Editorial: Secretive Police, and Their Political Enablers

Last December, President Obama proposed spending millions of dollars to equip 50,000 police officers across the nation with body cameras as part of an effort to address a “simmering distrust that exists between too many police departments and too many communities of color.” The idea is that when encounters between police and the public go awry in disputed circumstances — a situation all too common in the Upper Valley as well as in more urban areas in recent years — the video recording made by the body camera would provide an objective and omniscient witness. That would be good for the cops and good for the public.



Or so the theory runs. In practice, according to The Associated Press, at least 15 states, including New Hampshire, are advancing legislation that exempts video recordings produced by body-worn police cameras from public records laws, or otherwise limits what would be made public. The White House Task Force on 21st Century Policing this month also recommended restrictions on the dissemination of video recordings.



The purported reasons are to protect the privacy of subjects and witnesses; to prevent the misuse of embarrassing images; and to spare the police the trouble of processing public record requests. The upshot, AP reports, is that “the responsibility to record encounters, retain copies and decide what to make public” would mostly rest with police departments themselves.



So the government proposes, as part of an effort to alleviate mistrust and boost public confidence in law enforcement, to invest in new technology to document police activity . . . but not to allow the public to inspect those records unless police agencies decide to disclose them. This may seem nonsensical, and on one level, it manifestly is. On another level, it fits neatly into a pattern. Consider:



∎ Earlier this week, a Justice Department review of the Philadelphia Police Department found that officers were involved in 390 shootings from 2007 through 2014, and that they shot 59 unarmed individuals during that time. But the Justice Department said that “we cannot say whether this number is high or low,” because reliable national data on police shootings do not exist. Departments are not required to publish such information, and there are no national standards for doing so, The New York Times reports.



∎ In Massachusetts, The Boston Globe reported earlier this month that recent rulings by the Secretary of State’s office have allowed Boston police to withhold the names of five officers caught driving while drunk; the State Police to withhold the report of an officer’s arrest; and the North Andover police to refuse to release booking photos of a state trooper. These rulings and others allow law enforcement agencies wide latitude in choosing what to disclose in that state.



∎ On Staten Island, N.Y., a judge has declined to release the evidence presented to a grand jury that declined to indict a New York City police officer in connection with the death of Eric Garner. Garner, suspected of selling loose, untaxed cigarettes, died after being put in a choke-hold as police were attempting to take him into custody in a widely publicized case that outraged many people.



∎ In Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan in recent years, measures proposed by Republican governors to cut public employee pensions and curb their collective bargaining rights have all carved out exceptions for police officers and firefighters. The rationale seems to be that the risks attached to their jobs require that they be treated differently from other public employees, although as The New York Times points out, based on Labor Department statistics, garbage collectors are far more likely to die on duty than are police officers.



What we infer from this pattern is that police agencies and police unions have considerable political clout with legislators, judicial officers and government officials and are not afraid to use it to advance their own interests. Thus is transparency and accountability lacking in American law enforcement.











∎ Earlier this week, a Justice Department review of the Philadelphia Police Department found that officers were involved in 390 shootings from 2007 through 2014, and that they shot 59 unarmed individuals during that time. But the Justice Department said that “we cannot say whether this number is high or low,” because reliable national data on police shootings do not exist. Departments are not required to publish such information and there are no national standards for doing so, The New York Times reports.



∎ In Massachusetts, The Boston Globe reported earlier this month that recent rulings by the Secretary of State’s office have allowed Boston police to withhold the names of five officers caught driving while drunk; the State Police to withhold the report of an officer’s arrest; and the North Andover police to refuse to release booking photos of a state trooper. These rulings and others allow law enforcement agencies wide latitude in choosing what to disclose in that state.



∎ On Staten Island, N.Y., a judge has declined to release the evidence presented to a grand jury that declined to indict a New York City police officer in connection with the death of Eric Garner. Garner, suspected of selling loose, untaxed cigarettes, died while in the officer’s choke-hold as police were attempting to take him into custody in a widely publicized case that outraged many people.



∎ In Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan in recent years, measures proposed by Republican governors to cut public employee pensions and curb their collective bargaining rights have all carved out exceptions for police officers and firefighters. The rationale seems to be that the risks attached to their jobs require that they be treated differently from other public employees, although as The New York Times points out, based on Labor Department statistics, garbage collectors are far more likely to die on duty than are police officers.



What we infer from this pattern is that police agencies and police unions have considerable political clout with legislators, judicial officers and government officials and are not afraid to use it to advance their own interests. Thus is transparency and accountability lacking in American law enforcement.





