consultants are sandburs

Wednesday, September 02, 2015

",,, information in his notes, that I understand have now been obtained illegally." "... I promised myself ..." [UPDATED - Is this proof of concept, for universal enforcement officials wearing/using body cams?]


On YouTube - compassionate conservative. Heavy on the passion part? But not across the aisle?

This link.

And here.

About Tara Mack.

Career politicians should be careful with their careers. Also, of course the denials and "lie" claims may be true. Only three people know things for certain, two in the auto in the park, and the citation issuing officer.

_____________________
Opening image from here; an independently interesting report, linking here. Not that it has anything to do with nuisance citations.


______________UPDATE_____________
One thing in the PiPress article:

Mack released a similar statement: “Last week, I received a citation for a nuisance. Subsequently, I have been told the officer wrote in his notes — information that I’ve requested, but has not yet been made public to me — statements that are completely false and inappropriate (and apparently were obtained illegally). [...]"

I leave readers to render the sense within their minds of, "statements ... completely false and inappropriate" which were "obtained illegally." I have wrestled with how that hangs together logically and credibly to where turning it to readers to square up seems the best course.

__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
While perhaps the term "coverup" might not be best, Republican Rep. Kelly is on record as meeting Republican Rep. Mack for an alleged exchange of documents. Remember Ollie North and Iran-Contra? Will we be getting further news, of a Fawn Hall - documents kind, as a manner of explaining for other aspects of reporting? "Just handing over the documents when the officer approached ... ?" Never thought to use a briefcase?

__________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Do cops lie? And what if, not these two legislators, but a young minority pair, how much belief and caritas would this pair of compassionate conservatives from the legislature have shown such a hypothetical pair, in their situation? Who'd they believe, the uniform handing out citations, or the cited individuals? Sorensen at Bluestem Prairie explores that viewpoint, and the need to seek corroborating evidence from the three parties.

City Pages, here, and readers can web search for other coverage.

And still, what does the "illegally obtained" phrase mean, in context? That the pair in the car were not read Miranda rights before being cited? That there is some evidence, but with a taint to it to be a basis for some form of suppression motion? It at present is a swearing contest, but Sorensen does suggest reasonable follow-up inquiry.

__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
MPR, here:

A spokeswoman for the House Republican Caucus said neither Kelly nor Mack were available for interviews.

That's sad. Their statements remind me, in antitrust oligopolistic pricing situations, distinctions between actual collusion and mere conscious [or unconscious] parallelism; follow the leader pricing, etc.; statements being, per MPR:

In a written statement, Kelly said he met with Mack to pick up documents related to the rural health care provider South Country Health Alliance. He also described his interaction with the officer at the park.

“When we met, a park ranger approached my vehicle and told me I was double-parked,” Kelly said. “I disputed his characterization and got out of the car to take a picture. He became visibly agitated and returned to his own car. Approximately ten minutes later, he returned to my vehicle with a parking ticket citing a nuisance. When I asked what that meant, he responded ‘whatever I want it to mean.’”

“I’ve since learned the park ranger included false information in his notes that I understand have now been illegally obtained. What he wrote is an absolute lie and I intend on filing a complaint.”

Mack also issued a written statement.

“Last week, I received a citation for a nuisance. Subsequently, I have been told the officer wrote in his notes — information that I’ve requested, but has not yet been made public to me — statements that are completely false and inappropriate (and apparently were illegally obtained). I will be filing a complaint with the sheriff’s office regarding the officer’s egregious and false statements.”

Who writes their stuff? Franken could hardly have come up with a funnier parallel pair of disclaimers. And he wrote that kind of stuff for a living. Put mildly, those statements cast each of the pair in a bad light. Sitting over coffee at a Caribou outlet after the fact, each staring at his/her and the other's citation, "What now?" "Let's write something ..."

____________FURTHER UPDATE___________
POLICING BODY CAMS: The situation got a thread on Reddit, and one observation struck a cord. If every policing officer, park rangers too, were required to wear body cams and to use them turned-on and filming (at peril of dismissal) in every contact with a citizen, there would be an absence of any swearing contest dimension to whether a pair of possibly preachy "sanctity of marriage-family values" GOP people were shown to have a real, fallible human side, but also to be hypocrites, etc. the point being body cam evidence would nail truth down tight as a drum, this instance, and most others. Neither cops exceeding fair exercise of authority, nor perps later denying things should be exempted from the objective truth body cams on enforcement officers would yield.

DO IT. THERE IS NO SENSIBLE REASON FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO DISTRUST OR TO OPPOSE TOTAL RESPONSIBLE USE OF BODY CAMS. YOU DON'T NEED FERGUSON AND DEAD MICHAEL BROWN TO PROVE IT, ALL YOU NEED IS A PARK RANGER WRITING UP "PANTS DOWN" TO SEE VALUE ADDED CONSTRAINTS UPON OFFICERS IN THE FIELD ARE TRUSTWORTHY. THIS IS AS STRONG A CASE OF NEED FOR BODY CAMS AS MICHAEL BROWN. JUST FAR LESS THAN A YOUNG HUMAN LIFE AT ISSUE. THE ANSWER, NONETHELESS, IS THE SAME. OFFICER DISCRETION TO NOT ISSUE A CITATION OR TO NOT ARREST WOULD NOT BE A FACTOR. VALIDITY OF AN ENCOUNTER AS PRESENTED TO PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES IS THE SOLE ISSUE, NOT DISCRETION TO NOT MOVE A SITUATION FROM STREET ENCOUNTER TO PROSECUTION. THAT NEED NOT BE IMPACTED BY USE OF BODY CAMS.

Thought experiment: Surely if the two legislative denials have any legitimacy, one should expect, next session, both Kelly and Mack to introduce and push hard on universal use of body cams. Anything else would be an admission.

___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
For a quick snapshot of where these two are on issues, each has consistently been strongly identified as "business Republicans." VoteSmart "rating" summary here for Mack, here for Kelly. Presuming the rating bodies have clearly defined agendas and people paying attention to legislative activity impacting the discernible agendas, reasonable inferences can be drawn.

___________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Eric Ferguson has a wider ranging analytical post at MPP, this link. He reaches something of a similar conclusion; i.e., this situation is ripe for examination of police responsibility issues; with his not specifically making body cams a major point of emphasis. The main appeal of body cams, with audio, is the uncombustible objectivity it provides, and the restraint it might pose against badge-heaviness.

A thought experiment: Would Kurt Daudt with his history of speeding tickets and the hand-gun related incident in Montana favor or oppose body cam legislation; and as Minnesota House GOP leader, could he box in any effort in that direction, were it to grow legs?

__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Body cams as a requirement should not stop with those having a policing badge. Paramedic emergency responders should wear them. Often they are deputized, and much of the "plain view" and "emergent circumstances" published case exceptions to the Fourth Amendment and warrant requirements arise in such situations where public officials are admitted into a dwelling. Body cam use as a requirement should hold for building inspectors and assessment officials; i.e., anyone who on official grounds seeks admission into a private dwelling space where the expectation of privacy is paramount. However, putting the camera right next to the cop's badge is the needed first step; since laws seldom are perfect in first implementation. Consider: Somebody dies in their sleep, 911 is called, deputized paramedics enter and go into the other room where plants are growing, or look into drawers for "medications" the clearly deceased might have taken on bogus "medical emergency" "we need to know to help" grounds when the body's cold to the touch and respiration and circulation have clearly ceased. If cams show such things a suppression motion is easier to win; and suppresssion motions should be won whenever the Constitutional impediment to unlawful government search and seizure is trampled upon by over-zestful officials unwilling to wait to determine whether a judge will/will not issue a warrant. Some creep's home, they deserve it, is a thought that stops if it is your home, and creeps in a car up to mischief deserving whatever happens stops when it is your car. How it is and should be for the creeps, is how it needs to be to protect whatever rights pieces of paper say you as an individual have when facing the policing powers of State officials who've decided upon confronting you.

No comments: