|
|
|
|
|
|
TALKING POINTS FOR S.B. 647
Sponsored by Senator Alan Sanborn (R-Richmond)
- This bill could shield police from public oversight.
- It
will set a dangerous precedent by creating a new public act to specify
that when an employer is a criminal justice agency and the employee is
a police officer, statements made by the employee under threat of
discharge for remaining silent could not be released.
- This
bill will create a wall that would keep information about police
officers who commit crimes themselves from being released to the press
and the public.
- SB 647 would undermine police departments' accountability to the taxpaying public.
- Recent
events in Detroit, especially the "police" purchased Lincoln Navigator
that was supposed to be used for undercover narcotics, and was instead
used to transport the Mayor's wife are great illustrations of why our
founding fathers guaranteed an open government in the 1st Amendment to
the constitution. They are also a great illustration of why we
shouldn't let public records concerning police officers become closed.
- The
bottom line is openness, this bill eliminates openness in a sector of
public employment that we as citizens cannot afford to be blind about.
If information about bad police officers does not get released, they
will continue to "protect and serve" and be advanced within their
departments.
- The
public has an inherent right to know if a police officer has violated
the public's trust, either ethically or legally. The public is
illserved if reprehensible police actions are kept under wraps.
- This
bill could lead to other state employees (i.e. Department of Human
Services or the House Fiscal Agency) expecting the same treatment.
Eventually, any public employee who does something illegal or unethical
could remain on the taxpayer payroll without the people supplying the
money having any idea.
- This
bill is a frontal attack on the public's right to know. Police officers
should not be any more protected when they act inappropriately then
state legislators or accountants.
- Here
is an analogy about how the bill would effect everyday citizens: Say
you are driving along and a police car shoots out of a driveway and
clips the back of your car. The officer, who has a history of traffic
accidents and fears the consequence of another, gives you a ticket for
reckless driving. You're steamed, and file a complaint with the
department which conducts an investigation and decides to do nothing.
Under current law, you can find out exactly what the officer said. But
if Sanborn'
s bill passes, you lose this right.
Was the testimony truthful? You'll never know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
