The Senate of the State of California voted to restore public access to records and public hearings related to complaints about police misconduct, overturning a Supreme Court decision to block public access to records about police complaints and making police hearings public.
Should this be a nationwide measure? Would open scrutiny improve the widespread antagonism against the police in our country? Why would police departments who vehemently deny wrongdoing insist in keeping their disciplinary information and complaints so secretive?
http://www.aclu.org/police/abuse/30620prs20070604.html
2007-11-04 00:06:25 · 8 answers · asked by TURANDOT 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
THE STATE HAS MANDATED AND A CHALLENGE TO THAT WILL BE BY THE SUPREME COURT. MARK MY WORDS.
ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS IS ALREADY OPEN UNDER THE FREEDOMS OF INFORMATION ACT 1973. (NATIONWIDE MEASURE BROUGHT BY ACLU FOR JANE FONDA, SDS (STUDENTS FOR A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY / COULD NOT KEEP FILES SECRET ABOUT JANE FONDA, TOM HADEN, ABBY HOFFMAN, HELLS ANGELS ETC,)
RECORDS THAT ARE CLOSED UNDER THAT ACT ARE: (DEPARTMENT INTERNAL AFFAIRS. SECRET IN NATURE OR SENSITIVITY.)
OPEN SCRUTINY WOULD ELIMINATE THE RUMORS PEOPLE HAVE ABOUT WHAT AND WHY A DECISION TOOK PLACE.
USUALLY THE RECORDS ARE CLOSED BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE INFORMATION AT A HEARING.
THE PUBLIC WANTS TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHY AND THE POLICE FEEL THAT INTERNAL SANCTIONS ARE THEIR DOMAIN NOT THE PUBLIC.
IF YOU HAD A PUBLIC HEARING AND READING MANY OF THE DESCENDERS HERE AT THIS SITE WHO HATE POLICE, WHO COULD GET A FAIR TRIAL LET ALONE WALK OUT WITHOUT BEING RECOMMENDED FOR A PUBLIC HANGING NOW?
2007-11-04 02:12:34 · answer #1 · answered by ahsoasho2u2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should be strongly advised by the feds that each state does open the records to anyone that may have cause to read them. Not necessarily anyone that walks in th3 door.
The police will not like this very much. It is quite well known that the police are not to be trusted. Not they they necessarily deliberately want to do wrong. The police get the attitude that everyone is a criminal and they assume we are all evil. Their EGOS get very much too big for their hats.
Yes there needs to be public access to all records that are not closed during an investigation or trial. After a judgment then all should be open.
2007-11-04 00:19:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This story must be wrong. State law making bodies can't overturn the Supreme Court, unless it's the state supreme court. As for you thought of it should be at a federal level. State, county, cities have due authority over their own law enforcement, federal government has no oversight on these agencies. The only time federal government becomes involved is when there might be a violation of civil rights, in which federal prosecution may apply.
2007-11-04 00:45:02 · answer #3 · answered by GIOSTORMUSN 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it would benefit all . . . including the police department. I think 99% of all officers are basically good people but as in any population there is 1% that is bad to the core. When you think about a city the size of Los Angeles, with the crime rate of Los Angeles, and compare it to the amount of police infractions it's amazing how good of job the police force is doing. However, this does not excuse the police force from adequately reprimanding the officers who are clearly over the line.
2007-11-04 00:15:28 · answer #4 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
State employee's personnel records are protected from the Freedom of Information Act in my state. In other words it is illegal for my boss to disclose any disciplinary action taken against me. Read 11. listed in the link here:
http://www.ncdoj.com/DocumentStreamerClient?directory=Publications&file=Publicrecords.pdf
I would love it if my employer made my files public. I would be able to rename the state after me and retire early. A teacher in Wake County has filed a law suit against the school board there for making his personnel file public. I hope he wins big. Just because I work for the government does not mean that I lose my right to privacy. The state of politics in CA is scary.
Why would you want to "improve" the antagonism against the police? The definition of antagonism is: "an active hostility or opposition, as between unfriendly or conflicting groups." Working with the Police is important in keeping crime down in your neighborhood. Of course if your against law and order then I guess that makes you a criminal...................
2007-11-04 01:26:09 · answer #5 · answered by El Scott 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Federal Government already interferes with states too much.
2007-11-04 00:11:12 · answer #6 · answered by DaveNCUSA 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think most of the cops are ok-but there are always cover ups that kinda stuff should always be open-always-also doctors and the medical profession
2007-11-04 00:11:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it always happenens with right-wing administrations like Bush's...the police get carried away with their power.
2007-11-04 01:04:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋