real advantage of cutting him off would be. The article mentions concerns about security, but no one is saying he should be sending nuclear codes or military training plans via email. The second concern is about the open records laws, that would potentially open up private communications to the public. Again, it seems like this can be dealt with in a variety of ways -- either by changing the law to protect certain emails, or by having Obama make it clear to any and all emailers that their emails should be considered public records. It seems like there are better solutions out there than cutting him off entirely.

Filed Under: barack obama, email, open records, president