Champaign City Manager Says Chief Finney Acted “Inappropriate”
Following up on a story about Champaign Police Chief R.T. Finney kicking me out of a press conference held on June 8, 2007, I finally got a response that his actions were inappropriate and were based on no existing department policy.
Some who were gone for the summer may not have heard about an incident in June when three Champaign police officers were shot in an incident with a homeless man, Donnell Clemons, that occurred in West Side park. As it turned out, one of the officers had been shot by a police bullet (so-called “friendly fire”). Clemons is charged with attempted murder and faces up to 160 years in prison. He has pleaded innocent and has told his family members that the police shot first.
This incident is just one in the past year indicating a rise in police presence around public parks in Champaign. Another is an incident on March 30 when a 17 year-old black youth was sent to the hospital by Champaign police after being maced and beaten.
This happened two weeks before the April elections in which Giraldo Rosales, who was the only Latino alderman in downstate Illinois and who had been advocating for a Police Review Board in Champaign, was defeated. Republicans took over a majority on the Champaign city council and promptly shot down any future talks about a Police Review Board in Champaign at a July 31 meeting. This was in spite of recommendations from their own task force to continue further discussion and after numerous citizens and community leaders spoke in favor of a police review board.
The day after three Champaign officers were shot in West Side park, Chief Finney held a press conference about the incident. I showed up at the press conference, but no sooner than I had sat down, I was asked to leave. At the back of the room, Chief Finney told me I was not a member of the media and said, “I talk to who I want to talk to.”
After being ejected from the press conference, I contacted the ACLU’s Adam Schwartz, who wrote a letter on my behalf citing case law concluding that members of the press cannot be arbitrarily excluded from a press conference. The police chief responded with a letter saying I would be allowed into future press conferences so long as I presented press credentials and acted with “proper decorum.”
I also filed a complaint at the Champaign police department and was told that, as part of the procedure, I would get a call from the City Manager Steve Carter who would want to conduct an interview with me. Complaints are ordinarily responded to within 45 days. After ten weeks, and several unanswered phone calls to the City Manager, I finally had to set up my own interview with Carter’s secretary.
At the time I filed the complaint, I was not told the individual I was filing a complaint against would be present at the meeting. When I set up the meeting for Thursday, August 23, 2007, I was told that both City Manager Steve Carter and Police Chief Finney would be present. I showed up with my own witness, Durl Kruse, a member of CU Citizens for Peace and Justice.
When I asked for permission to audio record the conversation, Finney immediately protested. He wanted to know what I was going to do with the recording. I told him I couldn’t assure that it wouldn’t be the subject of an article. Finney turned to the City Manager and said, “See, I told you so.” Finney finally agreed but said he would keep his comments to a minimum.
I explained to Carter how I had been kicked out of the press conference and showed him documentation proving that I had been recognized by Finney as a member of the media. I had filed several Freedom of Information Act requests and received fee waivers for the materials because I am a member of the media.
I told Carter I wanted to see police policy in regards to press conferences and, if there was none, I wanted to be assured new policy would be written so this wouldn’t happen again to me or any of my colleagues.
Carter said, “To my knowledge we don’t have policy specifically related to press conferences. The police department has a policy related to the releasing of information and records […]. This would be the closest thing we have related to policy.”
While Carter eventually told me he was in “conversation” with city officials over a new policy, he never assured me it would go into writing.
I asked what the explanation was for ejecting me from the press conference.
Carter replied, “I think the chief thought he had the right legally based upon some information that he received through professional associates that he had the right to do that.”
I pressed him, “And what is that information? What kind of information would that be?”
Stumbling, Carter said, “That would be something that, obviously, we’ve had our attorneys look at. That information helped formulate the response to the ACLU. And that is in a general press conference like that, members of the news media should be able to attend. So probably asking you to leave the press conference was inappropriate at that time. So we won’t do that again.”
I asked Finney if he still believed he only had a right to speak to those reporters he wished to speak to. He remained defiant, “I think its very clear from our legal research that I can speak to the reporters that I choose to speak to, yes.”
Carter backed him up and provided an analogy, “There’s not a constitutional requirement that a public official talk to every reporter who wants to talk to him. I don’t think that exists. If you hold a press conference then everybody needs to be invited there. If a student from the Daily Illini calls and wants me to help them write their paper at the 11th hour, I don’t have a constitutional responsibility to help them do that.”
Of course, Chief Finney did not kick me out of the press conference because I showed up late. He continues to refuse to talk to me because of the content of my writing, because I criticize his police when they racially profile residents, beat up black youth, or, as in the recent story of Ms. Davis, fire bullets into a house with children inside in order to catch a suspected criminal.
I never received a formal apology from either Chief Finney or City Manager Steve Carter. Finney still says he does not have to answer certain questions from certain reporters. The public does not have a right to know. Finney’s ejecting me from the press conference is another indication that, under the current city council, the Champaign police believe they can operate with impunity.
LINKS:
“IMC Reporter Kicked Out Of Press Conference” http://www.ucimc.org/node/1361.
“Family Of Police Shooter Left Out In The Cold” http://www.ucimc.org/node/1390.
This incident is just one in
This incident is just one in the past year indicating a rise in police presence around public parks in Champaign. Another is an incident on March 30 when a 17 year-old black youth was sent to the hospital by Champaign police after being maced and beaten.
Splitting Hairs
Looks to me like your splitting hairs here about this incident. Brian's statement could be read in several different ways, so your way of reading it is just your opinion, nothing more. His assertion of an increased police presence in parks and other public places in certain areas is true.
Your own statement of criticism is far more misleading than what could conceivably be construed from what Brian wrote. You seem to imply that someone called the cops on the kid for some reason. He then became the victim of their attack. In fact, the teenager was escorting younger children through the park on their way home from an event at the Douglass Center. He was doing nothing illegal. He was trying to get those kids home safely. He was not loitering. He was brutally attacked by a cop. So much for feeling safer because of an increased police presence in the parks.
Nope
Looks to me like your splitting hairs here about this incident. Brian's statement could be read in several different ways, so your way of reading it is just your opinion, nothing more. His assertion of an increased police presence in parks and other public places in certain areas is true.
So, my statement is just my opinion, but your statement on his assertion is fact? Can you support this in any way?
Your own statement of criticism is far more misleading than what could conceivably be construed from what Brian wrote. You seem to imply that someone called the cops on the kid for some reason. He then became the victim of their attack. In fact, the teenager was escorting younger children through the park on their way home from an event at the Douglass Center. He was doing nothing illegal. He was trying to get those kids home safely. He was not loitering. He was brutally attacked by a cop. So much for feeling safer because of an increased police presence in the parks.
I wasn't talking about that incident - I was talking about the incident the article is about (Clemons at West Side Park). I don't disagree with your analysis of the Douglass Park incident - that's why I think that BD's characterization of the Clemons incident as "increased police presence" doesn't make sense.
Whatever
You can choose to conflate two different paragraphs if you wish. The paragraph you quoted ( and used for your title, gee, isn't that lazy?) refers to the Douglass Park incident, not to the subject of the previous paragraph, the West Side Park incident. I think Brian was correct to point out that being African-American and in a park is something that has drawn police attention recently, whatever spin you choose to put on it.
You can choose to conflate
You can choose to conflate two different paragraphs if you wish. The paragraph you quoted ( and used for your title, gee, isn't that lazy?) refers to the Douglass Park incident, not to the subject of the previous paragraph, the West Side Park incident.
In fact...
In fact, this is what happened on March 30. Champaign police officer Andre Davis was sitting in the Douglass Park parking lot and randomly stopped three black youth walking out of the gymnasium. Whatever happened, one of the boys didn't return home safely, but ended up in the hospitol.
And in regards to the alleged call about a man in West Side park with a gun, we don't know this for a fact. As of 2007, the State's Attorney will not release this basic information to the public. We just have the police's side of the story. Clemons' story contradicts the police account.
BD
And in regards to the
And in regards to the alleged call about a man in West Side park with a gun, we don't know this for a fact. As of 2007, the State's Attorney will not release this basic information to the public. We just have the police's side of the story. Clemons' story contradicts the police account.
Which Well?
I'm not sure why we should trust your listening comprehension, anymore than we should trust the spin you achieve with your reading comprehension. In any case, why should the cops hassle anyone who is clearly not hanging at the park, because they leaving it with no appreant connection to whatever was being reported (which you don't bother mentioning.) Or have our parks become free fire zones for the police? Step in a park and you take your chances that they'll try to twist your presence into something criminal.
As for the "well" you're speaking of, is that the "well, you should just believe what the cops say, whatever the facts really are."?
Or is it the well of public opinion? When it comes to that, the Champaign Police Department and its chief are their own worst enemies. Any supervisor who doesn't bother or even have time to investigate the facts of an incident, such as the one at Ms. Davis's house, and then states that his men must have been following proper procedure, doesn't take his responsibility to his employers, the public, seriously. That sort of behavior by Finney is nothing but pure CYA BS. Now that even the News-Gazette can no longer be trusted to help with the CYA that CPD needs so frequently, well, things are different. Maybe when the police catch the kind of flak they're getting, because they so richly deserve, it might be time to quit blaming others for holding up your excesses and abuses to the light of day.
I'm not sure why we should
I'm not sure why we should trust your listening comprehension, anymore than we should trust the spin you achieve with your reading comprehension. In any case, why should the cops hassle anyone who is clearly not hanging at the park, because they leaving it with no appreant connection to whatever was being reported (which you don't bother mentioning.) Or have our parks become free fire zones for the police? Step in a park and you take your chances that they'll try to twist your presence into something criminal.
anonymous cherry-picking, well-poisoning
"...no need to 25 with the RP..."
Care to speak English? Or is this arbitrary use of police jargon supposed to awe us civilians, like your unsubstantiated allegation that you "heard the dispatch"? I'm sorry but anonymous claims like this don't really answer the question. Of course you may be telling the truth, or you may not. We have no way of knowing if you were even there.
You may argue that we often don't know the truth of reports we read, even if we know who makes them. This is true in a limited sense, but misses the point. There is a very good reason for traditions of evidence such as being able to face one's accuser, etc. This is not a court of law obviously, but I use this as an example of the reason we can't just accept your word. It's one thing to express an opinion, or report on an independently verifiable fact without giving one's name -- a practice I generally disagree with -- but to make as if to settle an important question this way, especially given all the secrecy surrounding this case, is something else.
(By the way, it's questionable who is "poisoning the well" given this kind of anonymous allegation, plus the smooth dodge of the main issue here, which is Chief Finney inappropriately tossing out a critic, as well as the much bigger issue of police treatment of a young man accused of no serious crime, and the implications for police escalation and easy resort to violence, and possible racism.)
If on the other hand the State's Atty released some information, that info might be checked out, and -- if it turned out to be false -- the public would know the source, and the State's Atty would know that we know.
If there were a civilian police review board, then at least the public would have an independent body empowered to look into such things, find problems or provide reassurances. Then we wouldn't have to rely on the anonymous word of people who brandish about phrases like "no need to 25 with the RP".
But maybe that's exactly why some people are opposed to a board.
Ricky Baldwin
Care to speak English? Or
Care to speak English? Or is this arbitrary use of police jargon supposed to awe us civilians, like your unsubstantiated allegation that you "heard the dispatch"? I'm sorry but anonymous claims like this don't really answer the question. Of course you may be telling the truth, or you may not. We have no way of knowing if you were even there.
It's standard dispatch language - 10-25 refers to "Meet with..." and RP is the "reporting party," the person that called it in. Actually, you can find all of this information on METCAD's site - they're all about transparency, as they provide their 10 codes, their frequencies, the new MDICE information, etc. It's not like CPD, UPD, CCSO, or UIPD are using encrypted radio communications (like many jurisdictions), or hiding this info - they're quite up front about it.
What question hasn't been answered? There's question about the existence of a call for service - this is verifiable through METCAD, as they keep logs of everything. I've no need to ask them for verification, as I've heard it myself. I'm not trying to be an authoritative source, but BD's use of "alleged call" and a few other comments are a little too conspiracy-driven for my taste.
You may argue that we often don't know the truth of reports we read, even if we know who makes them. This is true in a limited sense, but misses the point. There is a very good reason for traditions of evidence such as being able to face one's accuser, etc. This is not a court of law obviously, but I use this as an example of the reason we can't just accept your word. It's one thing to express an opinion, or report on an independently verifiable fact without giving one's name -- a practice I generally disagree with -- but to make as if to settle an important question this way, especially given all the secrecy surrounding this case, is something else.
Like I said, I'm not trying to be some authoritative source - I'm just saying that I did here a call for service. As far as secrecy goes, as mentioned above, certain aspects of the CPD aren't the "secret, closed-door" policies you make them out to be.
(By the way, it's questionable who is "poisoning the well" given this kind of anonymous allegation, plus the smooth dodge of the main issue here, which is Chief Finney inappropriately tossing out a critic, as well as the much bigger issue of police treatment of a young man accused of no serious crime, and the implications for police escalation and easy resort to violence, and possible racism.)
What anonymous allegation? I just said that there was a call - I heard it, others probably heard it, and METCAD has a record of it. There was no "smooth dodge" - I agree with the rest of the article, that's why I didn't address it here. I just didn't like BD's equation of the Douglass Park incident with the West Side Park incident - there are significantly different circumstances.
If on the other hand the State's Atty released some information, that info might be checked out, and -- if it turned out to be false -- the public would know the source, and the State's Atty would know that we know.
If there were a civilian police review board, then at least the public would have an independent body empowered to look into such things, find problems or provide reassurances. Then we wouldn't have to rely on the anonymous word of people who brandish about phrases like "no need to 25 with the RP".
But maybe that's exactly why some people are opposed to a board.
I agree - the information should be released. Unfortunately, Urbana's CPRB isn't empowered to find problems - a shortcoming that will hopefully be addressed with future police contracts. However, I don't see the need for ad hominem remarks ("meant to awe," "brandish," etc.) because I regularly listen to a police scanner and understand their vocabulary. I'm not the person that's withholding information, or preventing due process, or racially profiling - I'm just sharing what I know, something that all of the authors/commenters on this site do.
Police Scanners
After reading many of the comments made, I really recommend that more people buy/listen to police scanners. It might change some people's perspective on the police activities in Champaign County - you start to realize just how many calls for service go out, and how rarely cops just stop random people on the street to hassle them. As MDICE (their new digital radio system) becomes fully operational, there will be even greater police accountability, as the digital radios will allow (and force) more and clearer communication. I know I'm not the only person out there with a police scanner, and I hope that more people use them in the future - it's a great, legal, passive way to keep tabs on the cops. METCAD makes it really easy to monitor their channels - they provide links on their main page that display talkgroup and frequency information, 10 codes, and descriptions of the system. Another site to check out is CARMA Chicago, which provides more extensive information on all Illinois radio operators.
Long Time Scanner User, Long Time Police Skeptic
I'll agree that scanners, and radio in general, are a fun hobby. But I think you're assuming that everyone will come to the same conclusions that you do by listening to the police. That's unlikely.
I have several decades of scanner use under my belt. The first thing I'll say is to not beleive everything you hear on the scanner. Good cops will check out the info they receive from dispatchers, instead of jumping to conclusions about it being the truth. I've frequently found that what I heard over the scanner about an incident turns out to be completely the opposite case in reality.
That very well could have been the case at Douglass Park that night. I don't know what the dispatch call said, but unless it was along the lines of "Be on the lookout for several African-American youths leaving the Douglass Center and headed towards home escorted by the oldest among them..." it just wasn't very accurate, at least as regarding the youth who was assaulted by the police.
The cop that grabbed the kid, for whatever reason, had no good reason to do so. Perhaps she jumped to the same conclusions you seem to have with the tiny and somewhat distorted window that is frequently the only info a dispatcher has to give. I'm not saying it was METCAD's fault, but any good cop knows that they need more than what a dispatcher tells them -- or they'll be making mistakes that endanger themselves, undermining the civil rights of the public, and may make their chief look like a fool (even assuming he needs any help with that.)
Also, much info travels to officers via their computer terminals. Thus, there is no easy way to tell what info matches, what is misleading, and what is just plain wrong about what you might hear on your scanner.
And long before anyone mentioned police review boards or started the consistent documentation of abusive police practices that the IMC has, I became thoroughly convinced by listening that our local police have more than their fair share of either outright racists or officers who see things primarily through a racial lens. This includes the current mayor of Champaign. You can listen and determine the way many officers think by how they respond to incidents and individuals. It's reassuring that so many do seem to be fair-minded towards everyone, regardless of their race. Then there are others that just have bad attitudes towards all citizens, simply because they are "civilians," because it's "us versus them" most of the time in their minds. Then there are the substantial minority who you really have to wonder whether or not they drifted in from some Mississippi 1960s tanktown... and all that probably indicates about their openness to diversity.
A big part of the problem is the insistent local practice of identifying all subjects first by their perceived racial status. There are departments that have done away with or limited this practice, which is frankly not all that useful in identifying actual criminals. Moreover, it tends to have other, undesirable effects on citizen perceptions of crime, eyewitness identification, and other factors that researchers identify as contributing to the racial disparities seen in statistical outcomes of encounters by citizens with the legal system.
BTW, there are only a handful of scanners currently on the market that will receive the new MDICE and Starcom 21 systems, used respectively by METCAD/Champaign County and the State of Illinois. Don't jump on a "good deal" on a scanner that will not do what you want next month. Most all the local police and fire will be converting or have already converted to these Motorola P25 digital systems in the next month or so. You can find out more about these systems at:
Starcom 21
http://www.radioreference.com/modules.php?name=RR&sid=2324
MDICE
http://www.radioreference.com/modules.php?name=RR&sid=4403
BTW, having listened to both MDICE and Starcom 21, the digital nature of these formats actually makes audio quality poorer. There are some adjustments that can be made to these system to improve that, but I wouldn't be claiming that the listening is clearer than before. But I heartily recommend that more people listen in. You'll be more likely to understand some things, but probably also be more frequently infuriated at some of the stupidity that goes on -- and not all of it is by "civilians."
MDICE quality
BTW, having listened to both MDICE and Starcom 21, the digital nature of these formats actually makes audio quality poorer. There are some adjustments that can be made to these system to improve that, but I wouldn't be claiming that the listening is clearer than before.
MDICE Audio Quality Is Better, More thoughts on LE
I'll agree that MDICE audio quality is better -- or at least they pay more attention to making sure it is.
Starcom 21 has been very disappointing as far as audio quality is concerned. Very choppy and irritating. If they don't get that fixed, eventually they will regret the confusion it could cause.
FWIW, audio quality on P25 systems is mainly an issue with system settings. You keep the Motorola techs coming back or giving you better info until they get it right. My understanding is that eventually these issues will be addressed once the state system is up and running, but it's pretty flaky right now.
Sounds like this is one place where Champaign County is properly managing a contract. METCAD gets bonus points for doing a good job at public information. One can only hope that by example some of that rubs off on CPD.
I would hesitate before lumping everyone's department who uses METCAD services together. There are real differences between the departments. In large part, it comes from the oversight and concern they receive from the civilian side. In Champaign, the police have carte blanche to pretty much do what they please. Elsewhere, governance is taken a little more seriously by the political leadership. The difference shows.
Apparently, the Champaign City Council feels they can withstand any amount of political embarrassment, no matter what the police do. That makes the City Council itself an embarrassment -- at least in most democracies. This isn't the 1960s anymore. Sure we have stupid laws made in the 1960s, or the 80s, take your pick, which are what cause the most irritation and friction between the police and the public. We'd all be better off with fewer, more sensible laws to enforce. It would be good if the police gave a little more thought to that issue in general. Discretion in law enforcement is an honorable thing and one that builds good public relations and make police work easier all around. Too bad Chief Finney skipped that day at the police academy.
Sounds like this is one
Sounds like this is one place where Champaign County is properly managing a contract. METCAD gets bonus points for doing a good job at public information. One can only hope that by example some of that rubs off on CPD.
Another Reason Why Finney Did What He Did
Finney may have reacted to Dolinar in the room because that June 8, 2007 press conference was a live simulcast on WDWS radio- pre-empting the Rush Limbaugh show; and of course various snippets were to be re-broadcast on all three television stations. Finney wanted to grind public opinion into groveling at the feet of "heroes". Dolinar was an inconvenient and uncontrollable variable Finney didn't want ruining his public relations stunt. His motives were soon to be seen at the press conference as Finney nearly tore the head off WDWS radio reporter Patrick Pinkston for asking if police provoked the shooting. As with the Eavesdropping Case of 2004, the March 30 Douglass Park Lynching, and now with the 4 Hedge Court Road Shoot-Em-Up, Finney is a walking public relations disaster. His mean-spirited, off-the-cuff, and deceptive commentary in the press is going to cost the City one lawsuit after another. Best thing City Manager Steve Carter can do is fire Finney now and send him back to the sticks where he belongs. Good 'ol boys like Finney can't handle black populations- unless it's with a billy club.
public parks
In regards to public parks, there is a history here locally of using them as a way to police public space, rather than Frederick Law Olmsead's original idea of using parks (Central Park for example) as a way to provide democratic spaces bringing different social classes together.
When many first arrive in Champaign-Urbana, they are warned not to get caught with any contraband near the tiny park gardens spread throughout the city. If caught within 1000 feet of these "parks" maintained by the park district, they can face enhanced sentencing.
A recent study conducted by Professor Ken Salo and his students at the University of Illinois found that on the North End, approximately 90 percent of the area falls within 1000 of one of these parks. State's Attorney Julia Rietz has acknowledged that there is hardly a space on the North End that doesn't fall under enhanced sentencing guidelines.
Most recently, we have seen incidents with the 17 year old beaten in Douglass Park, and the shoot-out with Donnell Clemons in West Side park indicating an increase in policing of public parks. Additionally, the Champaign Park District's takeover of Champaign-Urbana Day, held in Douglass Park, is another example of Champaign controlling public parks on the North End. Reportedly, this was the first time the Champaign police had a booth at the event.
Groups of black youth in numbers of two or more should not allow police to enforce what Champaign city council member Gina Jackson herself has called a "Zero Tolerance" policy.
BD
In regards to public parks,
In regards to public parks, there is a history here locally of using them as a way to police public space, rather than Frederick Law Olmsead's original idea of using parks (Central Park for example) as a way to provide democratic spaces bringing different social classes together.
Other than the 2 recent situations that you have referred to, can you provide your basis for the "history" ?
When many first arrive in Champaign-Urbana, they are warned not to get caught with any contraband near the tiny park gardens spread throughout the city. If caught within 1000 feet of these "parks" maintained by the park district, they can face enhanced sentencing.
When many what kind of folks ? How is that information provided to those arriving folks? Is there a memo or letter that goes out?
Additionally, the Champaign Park District's takeover of Champaign-Urbana Day, held in Douglass Park, is another example of Champaign controlling public parks on the North End. Reportedly, this was the first time the Champaign police had a booth at the event.
Not exactly true, I recall being there in the late 90's and there were law enforcement, fire and neighborhood services booths there. What is wrong with that? Were they not invited? Should they not be invited? Is there not a benefit to having people from all sides of a community represented?
Groups of black youth in numbers of two or more should not allow police to enforce what Champaign city council member Gina Jackson herself has called a "Zero Tolerance" policy.
I don't even know what that sentence means. Can you be more clear ?
HuH?!?!?
Groups of black youth in numbers of two or more should not allow police to enforce what Champaign city council member Gina Jackson herself has called a "Zero Tolerance" policy.
What the heck does that mean?
zero tolerance
When the issue was taken to Gina Jackson in April about why the 17 year old was stopped by Champaign police, her response was that there had to be a "zero tolerance" for youth who do not answer to police.
What about "zero tolerance" for Champaign police who routinely harass and profile black residents?
The community has still received no straight response as to why the youth was stopped in Douglass Park, when there were park programs until midnight.
Just this "zero toloerance" - police have a right to question anybody - response.
BD
City Manager is a Moron Too
The City Manager may be a bigger moron than Finney. This guy is an ass-kissing little prick whose sole goal is to perpetuate his employment. He has NO spine whatsoever. If he said Finney was inappropriate, it's because he thinks doing so is the best way to maximize the length of his employment.
I repeat. City Manager is a giant douchebag.
Maybe the City Manager Is Smarter than You THink
The Champaign City Manager may be smarter than you think. With the wild boys in CPD out of control and with no indication by the city council that it intends to actually exercise the oversight of police it claims to be best exercised by it, the City Manager is probably worrying about where he's going to find money in his budget to pay for the lawsuits CPD is racking up.
Maybe if legal settlements came out of the CPD budget, that might cause Finney to think a little bit more deeply about his obligation to properly supervise the gangsters under his command. Even better, maybe such settlements should be deducted directly from Finney's salary and those of the officers involved?
The City Manager may be a
The City Manager may be a bigger moron than Finney. This guy is an ass-kissing little prick whose sole goal is to perpetuate his employment. He has NO spine whatsoever. If he said Finney was inappropriate, it's because he thinks doing so is the best way to maximize the length of his employment.
I repeat. City Manager is a giant douchebag.
seems like itr meets criteria to be hidden
Send Your Complaints to imc-web@ucimc.org
If you wish to raise a concern about editing, send it to imc-web@ucimc.org. Otherwise, you are likely to find your own posts hidden as obviously off-topic.
This is especially so when you basically repeat what you claim to object to.
ummmm Brian?
The police DO have the right to question anybody, anywhere. And no, you DON'T have the "right" to refuse that. Your argument is based on a faulty premise.
pb
Ummm, False Implication
Citizens have the right anywhere, anytime to refuse to answer any question asked by the police. And police have several restrictions on their ability (it's not a right, rights are in the Bill of Rights and last I checked, it was full of restrictions on police power) to question citizens. First among those is that police can't just start asking questions based on a whim, a hunch, or "just because."
Of course, some folks would prefer that we all live in a police state. Thank goodness good Americans resist such nonsense.
ummm, no.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1036.ZO.html
anonymous. try again. yes they can. and this case meets the threshold. youth. park. after hours. done. probable cause.
Brian's premise is wrong.
pb
Ummm, Does "pb" Stand for "peanut brain"?
The decision you cited says:
"Respondent Wardlow fled upon seeing police officers patrolling an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking...The officers were driving the last car of a four car caravan converging on an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking in order to investigate drug transactions. The officers were traveling together because they expected to find a crowd of people in the area, including lookouts and customers. As the caravan passed 4035 West Van Buren, Officer Nolan observed respondent Wardlow standing next to the building holding an opaque bag."
The circumstances in which the young man was assaulted by the polcie officer when leaving the Douglass Center were not at all the same. There was no indication of drug activity, no crowd of "lookouts and customers" and the young man was not holding a suspicious paper bag, but instead escorting two younger childrenfrom the Douglass Center towards home.
I think I was right that you're more interested in nurturing an expansive police state than the truth -- or your level of reading comprehension is decidedly limited.
Once again, any American interested in upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights can plainly see that you're more interested in arguing apples when the circumstances indicate that it was oranges.
ummm, no.
Perhaps you should have read the whole decision, the reasons the Court ruled the way they did, and even the Terry rule. The USSC simply said police can stop you no matter what and ask who you are. Once you refuse, you have a problem. In the case of the kids in the park, since the park was closed they were already in violation and the police were more than justified in asking them to stop, even if for nothing more than to ask who they were and what they were doing.
I am a civil libertarian and am not at all interested in furthering a police state. However, there is a point at which common sense and reality must meet. I'm not sure why you insist on opening with a personal attack. I'm merely trying to engage in polite discussion and provide you with some material that you may not have previously considered.
Either way, if this is the way you're going to be, I'm outta here.
pb
Ummm, no "pb"
"...since the park was closed..."
It has already been established that the Douglass Center was open, that it is a common practice that the center stays open after the park is closed, and that those attending events at the Douglass Center usually legally leave the center when an activity is over without being hailed and assaulted by the police.
If the police have a problem with the people leaving legal events at the Douglass Center, then they need to be there to escort those leaving until they are safely past the limits of the park, instead of assaulting them and then claiming under color of law that they have the excuse of the park being closed to abuse their authority. Otherwise, the park district should close the Douglass Center at the time the park closes, to avoid endangering young people and anyone else who legally attends events there by exposoing them to the machinations and racial profiling of the Champaign Police Department.
I don't think any real civil libertarian would support your bizarre application of the Terry rule. In fact, most civil libertarians have significant problems with even the legal application of the Terry rule, let alone your distortion of it. As someone who voted for the change from the good 'ol boy network that previously existed in the state's attorney's office that we were promised, I am once again rather taken aback that the state's attorney has not dropped such obviously trumped up and racially biased charges. But like many voters, we're finding we've been hoodwinked by a duplictious politician. It's looking more and more like Ms. Reitz was elected under false pretenses, just like the case you make for the police state being ascendant over civil liberties.
The Hiibel Case of 2005
Is the more accurate case to cite that proves the Supreme Court has, like the presidential election in 2000made a Plessy v. Ferguson-esque error in deciding that police do hold the authority to stop citizens for identification purposes no matter what the circumstances? People v. Hiibel (www.hiible.com) out of Nevada, where a passenger of a vehicle claimed he did not have to produce identification when asked by a state trooper for i.d. The man considered his name to be the commencement of an unjustified search of his person. I believe it is in the commentary on this case where the Supreme Court articulates how a name is not a search.
Suspects Can Be Forced to Give Names, U.S. Court Says (Update2)
By Laurie Asseo and Greg Stohr
June 21, 2004 (Bloomberg) -- Police can arrest criminal suspects for refusing to identify themselves, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a decision that puts new limits on constitutional rights.
The justices, voting 5-4, upheld the 2000 misdemeanor conviction of Larry Hiibel, a Nevada man who refused to give his name to a sheriff's deputy investigating a reported assault.
``The officer's request was a commonsense inquiry,'' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. ``Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances.''
More than 20 jurisdictions around the country have laws that require people to cooperate with police even if they haven't been charged with a crime. Some states also require people to give their addresses, destinations and explanations for their actions upon request by police.
Lower courts had been split on the powers of police officers when they confront a criminal suspect. A Nevada court upheld a $250 fine imposed on Hiibel under a state law that lets officers demand identification from suspects and punishes violators with up to six months in jail.
Hiibel contended that silence shouldn't lead to imprisonment. He said that the Nevada law violated his constitutional right against self-incrimination and that his arrest amounted to an unreasonable seizure.
`Chain of Evidence'
Kennedy said there still may be a case where there is a ``substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense.''
He said the court wasn't deciding whether such a case would violate a person's right against self-incrimination under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment. Joining Kennedy's opinion were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
Breyer, writing for himself, Souter and Ginsburg, asked whether police could ``also require an answer to `What's your license number?' or `Where do you live?'''
Hiibel ``acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute,'' Stevens wrote in a separate dissent.
Nevada Attorney General Brian E. Sandoval argued that in modern society people don't have a right to keep their names private. The state argued that individuals must provide identification to get a job, borrow money from a bank, attend school or board an airline.
Report of Beating
The issue before the court concerned situations in which police have legal authority to stop and question someone but lack adequate evidence to make an arrest on other grounds.
Hiibel was 50 and unemployed when he was arrested by Humboldt County Deputy Lee Dove in May 2000. The officer was responding to a report that the driver of a red and silver GMC pickup truck was striking a female passenger. Dove then found Hiibel sitting beside his daughter in a truck parked on the side of the road.
Dove suspected that Hiibel was drunk and asked the man for his identification 11 times. After Hiibel repeatedly refused, he was arrested for resisting an officer.
The case is Hiibel v. 6th Judicial District Court, 03-5554.
To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net
"It has already been
"It has already been established that the Douglass Center was open"
Well maybe for the Center, but actually not for the park. The Center has not matched the park closing times until recently. In fact the Park District indicated that it did not want people in the part after certain hours. The park times were posted and enforcement times were enforced. You can make the argument all you want but the fact is that there was an active closing enforced by park ordinance. The grounds for the stop was legal.
Park programs open until midnight
Park programs at the Douglass Center gymnasium were going until midnight on March 30, when the incident occurred.
They gym is surrounded by the park.
How were kids supposed to leave the gymnasium if they left after dusk?
Maybe by police escort?
BD