Remember that video about police complain forms in FL?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's the article. I wish members would take a minute to cut and paste the article into the thread. Links on news sites go dead and in a few weeks someone may ressurect this thread with a search and they won't be able to access the article everyone is talking about.

SOUTH FLORIDA
Police strike back at television reporter
A Broward police union put personal information on the Web about a reporter for a South Florida television station after he produced a piece called `Police Station Intimidation.'
BY JENNIFER LEBOVICH
[email protected]
The personal information of an investigative reporter was posted prominently on a South Florida police union's website after a local television station aired a report about how police in Broward and Miami-Dade counties deal with the public.

The address, date of birth and driver's license number of WFOR CBS-4 reporter Mike Kirsch was posted as a BOLO -- or ''be on the lookout'' -- on the website of the Broward County Police Benevolent Association.

BOLOs typically are issued by police departments when officers are looking for criminals or missing persons.

The BOLO reads: ``Channel 4 News is doing a series on the complaint process at police departments in Dade and Broward. They are setting up officers and instigating confrontations, then filing complaints with the various agencies.''

Kirsch first learned about the BOLO from a colleague who saw the flier in a stack of BOLOs at a local police station. New Times reporter Jeff Stratton wrote about the BOLO last week.

Kirsch's personal information was removed from the website after a letter from the television station's lawyer. Kirsch's photo is now on the site.

Alan Rosenthal, an attorney for CBS-4, a Miami Herald news partner, demanded that the union remove the BOLO, calling it false and a violation of Florida and federal law that prohibits the disclosure of ``personal identifying information contained in motor vehicle records.''

`GOING TO WAR'

The reporter said the posting had concerned him and his family.

''I told my wife about it,'' Kirsch said. 'She's from Bosnia. She said, `It sounds like the cops are going to war with you, and you need to be careful.' ''

Kirsch said the BOLO ''reminded me this is an intimidation effect,'' he said. ``It might have a chilling effect on any news media establishment from doing their jobs and questioning the system and government. It's just disappointing.''

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va., said the BOLO ``absolutely is an attempt to intimidate. And it's abusive and downright stupid.''

In its hidden-camera investigation, conducted with a national watchdog group called The Police Complaint Center, one person visited 38 agencies in Broward and Miami-Dade to ask about getting a form to file a complaint against an officer.

Only three of the police departments had such forms: Florida City, Homestead and Miami, according to CBS-4.

The forms are not required by law, though they are recommended by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Kirsch noted that at many departments, police were courteous and professional, but in others they weren't.

CHANGES AT BSO

After the piece, at least one agency pledged to reexamine the process for filing complaints. The Broward Sheriff's Office has made a ''Public Compliment/Complaint Form'' available in the lobby of BSO stations.

BSO allows a person to file an anonymous complaint and provides many ways a person's form can be returned, including sending it to BSO internal affairs.

In another part of the investigation to check on racial profiling claims, a white man and a black man were given the same red Mustang to drive in the same areas of Broward. According to WFOR's findings, the white man was never pulled over, and the black man was ''almost immediately pulled over'' by a Broward Sheriff's Office deputy on Oakland Park Boulevard.

WEBSITE WARNING

Shortly after the investigation first aired in February, Broward PBA President Dick Brickman posted the BOLO on the union's website.

The BOLO also includes information about Gregory Slate of Baltimore, who works for The Police Complaint Center, including his cellphone number.

''I put the information out so our members if they come across any of these people, they should be aware these people they're talking to probably have you on camera,'' Brickman said. ``They're trying to set you up to aggravate you so you'll make a mistake.''

Brickman said the report should have looked into whether complaints about officers are investigated, not whether there is a form.

Of the racial profiling test, the BOLO states: ``Here's how it works: A white male in a red Mustang convertible will speed down the road. Later, the same car, this time with a black male driving, will appear in the same area driving slowly. If the car is pulled over by the police, the occupant will become hostile and accuse the officer of profiling, trying to pick a fight. If the officer responds negatively, a complaint is filed with his/her department.''

The BOLO warns that the CBS-4 team ''is back out on the street'' for a follow-up story planned in May.

But Rosenthal, the CBS-4 attorney, wrote that the union ``is not distributing the BOLO to carry out any legitimate law enforcement function, but rather for the sole purpose of harassing and intimidating Mr. Kirsch, Mr. Slate and CBS 4 in an effort to prevent them from investigating and reporting on a matter of public concern.''

Slate filed an internal affairs complaint with the Hollywood Police Department, alleging one of the officers used the National Crime Information Center to provide Brickman with his driver's license number.

Diop Kamau, executive director of The Police Complaint Center, who also is a retired Los Angeles police sergeant, said it's ``inappropriate for police to be crossing back and forth over the line that is the private behavior of police unions and the public behavior of officers.''

HOLLYWOOD PROBE

Hollywood police Lt. Richard Nardello, of the police Internal Affairs Unit, wrote, ``An investigative search through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement unequivocally concluded no one associated with the Hollywood Police Department had queried your name or driver's license number.''

Nardello found the complaint to be unfounded.

John Rivera, the Miami-Dade Police Benevolent Association president, declined to comment about the Broward union's BOLO.

Of the CBS-4 series, Rivera said: ``It was such a joke that we ignored it.''

Miami Herald staff writers Wanda J. DeMarzo and David Ovalle contributed to this report.
Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with this. The union did it, not a department. I suppose you'd all be just as outraged if the Teamsters put out a BOLO on their website about a news crew that was going around trying to make truck drivers look bad. The union doesn't carry out legitimate law enforcement functions. It's a union and I'm sure it put the information out there to warn it's members so that they didn't involve the union in litigation.

There is no complaint here. No police department did anything under color of law that was wrong. This isn't a police state issue. No government agency was involved.

Don't like it, complain to the AFL/CIO....

Jeff
 
Jeff,

True, it was the Union that circulated the BOLO. However, you shouldn't overlook that their membership can do quite a few things no other person can do. The article even takes note of them doing such things:

But Rosenthal, the CBS-4 attorney, wrote that the union ``is not distributing the BOLO to carry out any legitimate law enforcement function, but rather for the sole purpose of harassing and intimidating Mr. Kirsch, Mr. Slate and CBS 4 in an effort to prevent them from investigating and reporting on a matter of public concern.''

Slate filed an internal affairs complaint with the Hollywood Police Department, alleging one of the officers used the National Crime Information Center to provide Brickman with his driver's license number.

Diop Kamau, executive director of The Police Complaint Center, who also is a retired Los Angeles police sergeant, said it's ``inappropriate for police to be crossing back and forth over the line that is the private behavior of police unions and the public behavior of officers.''
Click to expand...

Why they assumed the Hollywood department, I am not sure. Turns out, either it was a different department that did the search, or IA is covering the other cops:

Hollywood police Lt. Richard Nardello, of the police Internal Affairs Unit, wrote, ``An investigative search through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement unequivocally concluded no one associated with the Hollywood Police Department had queried your name or driver's license number.''
Click to expand...

Keep in mind how he wrote that, nobody in his department. It very well could have been someone from another department.
 
The address, date of birth and driver's license number
Click to expand...
Bold type by NukemJim

Sorta kinda looks like somebody accessed some database that has drivers license data about this reporter.

Regardless of who published the data IMHO it was wrong.

If someone had a disagreement with a hospital and their confidental health info was published I would be suspicous of the hospital, I am NOT cop bashing, just stating how it appears to me.

NukemJim
 
Drivers license information is available to the general public. In many states you just have to contact the right agency and pay a small fee. There are also many information house websites where all kinds of public information can be purchased from private vendors who collect it.

It is against the rules to use LEADS and NCIC for anything but official business. The system keeps a record of what agency ran what information. The agency keeps a record of what officer ran it. It would be very stupid for someone to risk his/her career to come up with the reporter's DL file number to post on a website. It would be very easy to find out who did it. Every LEADS operator, including officers who have terminals in their cars has a unique log on and password. It would be very easy to prove the allegation, that's why Hollywood PD was so quick to dismiss the complaint.

There is likely no police misconduct here, although I'm quite certain the press release was designed to make the public think there was misconduct.

Jeff
 
There is likely no police misconduct here, although I'm quite certain the press release was designed to make the public think there was misconduct.
Click to expand...

From a legal perspective, maybe or maybe not. From a civil perspective, absolutely!!! Next time you break up with a girlfriend or a wife, try posting negative and private information about her in a public forum where she can be identified and potentially targetted and see how much it ends up costing you in civil court.

Let's get real here, this was an act of retribution and harrassment pure and simple. There's no other reason for it to be posted. Is that an attribute law enforcement wants to be associated with? Then they aggravate the situation by making excuses for it and "protecting" each other?

And law enforcement seems to be baffled by the increasing lack of respect for them from the general public? Hmmmmmm.....wonder why???
 
This isn't really about these particular actions, but rather the gang-like "us vs. them" mentality of police organizations. This comes up over and over.

That behavior (I'm going to take flak for this) is thuggish.

Why do they feel the need to take a confrontational, antagonistic approach to this? It isn't their duty to be this way. We do not expect them to respond in this manner. They should stick to doing their job, and lose the clannish characteristics (not clannish as in KKK).


It troubles me when they begin acting as a party in a dispute, rather than as the neutral arbitrator/enforcer of the law.
 
Don't Tread said:
Why do they feel the need to take a confrontational, antagonistic approach to this?
Click to expand...
Perhaps because the reporter is making a name for himself by generating confrontations with local cops? Confrontations that place the cops confronted under stress to show how they respond in different stressful situations.

That does not excuse the cop union's behavior, which is essentially an act of intimidation. Anybody doubt if the cops would squeal if somebody did the same to them by posting the same information, perhaps by/for the use of local organized crime organizations?

"Be on the lookout for Detective I. B. Leo and Detective Charles O. Parker, who are investigating the delivery and sale of drugs in Dade and Broward. They are setting up your fellow dealers and instigating confrontations, then filing charges with the District Attorney.''
 
Fantastic!:cool:

I just wish gun owners would stand up to the bullies in the media like this. If I were the cops I would hire PIs, arm them with video cameras and have all the reporters followed night and day. I would then do the same set ups that they pulled on the cops and see how the media likes it.

BTW, the time for media control is now!:cool:
 
That does not excuse the cop union's behavior, which is essentially an act of intimidation. Anybody doubt if the cops would squeal if somebody did the same to them by posting the same information, perhaps by/for the use of local organized crime organizations?
Click to expand...

Good point!!!! I wonder if the Union would have the same reaction if the DL's, home addresses, and phone numbers of all the cops in the area were published on a website? Obviously from their perspective it's not illegal!!!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff White
I wish members would take a minute to cut and paste the article into the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Creeping I...
Copyright infringement.
Click to expand...

FYI it's not copyright infringement as long as you credit the source.
 
The Press v. The Police

As much disdain I have for the press and as much respect and admiration I have for the police, there are lines that should never be crossed. This is one of them. Kirsch should be accompanied by about ten packing citizens for the next few months, not as body guards, but as potential witnesses should abuse become apparent. The police union has shown their propensity towards intimidation and arrogant misuse of the power their members have. This union presents a danger.

Exposure of the misdeeds of this union are insufficient to halt this or any further abuses. Civil and criminal action must me taken. The good police who are the members of this union should not be besmirched by this union, nor should they be collectively held responsible for these misdeeds or for any abuses other members of the union may have perpetrated that prompted the original article in the first place.

The police are not armed for, nor are they present in our society to intimidate. Law enforcement does not require intimidation. Law enforcement is about arresting criminals and promoting comity out there in the flow of traffic.

Woody
 
To all that want to have meaningful discourse with the
LEO'bots - you are wasting your time.

Read Flatland and learn why.
 
They are setting up officers and instigating confrontations, then filing complaints with the various agencies
Click to expand...
I dunno ... it seems to me like the police should act professionally whether the "confrontation" is real or not.

If the reporters are doing anything illegal, then the police officers would of course be justified in taking appropriate action.

Sounds like a good training review to me ... how come IA doesn't do this? ;)
 
Perhaps because the reporter is making a name for himself by generating confrontations with local cops?
Click to expand...

jfr,

If you saw the video from the earlier thread, it was a man walking in and politely asking for a complaint form. They were doing some actual investigative journalism, in this case, what do you do if you have a problem with a cop.

Generating a confrontation would be say, a fake mugging and 911 call. That should be a stressful situation for the cops. Being asked for a complaint form - politely - does not rise to deserving the treatment one should reserve for a child molester.
 
The police are the authorities, we set it up that way. It is part of their burden as the uniform, and representation of neutral authority and of security to NEVER begin acting as a party in a quarrel. That lowers them to the status of a participant in devious actions, rather than as an unbiased enforcer of the law.


What the reporter or news agency does to aggravate, instigate, antagonize, provoke is not an excuse, nor a justification for the police organization to act in such a way. It is beyond their scope, purpose and duty.


That's a mighty dangerous line to cross. It's been done many times in our history, so it's nothing to get worked up into a lather over...however, it doesn't mean it's ok to keep doing it.


I understand that it is difficult to expect our LEO's to sit there and "take it"...when the situation seems unfair; however, that is part of the burden of being an LE in a free society.
 
Jeff White said:
I see nothing wrong with this. The union did it, not a department. I suppose you'd all be just as outraged if the Teamsters put out a BOLO on their website about a news crew that was going around trying to make truck drivers look bad. The union doesn't carry out legitimate law enforcement functions. It's a union and I'm sure it put the information out there to warn it's members so that they didn't involve the union in litigation.

There is no complaint here. No police department did anything under color of law that was wrong. This isn't a police state issue. No government agency was involved.
Click to expand...
Jeff, aren't you an LEO (or a retired LEO)?

There IS a complaint here. The only way the police union could have obtained these guys' drivers license numbers is by accessing a police computer system, and accessing a police computer system for other than official law enforcement purposes is illegal.

Further, whether done by an "agency" as an official act or by a union as an "unofficial" act, any time police officers target individuals for "special attention" due to nothing more than exercising Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, it's wrong. It is unquestionably wrong morally, and I'm certain if I were an attorney I could find at least half a dozen laws that would say it's wrong.
 
jfruser said:
Perhaps because the reporter is making a name for himself by generating confrontations with local cops? Confrontations that place the cops confronted under stress to show how they respond in different stressful situations.
Click to expand...
"Confrontations that place the cops under stress?"

Since when is asking "Do you have a form I can use to file a complaint" a stress-creating situation? Granted, when I read the original reports about this "expose'" I felt the reporters' sting was stupid and ill-conceived, because you don't necessarily need a form to initiate a complaint, but I can't see that asking for a form creates any stress on the part of the officer/dispatcher/secretary fielding the question. There are two possible answers:

(1) "Yes, we do. Here it is, please fill out two copies and keep one for your records."

or

(2) "No, we don't use a form for complaints. You can speak to the shift supervisor if you want to file a complaint."

Yes, I know that at some of the departments the reporter tried to turn response #2 into a confrontation, but if the officer at the counter chose to take the bait, he/she was an idiot. And once the officers escalated #2 into a p!ssing contest (especially the cop who was ready to draw down on the reporter in the parking lot) they just made themselves appear to be total cretins.
 
"The address, date of birth and driver's license number of WFOR CBS-4 reporter Mike Kirsch was posted as a BOLO -- or ''be on the lookout'' -- on the website of the Broward County Police Benevolent Association."

Aw, what's a little public intimidation by a group of public employees? Benevolent Association? BWAAHAHAHAHAHA.

John
 
Don't Tread On Me said;
The police are the authorities, we set it up that way. It is part of their burden as the uniform, and representation of neutral authority and of security to NEVER begin acting as a party in a quarrel. That lowers them to the status of a participant in devious actions, rather than as an unbiased enforcer of the law.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the police are not full citizens? That's a far cry from the usual comments that we are super citizens or above veryone else. Once again, I'd like to remind you that no police department participated in this. A police union put the reporters information on it's website. Police officers have as much right as anyone else to participate in a quarrel or dispute. They cannot do it in an official capacity, but off duty and through organization such as their union, they have as much right as anyone else.

What the reporter or news agency does to aggravate, instigate, antagonize, provoke is not an excuse, nor a justification for the police organization to act in such a way. It is beyond their scope, purpose and duty.
Click to expand...

Again no police department nor any officer acting in his official capacity put that information on the union's website. People in the medical field have a duty to provide care to people who need it, the Hill Burton Act gives hospitals and medical professionals a legal obligation to provide care, yet no one is upset about the lists that they keep and their insurance companies keep of people who have filed malpractice claims in the past. This is no different.

I understand that it is difficult to expect our LEO's to sit there and "take it"...when the situation seems unfair; however, that is part of the burden of being an LE in a free society.
Click to expand...

No we don't have to sit and take it. We have as much of a right to protect ourselves as people in any other profession. Again, this would be wrong if it was done in an offical capacity, but it wasn't. It was done by a union.

Hawkmoon said;
Jeff, aren't you an LEO (or a retired LEO)?
Click to expand...

Retired Army, full time police officer...

There IS a complaint here. The only way the police union could have obtained these guys' drivers license numbers is by accessing a police computer system, and accessing a police computer system for other than official law enforcement purposes is illegal.
Click to expand...

You must have missed this from my earlier post:

Drivers license information is available to the general public. In many states you just have to contact the right agency and pay a small fee. There are also many information house websites where all kinds of public information can be purchased from private vendors who collect it.
Click to expand...

You are quite right, it's illegal to use the computer system for anything but official business. It also is impossible to use it anonymously. If it was used to obtain the reporter's DL numer, then there was a violation. But since it's impossible to use the system anonymously, and everyone knows that, and since this was sure to be controversial, I'm betting the information was obtained from the Florida DMV or whatever they call it or through an online information broker.

Further, whether done by an "agency" as an official act or by a union as an "unofficial" act, any time police officers target individuals for "special attention" due to nothing more than exercising Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, it's wrong. It is unquestionably wrong morally, and I'm certain if I were an attorney I could find at least half a dozen laws that would say it's wrong.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that police officers have no rights? Would you support legislation requiring medical professionals and insurance companies from keeping records of people who file malpractice claims? What about bars and package stores keeping lists of false IDs? Your grocery/convenience store posting a list of people not to accept checks from? Theaters and entertainment venues keeping lists of people who have been banned for disruptive conduct?

The PBA doing this is the same as any of those other professions taking measures to protect themselves. All they are saying is that if you have contact with this guy, be aware he is a news reporter and he has a history of trying to provoke a confrontation in order to make the police look bad. It's no different then the owner of a store posting a list next to the cash register saying; "Don't take checks from these people, they have a history of writing bad ones."

No one's rights are being violated.

Jeff
 
I don't think posting someone's address on the web is something to be proud of, especially when you've got a beef with them.

I don't think it's right when someone does it to a police officer and I don't think it's right when they do it to someone.

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
More anti-gun lunacy from Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald
Replies
20
Views
1K
Axman
A
T
  • Locked
FL: Jury clears homeowner who took cop for intruder
Replies
14
Views
840
Stand_Watie
S
I
  • Locked
Jury acquits man who shot police officer
2 3 4 5
Replies
107
Views
5K
Strings
S
T
  • Locked
Boy wounded by unseen assailant with a pellet gun
Replies
4
Views
440
artherd
A
D
  • Locked
(FL) Clerk has close call with robber
Replies
1
Views
601
Standing Wolf
S
Back
Top