This op-ed is by William Sorrell, the Vermont Attorney General.
During the several years of the police investigation of the sexual assault and murder of Patricia Scoville at Stowe’s Moss Glen Falls, nearly 1000 tips or leads led to the identification of scores of male “persons of interest”. These men were identified for reasons ranging from a history of sexually assaultive behavior to the fact that someone was known to hike in the area of the crime. The DNA of 86 different men was analyzed. Howard Godfrey was ultimately charged and convicted of having alone committed this horrible crime.
In this information age, should the public be apprised of the identities of those men who were ultimately exonerated? If the long list is released into this “viral” world, how many of these males or their families would be well-served to be known in cyberspace, no matter how justly or unjustly, as a former subject of investigation in a rape/murder?
There is much talk today about “transparency” and the appropriateness of reducing or eliminating government secrecy. It is entirely possible that the Legislature, come January, might consider the elimination of the current exception in the access to public records law of criminal investigative files. Should such discussion take place, I hope there will be thorough analyses of various reasons why the present state of the law might be reflective of sound public policy.
In arguably the same way that the confidentiality of one’s medical records is to protect personal privacy rather than to shield the work of health care providers, the confidentiality of criminal investigative files is designed to protect victims and the innocent rather than to shield the work of police and prosecutors from public scrutiny.
Perhaps a few other examples can be enlightening. Typically, a suicide triggers a criminal investigation – both to confirm that the death was in fact a suicide rather than a homicide and that no person violated current law by assisting in the suicide. Is the public interest served by the disclosure of the contents of a suicide note? What about evidence uncovered during the investigation concerning the actions and statements of the deceased to family and friends during the time leading up to the death?
What about death scene photos in suicide or homicide cases? Photographic evidence of the aftermath of domestic violence, child abuse or sexual assault? Most Vermont media do not publish the names or even the photographs or videotape of many crime victims. But these are voluntary examples of media discretion. Are we to believe that all citizens and organizations would exercise the same restraint? What about those so-called “shock sites” on the Web where gruesome photos of mutilated bodies at crime or accident scenes have been posted?
Would it be good public policy to disclose the names, addresses, job locations, schools and the like of crime victims and witnesses? Does the nature of the crime make a difference? Should it? Should suspected tax evaders receive more or less privacy protection than suspected shoplifters, drug abusers, pedophiles or cyber stalkers?
We all enjoy constitutional protections against being unjustly charged or convicted of criminal behavior. In a recent civil action, one Vermont newspaper sought the police files of the investigation of the existence of child pornography on the work and home computers of a former law enforcement official who committed suicide shortly after a search warrant was served at his home. The investigation found no evidence of child pornography on the computer of any other state employee at the Vermont Police Academy. Should the identities of those whose computers were analyzed and found to be innocent be publically identified? What about other personal or sensitive non-criminal information uncovered during the course of the investigation and appearing in the case files?
We live in a state and country in which we are innocent until proven guilty. Legislators should think long and hard before changing that equation.
Permalink |
Straw man arguments.
In the Hartford case it is precisely police actions that are being protected.
The name of the victim is already public.
It’s no surprise when public officials make bogus arguments.
The curiosity in this case is the absence, so far,
of the victim from the debate.
[As a side judge, I sat on a recent hearing on the case that
at least partly prompts the AG's op-ed.
My role as factfinder was de minimus since both sides
agreed on the relevant facts. By law, I did not participate
in the legal decision.]
Permalink |
The problem is the sheer number of persons killed by police in Vermont in the last several years.
Permalink |
Mr. Sorrell,
Your examples are a little “Off Topic.” DNA pools, “suicide” notes, photos of dead people and all the other examples you state could be provisionally exempt from changing VSA 317(c) so that corrupt or wayward police and correctional officers not be protected.
You have created so much detriment and harm to so many Vermonters that I’ve had to self publish a book highlighting my own personal experiences which have been easily corroborated with hundreds of others, both public and private. I’ll be revising this publication with my real name this coming season.
I’ve spent fourteen years of my life studying criminal justice only to discover that the same state that brought us Civil Unions, Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream and Bernie Sanders has the highest police misconduct rate IN THE NATION per capita of police officers. That’s right Mr. Sorrell, in the nation. Not only are we the highest, but we’re three and a half times the national average.(NPMSRP)
We’ve witnessed first hand a multitude of police officers deliberately targeting innocent pediestrians who were responsible enough to walk to and from their destinations, only to be harrased and arrested. Burlington and South Burlington Police officers and sometimes Winooski too have “Lied in wait” outside of college parties to follow assess then provoke innocent pedestrians who fall under a specific demographic profile. Local law enforcement have poltted and schemed in trying to take advantage of college youths and even much older adults who are responsible enough to walk instead of drive. They used to give you a ride home, now they take you to jail because you’re worth more to the state in jail than you are free.
“We all enjoy contitutional protections against being unjustly charged or convicted of criminal behavior.”
You need to wake up and smell the coffee. “Protections?” Those aren’t protections billy, they’re Rights, Constitutional Rights at that. and guess what? You’ve destroyed them. The United States Constitution for those of you unaware (and apparently there are some)is the supream law of the land.James Madison is turning in his grave right now.
Private citizens shouldn’t have to purchase video survaillance to protect themselves against the police who are supposed to be there to ensure our security. Why do you think the hartford police wont give up their audio or video recordings of the Wayne Burell arrest? Or wait, you didn’t arrest him, you just maced him, cuffed him while he was in his own upstairs bathroom naked.
I’m sure if Jim Douglas knew of the gross abuses of police power forthcoming, he would have never given new monies to fund them.
Your “Civil Rights intake” unit is a joke. While working as a correctional officer “Veteran Correctional Staff” prompted an inmate to completely fabricate a charge against me. Then you rewarded the inmate with $300. for droping the completely fabricated charge. When my state provided attorney called me it was more than obvious that he hade most definately been misinformed of my good character and even sent me the invoices. I’ve documented this in my book Vermont C.O. The Truth of Attrition ISBN 9780615267548
We’ve been stalked, followed and prayed upon by the Burlington and South Burlington Police. I’ve had to write letters to the Govorner, City Mayor’s Office and the National Desk of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission because your local law enforcement has acted so unlawfully that I’ve no choice but to bring it to the public’s attention.
South Burlington Police have engaged in openly bullying me and inciting vandalism to both my and my mothers cars. They have engaged in selectively enforcing the law in what appears to be an effort to try and intimidate me and my family. They have conspired with other agencies both public and private to bully me away from my gym located on community drive in South Burlington. South Burlington Police officers have deliberately not turned on their cruiser lights so that there would be no video or audio recording of their behavior. The same department has openly engaged in trying to disinfrancise me from my own community by assasinating my character to local convenience stores and merchants. We’ve had to document all of this.
I didn’t know that officers could just not turn on their video cameras by not having their cruiser lights go on. That’s nice to know.
Shame on you Mr. William Sorrell for allowing the police, yes the police, the same people we innocent, peaceful and law abiding tax payers hire to protect us, to do so much harm and damage. You’ve created a wirlwind of mistrust which has motivated so many academics in the field of criminal justice to stay away from law enforcement.
Police have audio and video devices on them to monitor their behavior as well. Police video isn’t just to build cases agains the public, but also to make sure,that officer is doing their job. Get it straight. Police have also lied in court and falsified documents which goes completely unpunished.
Your office has brought a great deal of death and distuction to so many Vermonters we’ll have no choice but to go public with it. You need to re evaluate. V.S.A. 317 (c) needs to be changed and your office needs to stop engaging in misinforming the public about their rights.
You’ve failed at your job Mr. Sorrell.
Christian Noll
BS/MS criminal justice