TheAgitator.com
More Obfuscation in Prince George’s County
Friday, December 12th, 2008Prince George’s County, Maryland officials are still refusing to hand over documents related to the botched raid on Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo.
In letters obtained by The Gazette, county lawyers rejected the mayor’s request to obtain police reports, officer accounts and other significant documents from the raid.
“We will object to any request that deals with matters that are or have been subject to investigation,” wrote Mary C. Crawford, deputy county attorney, in an Oct. 21 letter to Calvo.
Police spokesman Maj. Andy Ellis said Monday that the county is still reviewing its role in the execution of the search warrant.
“The preliminary investigation has been completed,” Ellis said. “Right now it’s in the review phase.”
Ellis said the department would likely notify Calvo of the conclusions of its internal investigation but said he wasn’t sure if police would turn over incident reports and other documents the mayor has sought.
“It’s not something we normally do,” Ellis said. “I presume he could request them, and we would consider any request. But as a matter of course, it’s not something we usually do.”
[...]
Calvo, who said he’s become increasingly concerned with the tactics officers employ in drug warrants, had also requested copies and reports from other searches the county has done in addition to his own.
Though the county agreed to give copies of the training orders and policy manuals allowed under the Maryland Public Information Act, they denied more specific information about the July 29 raid and any other raids. County attorneys also said they would charge Calvo more than $1,000 to copy the allowed records, which include police training manuals and department policy statements on how to execute search warrants.
“It will be time consuming,” Crawford wrote. “Please let me know if you want to spend the money to identify the material.”
The Maryland Public Information Act allows anyone to request copies of existing records, though exceptions are made for personnel records, privileged communication with lawyers and material that is part of an ongoing investigation.
Crawford also said budget problems would hamper the county’s ability to turn over the allowed information in a timely manner.
This is an elected official making these requests, in a case where he was terrorized and nearly killed by agents of the government, in a botched raid where he was clearly innocent, and that made national news. And they’re still giving him the runaround. Four-and-a-half months later, they’re still playing games. Imagine what happens when normal people try to get documents related to run-ins with the police.
It’s not just police raids, it’s government hacks in general who try to subvert FOIA. Just the other day I was about to sue the state administrative courts because they were trying to charge over a thousand dollars to release to me some of their decisions that could be damning against the judge who wrote them. They charge the money because they know that the agency I work for could never afford that money.
Here’s the kicker: state and federal law requires that the decisions be published anyways, and have for the last 30 years. They’ve just never gotten around to doing it. They knew what I was trying to do when I requested the decision, couldn’t legitimately deny it under FOIA, so took the alternative, which is to charge as much as they could in order to cover their own asses.
So really, it’s a scared government hack problem.
“Ellis said the department would likely notify Calvo of the conclusions of its internal investigation….”
Shall I save them the time and effort?
There was no wrongdoing, procedure was followed. Sorry, you’re SOL.
Doesn’t exist. This is a governmental agency, not a private person.
Another case of FUCK YOU to Citizen Nothings. Why do they bother lying about it, when we all know just about anything that comes out of their mouth is patently false? The system breeds lies, corruption, deceit, and obfuscation, so why do people act surprised?
Pig Barns (Police Departments) have to legally answer to the system, so what does it take to correct things — a ruling from the US Supreme Court??????
“so what does it take to correct things — a ruling from the US Supreme Court??????”
The Supreme Court has already ruled that police officers are under no legal obligation to render aid to anyone. Also, illegal searches are permissible because of Scalia’s infamous “new professionalism” decree.
The solution to the problem is never the problem. The antidote for poison is never more poison. The solution is to be found outside of the system.
The solution is anarchy, or more correctly, individual sovereignty.
‘Doesn’t exist. This is a governmental agency, not a private person.’
I think it does. Privilege is between the lawyer and their client. Even if it is a govenment agency.
I’m not defending their actions. I believe that law enforcement should actually be held to a higher standard than the average citizen. Not a lesser one as is often the case.
The only reason to deny to FOIA request would be ongoing investigation. However that applies to criminal investigations. If that is the case the agency can’t investigate itself as they have a clear conflict of interest. I don’t believe the ongoing investigation exception covers IA’s as they are not criminal in nature. At least that is what I would argue if I was a lawyer trying to get the info.
So they are investigating themselves and thus can not hand over documents that they have because they are investigating themselves and THEy will determine when the investigation (of themselves) is over and what it says. I understand not commenting on an ongoing investigation, but documents don’t (or shouldn’t) change. Make some frickin’ copies and keep one for yourself for your thorough-ass investigation which will never end but also conclusively uncover no wrong-doing.
Oh, and Michael Chaney, government officials still enjoy privileged communications with their (government) lawyers. This is appropriate and overall beneficial.
In other words, anything that is under investigation, or has ever been under investigation is not subject to any further scrutiny. Am I reading this right?
Their paper shredder was overworked and broke. They’re awaiting repair. Thats why the delay.
I was referring to a Supreme Court ruling to release records, not to not do their job.
You read it right. They are the Decider of what you will know, regardless of when it happened and whether the investigation is open or closed. Cool, isn’t it? People that work in that capacity in the Pig Barns are also criminals due to their immoral actions of saying F U with actions like this — mob mentality.
Hey BamBam
Pig Barns (Police Departments) is an insult to pigs.
Taken from Wikipedia:
Pigs are omnivores, and despite their reputation for gluttony, they are generally social and intelligent animals.
I prefer: Doughnut Factories.
The economist in me concludes that the reason they are stonewalling is that no one working at the County thinks s/he will be fired for doing so.
Honestly, I don’t see what legal excuse there can be for not making things like police reports public. In truth, anything that doesn’t directly compromise an extant undercover operation should be openly available, ideally on the web. The idea that reports made by police as part of their official, taxpayer-funded duties are somehow “private” is ludicrous on the face of it.
What’s more confusing to me (a non-lawyer) is that it must be incredibly common in criminal cases for a defendant’s attorney to request this information. Can the police just decide to turn over only what they want? That would be scandalous.
All I can assume is that this case is different because Calvo wasn’t actually charged with anything, so he doesn’t have a right to see the “evidence” against him. If that’s the case, then it’s an obvious cover-up procedure, effectively meaning there is no oversight or accountability to police actions if they are smart enough not to charge one of the victims when they screw up.
I think that’s the media question to the County, “Are you saying that the Sheriff’s department can bust down someone’s doors, kill their family pets, keep them bound at gunpoint for hours and then never turn over the documentation that lead to the raid? Is that the power the County is claiming?” The matter needs to be publicly put in stark terms.
It would be a shame if the office that held the records were in the jurisdiction of the locality that Calvo controls… he could send his local police in to collect the documents by force.
there needs to be an email address to send funds to to attack this… I’ll paypal $25 to get things rolling.
Let the mayor walk in with a little internet financial backing and start kicking in doors himself!
Really, Nick? Then, it should be trivial for you to come up with a single instance (note how easy I’m making this) of this being *either* (again, lowering the bar) appropriate *or* beneficial.
Right?
Police spokesman Maj. Andy Ellis said ….
“It’s not something we normally do,” Ellis said. “I presume he could request them, and we would consider any request. But as a matter of course, it’s not something we usually do.”
Does ‘normally’ and ‘usually’ constitute legally, we don’t have to? Is this settled law? Unfortunately, it will cost thousands of dollars to subpoena these docs which will ultimately consists of three pieces of paper that will have been rendered useless by a liberal use of a black marker.
Also “Ellis declined to name the people ultimately arrested in the drug investigation, who he said were cooperating with other drug cases …”
Cheer up: at least we have more SWAT raids and dead dogs to “look forward to.”
#16: in theory, a government official should feel free to confidentially consult a lawyer so that he can learn what is the legal and ethical course of action. If you do not allow confidentiality, then you dissuade the official from learning what is the law and following it.
That’s the theory, and it works, as long as the lawyer is ethical.
Of course, if the lawyer is actively advising a client how act illegally, both the client and the lawyer can be charged.
In this case, Calvo should have a right to see all the records that are relevant and should be able to determine if the County lawyers are engaged in the cover-up. If so, the communications may lose privilege. That is when it gets really interesting.
Another approach is to determine the identity of the client. It is likely to be the county and not individual officers. If so, the county could request that the lawyers throw the individual officers under the bus.
“I was referring to a Supreme Court ruling to release records, not to not do their job.”
Duly noted, BamBam. I will amend my response:
The solution to the problem is never the problem. The antidote for poison is never more poison. The solution is to be found outside of the system.
The solution is anarchy, or more correctly, individual sovereignty.
#19 Cynical: “The solution is anarchy, or more correctly, individual sovereignty.”
You are entitled to your opinions, but I disagree. I am something of a political junkie, and have considered many different ideologies, including the Left and Right-wing strains of anarchism. I understand that this idea goes back to ancient Greece, but I have never found it to be too convincing. If you take the original meaning of “Anarchos,” which meant a society without rulers, then I am certainly with you. If you speak of a society without some form of representative democracy, and without minimum standards of conduct for citizens and government agents alike (laws, constitutions, some licensing, etc.), then I don’t find that to be a credible alternative.
I think we can agree that “anarcho-socialism” would rather quickly devolve into the kind of state socialism we are familiar with, because the impulse to collectivize everything becomes too strong and leads to atrocities (see Bryan Caplan’s website). But, with due respect to you, Prof. Caplan, David Friedman, et al., I also see major problems for anarcho-capitalism/individualist anarchism. While I find this theory to be more consistent, I think that an anarcho-capitalist society would devolve into a modern form of feudalism. Of course, without state intervention, corporations would not be as powerful as they currently are. Yet, vast concentrations of private power will remain, and wealthy individuals and organizations will be able to set up fiefdoms which will be able to shut out the rest of us or turn us into lowly serfs. This will only encourage the class warfare that libertarians wish to avoid.
To conclude, I believe that either form of anarchism would quickly obliterate liberal society, and could turn into the Hobbesian “war of all against all” that critics of anarchy often speak of. And I found Nozick’s critique of mutual protection agencies quite compelling when I read “Anarchy, State and Utopia,” some time ago. I am fine with calls for transparency, critiques of the welfare/warfare state, and most other libertarian ideas. But anarchy always leaves many more questions than answers, which has always bothered me. If you can “talk me down” on this one (paraphrasing Rachel Maddow), then I would certainly be open to discussion. Damn, I’m trying to cut down on these long posts, really!
Anything you can screw, the government can screw better.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com
Discussion is good, Helmut. You have a history of well-reasoned and interesting posts.
“If you take the original meaning of “Anarchos,” which meant a society without rulers, then I am certainly with you. If you speak of a society without some form of representative democracy, and without minimum standards of conduct for citizens and government agents alike (laws, constitutions, some licensing, etc.), then I don’t find that to be a credible alternative.”
In my vision of anarchism, which is by no means original or unique, the organizing principle of society is cooperation rather than force — force being the organizing principle of the State.
Force still exists, but it devolves to the individual. Each individual must then decide how to conduct oneself. Over time, society evolves standards of conduct. Nonviolent means of enforcement are applied, such as ostracism and moral suasion.
I see no compelling argument for the inevitability of a Hobbesian reality or the re-emergence of the State in any form, but of course it cannot be ruled out.
This is a key component of anarchism, its unpredictability as to form. Statists who bother to refute anarchist arguments usually regard this as the coup de grace against anarchism, this uncertainty.
I too do not want to submit a tome on the subject here. In the past here I have outlined the basic qualities of anarchism that present it as the only alternative to statism. I have concluded that man is a killer being at heart and that violence is built into the code. In short, I have no hope of anarchism being realized.
I am satisfied for the time being that I have demonstrated in valid and sound arguments that reforming the State is utterly futile because force is force, force is corrupt, and concentrated force tends toward absolutes. Once the State forms, the game is over.
Reforms are not alternatives. Only abolition is an alternative. Only individual sovereignty is an alternative. That it is an infinitesimal hope changes nothing. Arguing over which form the State should take is just rearranging the deck chairs.
#22 Cynical in CA:
Thanks for responding, and for your kind words. You state that you “have no hope of anarchism being realized,” which strikes me as intellectually honest. I always appreciate intellectual honesty!
Though I don’t call myself an anarchist (maybe a minarchist?), I must admit that your argument is bolstered by certain facts of life. For instance, most of our daily activities involve cooperation, rather than coercion. Regarding criminal justice, individuals are usually not required to report incidents to the authorities (ie. crimes), but do so because most people believe that public safety requires some collective action (ie. a police agency). Many people, including myself, pick and choose which incidents merit this response. I happen to think that death investigation requires this kind of response, and in most states that I am familiar with, you must report an unattended death. I feel the same way about other incidents that could effect large numbers of people in the community (agg. assault, rapes, burglaries, thefts, arson, reckless driving/DUI, fires, haz-mat incidents, etc.).
Put succinctly, I think that the state can be justified when health and safety are at stake. I was a criminal justice major and currently serve as a non-sworn healthcare security officer at a large, private hospital, so this has certainly influenced my views. But, if the society you envision becomes a reality, my current job would actually carry MORE prestige (Many people give us shit just because we aren’t “the police,” per se, and we don’t carry guns. Explaining the rights of private property owners or our ability to make private person’s arrests, is usually a waste of time with these idiots). And with the education and training I’ve accrued, I could certainly find a job in private protective services in your ideal society. I’d be ok either way, I guess. Thus, my argument against anarchy isn’t personal, just philosophical.
“Thanks for responding, and for your kind words.”
Very much likewise.
“You state that you “have no hope of anarchism being realized,” which strikes me as intellectually honest. I always appreciate intellectual honesty!”
Separating the arguer from the argument is one of the most difficult concepts in human communication. I cannot count the times I have disclaimed, “this argument exists independently of me!” Maybe I should change my moniker to “Intellectually Honest in CA.” ;-)
Pure anarchism appears to exist only in the individual. Once a human relationship is created, anarchism goes out the window it seems. Even in your example of everyday anarchism, an idea expounded by Georgetown law professor John Hasnas and Southwestern law professor Butler Shaffer, there is hidden force. The innocent transaction between yourself and the clerk at 7-11 is anarchic on the surface — you give him Fed Res. notes in exchange for a cup of coffee, you both gain, no guns are used by the two of you, etc. — behind it is the United States, state labor laws, interstate commerce laws, sales tax, transportation regulations, tariffs on coffee or whatever, ad infinitum. Like Bastiat’s broken window, there is that which is seen and that which is not. Perfectly anarchic relationships are very rare.
In your two examples of criminal justice and your occupation, you and I are skirting the issue of statism versus anarchism, whether the State maintains a monopoly not only on the use of force in its area of control, but also monopolies on the provision of criminal justice, law, postal services, national defense, etc. I firmly believe that ANY good or service currently monopolized by the State can be delivered infinitely more efficiently and morally through cooperation. And if it can’t, then morally it has no right to be provided in its current form.
This is another coup de grace by statists against anarchists — the provision of national defense. I haven’t worked it out myself, but I am confident there is an anarchist thinker out there who has, perhaps Rothbard. It is logical that if a private company can outperform the State in postal service and every other good or service, then it should hold for national defense as well. Or perhaps nations can only exist through force, in which case all nations are immoral. And if nations are inevitable, then it follows that it is inevitable that human beings are immoral. From that it follows that anarchism is impossible in reality.
See, I have no faith in my fellow man. Perhaps no rational person should. Perhaps all rational individuals should demand and defend the natural right of self-defense instead of contracting it out or yielding it to the State. That’s anarchy. All power to the individual.
Well you got me ranting, but it’s cool.
“And with the education and training I’ve accrued, I could certainly find a job in private protective services in your ideal society. I’d be ok either way, I guess. Thus, my argument against anarchy isn’t personal, just philosophical.”
I couldn’t agree more. An anarchist society would be a great place for a competent individual. In fact, incompetents would perish unless they were very, very nice to their relatives, which is really a form of cooperative trade in itself.
In short, contrary to human nature, anything presently achieved by force can be done infinitely better and moral through cooperation. It is the duty of competent, moral individuals everywhere to stand up for themselves and fight the incompetent, immoral individuals who stand with the State.
Just so we’re clear, if one votes, one stands with the State.
Peace out.
Put succinctly, I think that the state can be justified when health and safety are at stake. I was a criminal justice major and currently serve as a non-sworn healthcare security officer at a large, private hospital, so this has certainly influenced my views. But, if the society you envision becomes a reality, my current job would actually carry MORE prestige (Many people give us shit just because we aren’t “the police,” per se, and we don’t carry guns. Explaining the rights of private property owners or our ability to make private person’s arrests, is usually a waste of time with these idiots). And with the education and training I’ve accrued, I could certainly find a job in private protective services in your ideal society. I’d be ok either way, I guess. Thus, my argument against anarchy isn’t personal, just philosophical.
pimf
Please ignore the coda after “Peace out.”
:)
Thanks Cynical:
“Pure anarchism appears to exist only in the individual.”
-Good point. There is much to be said for acting as if “the revolution” has occurred even when it hasn’t yet, or never will. When one carries out most of their affairs independently or with the voluntary cooperation of family, friends, co-workers, and others in the community, they are well on their way. When people constantly have to call in folks like me to solve their problems or mediate their disputes because they are too drunk, hysterical or incompetent to live their lives, that is an invitation for a police state to form. Thus, like Bastiat, I don’t see these sad and troubled people as “job security.” I see them as a drain on precious resources.
“See, I have no faith in my fellow man. Perhaps no rational person should.”
-You shouldn’t have blind faith in any person, deity, etc.. However, if you take this too far, you begin to see everyone as a rival, or even the enemy. I have bad days where I get close to this, but I don’t think this position is healthy or justifiable. Most people are just trying to get by, pure and simple. Most people will lend you a hand if you need it. Even an individualist must come to realize how interconnected we really are.
“It is logical that if a private company can outperform the State in postal service and every other good or service, then it should hold for national defense as well.”
-Ooh, careful Cynical! Don’t give Blackwater any ideas. I kid, but I can’t agree with you on that one.
Here’s one more inquiry: How do you feel about the relationship between the employer and employee? I’m guessing that you are less inclined than other libertarians to call this a “voluntary relationship.” After all, if I piss off my boss and I get fired, eventually I may lose my apartment or go hungry. With this hanging over my head, I don’t consider the contract with my employer to be voluntary (one reason why I support some form of guranteed minimum income, possibly incorporating Georgist ideas of land value/natural resource use taxation instead of direct income taxation). Just wondering what your views on that one are. This is one area that divides the Left and Right flanks of libertarianism almost every time.
This really makes me sick. I’m really worried about the path we are walking down
Prince George’s County Md. has a problem. From the sheriff to the county reps, all should be unelected. Or are the voters of this county good with this sort of police barbarism? Remember, the evidence shows that the dogs were running away when shot.Sue Calvo ,sue.
“When one carries out most of their affairs independently or with the voluntary cooperation of family, friends, co-workers, and others in the community, they are well on their way. When people constantly have to call in folks like me to solve their problems or mediate their disputes because they are too drunk, hysterical or incompetent to live their lives, that is an invitation for a police state to form.”
I see the organizing principle of an ideal society as self-defense. Most rational individuals will act anarchically most of the time. Irrational individuals risk injury or death if they initiate violence on another individual. Rather than “calling in folks like [you] to solve their problems,” frankly these individuals need to hang by their own petards. I favor natural selection. Again, I see no compelling reason for a state to form because of the threat of irrational individuals, if individual sovereignty permits the individual to defend himself with deadly force.
“-You shouldn’t have blind faith in any person, deity, etc..”
100% agreement!
“However, if you take this too far, you begin to see everyone as a rival, or even the enemy.”
I have my low days where, upon passing any other person, friend or stranger, I mutter under my breath, “Hello, killer.” Sometimes the truth hurts.
“I have bad days where I get close to this, but I don’t think this position is healthy or justifiable.”
I’m glad to know I’m not alone, and I agree it’s over the top. It’s the absence of hope talking.
“Even an individualist must come to realize how interconnected we really are.”
Interconnectedness is a neutral concept, I have no truck with it. The question is, are we interconnected voluntarily or involuntarily? It seems to me that most of our relationships are involuntary. This creates cognitive dissonance resulting in anxiety.
“Don’t give Blackwater any ideas … I can’t agree with you on that one.”
Blackwater is a government contractor, a fascist entity. There is nothing private about them. Blackwater is not a private defense organization. But I still understand your objection.
“Here’s one more inquiry: How do you feel about the relationship between the employer and employee? I’m guessing that you are less inclined than other libertarians to call this a ‘voluntary relationship.’”
It’s difficult to analyze this from a neutral perspective owing to our present statist system. After privileges for both management and labor are balanced, I believe the state favors employers over employees. So, I could see how limited-state libertarians or minarchists would consider the present relationship between employer and employee as involuntary, especially when one adds in the burden of taxation, which renders every income-earner in the system a slave. The U.S. economic system is fascist, so there’s hardly a voluntary aspect to it at all, except for limited freedom to choose one’s occupation (in the face of licensure, etc.)
Questions as to freedom in the economy are moot until and unless the economy is divorced from the State. In free-market anarchy, every single business relationship would be voluntary. Your question would make as little sense to an anarchist like me as before, but from the opposite perspective!
“I support some form of guaranteed minimum income.”
Can’t agree with you there. I believe in sink or swim. I believe that one had better maintain positive relationships with one’s family as a safety net, else beg for charity (which would prosper in a anarchic society).
So to sum up, I guess I’m somewhere left of left. It’s all or nothing with me. It’s a switch, on or off. It’s digital, 0 or 1. Either one is free or one is a slave. I’d prefer not to debate the degree of slavery, it only serves to remind me of my status.
Cynical: Thanks for the discussion. To wrap up my side of the conversation, I guess I’ll just say it takes all kinds in this world. We may disagree on numerous topics, but this kind of civil discourse and exchange of views is what makes The Agitator a great blog.
While I am still not an anarchist convert, listening to views like yours will at least keep me honest and open-minded. And visiting The Agitator, as a protective services employee, and potential police recruit, has been a very valuable experience. I’ll never forget the lessons I’ve learned or discussions I’ve had in this forum. I am an individual first and foremost. Everything else is secondary. Thanks again.
It was a very enjoyable exchange on my part too, Helmut. I always learn from these kinds of discussions. And thanks to our host here at the Agitator for posting the kind of thought-provoking material that inspires such discussions and attracts such inquiring minds.
See you on the internets!
There is a legitimate public interest in keeping confidential citizens’ private information which is discovered by police during an investigation but does not constitute evidence of any actual crime. That having been said, citizens should have the right to demand that (1) the police supply them with any records concerning them, which do not relate to any ongoing clandestine investigations, and (2) that the police release official copies of those records to specified persons upon request.
For example, in a situation like this, the police shouldn’t release much information that might possibly infringe upon the privacy of the mayor and his wife, unless the mayor and his wife request it; if the mayor and his wife requests such release, however, there is no basis for continuing to withhold the information.
BTW, if I had my druthers, one thing I would state in law: police and other government agents shall have no expectation of privacy while conducting official government business, other than such specific exceptions as may be provided for by law. Laws against disseminating videos and recordings of people, etc. which are predicated upon the protection of privacy shall not generally be construed to forbid the dissemination of videos and recordings of police engaging in official business.
#27 noah lidman-
‘This really makes me sick. I’m really worried about the path we are walking down’
I don’t think we’re walking down this path, I think we’re being dragged kicking and screaming…
[...] great to be a PG county cop By joestevens42 You can raid the wrong house with no explanation necessary. You can also kill a college student in a car accident, lie about [...]
Warrants are issued by a judge normally and the reason for that is to give the warrant demand a review to make sure it is necessary and that the “intelligence” that created it is correct. If a warrnat is issued and shoudn’t have been then the judge was not doing his duty as reviewer and should be censured for that lapse. Warrants should not be signed off ever without due diligence being completed by a judicial official.