Search This Blog

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Shreveport Officer Arrested with No Details Allowed

May 22, 2014 Thursday

by Richard Reynolds (aka THE DOOMED STUFFING)

One Set of Rules for You, One Set of Rules for Me
Richard Reynolds Richard Reynolds From update #2 to THE DOOMED STUFFING post about the arrest of Officer Logan McDonald: [author's note May 23, 2014: UPDATE Number 2: This is KSLA's response to my inquiry: KSLA News 12
"We have received clarification on this, upon furt
her requests for information on the release of information regarding criminal charges against officers and other public employees in general, and we have been able to glean at least this much more specific to the McDonald case (copied directly from the Initial Report requested from SPD): SHREVEPORT POLICE DEPT WAS NOTIFIED OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR SCH II CDS, WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.
It's not much more, but it does at least provide a detail as to the nature of the alleged malfeasance. In spite of having difficulty in the past when information like this has been requested, it was released quite readily this time around, and SPD has clarified that the Officers Bill of Rights is invoked is [sic] only in regard to administrative investigations, not criminal. It's worth noting that, while police readily release far more detail on most other criminal arrests, they never do with officers or firefighters. It might be this fact, coupled with a refusal to release information in an unrelated administrative investigation recently that led to the misunderstanding. This has now been clarified."

I frankly feel sorry for Officer Logan McDonald if he is being charged with malfeasance for having a drug problem, and I still don't know when this "Officer's Bill of Rights" became effective, because he was indeed charged with malfeasance -- the same charge that the officer who took a bribe in the above cited story from KNOE in Lake Providence was charged, which provided details immediately and it occurred in February of 2014. I don't think Officer McDonald should be pilloried in the media, either, and I hate to use him as an example of the unfairness in publishing explicit details for some officers charged with crimes and every civilian charged with crimes while selectively withholding information that has no cause to be withheld from the public. If a civilian is charged with public intoxication, the media can and do report on the details of the incident, whereas officials charged still have the appearance of getting preferential treatment under this "Police Officer's Bill of Rights." It is, frankly, a matter of unequal treatment, which should not be tolerated by the public or the media. One can see that this may have been a mere "misunderstanding," to use KSLA's term, but from this blogger's perspective, it has the appearance -- the very strong appearance -- of preferential treatment. Whatever the case may be, the media is not bound in the United States by any law that attempts to restrict the press in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The police can and do withhold information in continuing investigations, but that does not mean that the news media should not try to get that information or are barred from any laws against trying to obtain it.--Richard Reynolds]





[author's note May 23, 2014:  UPDATE:  Here is a story from February 2014 that gives details about the nature of the charges of a Louisiana officer charged with malfeasance; I have messaged KSLA for a response to my inquiry about whether this is a new law that forbids a department from providing details or if it is a local law.  http://www.knoe.com/story/24631881/lake-providence-police-officer-arrested]

[author's note May 23, 2014: UPDATE Number 2:  This is KSLA's response to my inquiry:  KSLA News 12
"We have received clarification on this, upon further requests for information on the release of information regarding criminal charges against officers and other public employees in general, and we have been able to glean at least this much more specific to the McDonald case (copied directly from the Initial Report requested from SPD): SHREVEPORT POLICE DEPT WAS NOTIFIED OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR SCH II CDS, WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.
It's not much more, but it does at least provide a detail as to the nature of the alleged malfeasance. In spite of having difficulty in the past when information like this has been requested, it was released quite readily this time around, and SPD has clarified that the Officers Bill of Rights is invoked is [sic] only in regard to administrative investigations, not criminal. It's worth noting that, while police readily release far more detail on most other criminal arrests, they never do with officers or firefighters. It might be this fact, coupled with a refusal to release information in an unrelated administrative investigation recently that led to the misunderstanding. This has now been clarified."

I frankly feel sorry for Officer Logan McDonald if he is being charged with malfeasance for having a drug problem, and I still don't know when this "Officer's Bill of Rights" became effective, because he was indeed charged with malfeasance -- the same charge that the officer who took a bribe in the above cited story from KNOE in Lake Providence was charged, which provided details immediately and it occurred in February of 2014.  I don't think Officer McDonald should be pilloried in the media, either, and I hate to use him as an example of the unfairness in publishing explicit details for some officers charged with crimes and every civilian charged with crimes while selectively withholding information that has no cause to be withheld from the public.  If a civilian is charged with public intoxication, the media can and do report on the details of the incident, whereas officials charged still have the appearance of getting preferential treatment under this "Police Officer's Bill of Rights."  It is, frankly, a matter of unequal treatment, which should not be tolerated by the public or the media.  One can see that this may have been a mere "misunderstanding," to use KSLA's term, but from this blogger's perspective, it has the appearance -- the very strong appearance -- of preferential treatment.  Whatever the case may be, the media is not bound in the United States by any law that attempts to restrict the press in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.  The police can and do withhold information in continuing investigations, but that does not mean that the news media should not try to get that information or are barred from any laws against trying to obtain it.--Richard Reynolds]



I frequent KSLA News (Shreveport's local CBS affiliate) facebook page to read and reply to comments by people who often call for the blood of those accused of minor or controversial crimes.  This isn't a local fad, I'm sure -- I've seen the same kind of lynch-mob mentality overtake every news media's facebook page, whether local or national.  But something truly perturbs me about what I read yesterday.

Let me preface the "story" I'm about to tell by saying that I don't hate police officers.  Police officers are selected from the general population and their job generally sucks.  Most police officers are just trying to do their jobs and go home safely, like anyone in any other job.  Some police officers make mistakes and are pilloried in the public's collective imagination; other police officers are corrupt, some are rude -- intentionally or unintentionally -- and a few are true sadists, intoxicated by the surge of adrenaline that comes from a sweet combination of authority and violence.  This blog post isn't about sadistic cops, rude cops, corrupt cops, or cops that make mistakes.  It's about fairness.

A story on KSLA's facebook page about a family of Keithville, Louisiana residents accused of being a "haven for underage drinking, drug use, and sex" lists in quite some detail the allegations against the family, one of whom is 17 years old and is considered a man (it's always struck me as strange that for the purpose of criminal accusation a 17-year old may be considered an adult but can't legally vote, buy liquor or cigarettes, or essentially do anything legally until he's 18 or 21), and the story gives the address of the accused -- 8223 Dance Drive in Keithville, Louisiana (I figured I'd publish the address since it's already been published over and over by the media) -- and gives explicit police assertions against this accused family.

In another story KSLA published a Shreveport police officer was arrested for malfeasance, booked, charged, and transported to the Caddo Parish Sheriff's jail.  The officer's name is Logan McDonald, age 30, and almost no other detail is given.  When I questioned the unfairness of the dearth of information on the officer malfeasance story when compared to the goldmine of salacious information on the "haven for underage drinking, drug use, and sex" story, KSLA's response was:


"SPD [Shreveport Police Department] did not provide details of that officer's charges and as a matter of policy, they will not. In fact, officers (and firefighters) are protected by the Officers Bill of Rights, which does indeed include protections not afforded others, including this:

§2532. Release of personal information
No person, agency, or department shall release to the news media, press or any other public information agency, a law enforcement officer's home address, photograph, or any information that may be deemed otherwise confidential, without the express written consent of the law enforcement officer, with respect to an investigation of the law enforcement officer.
(From the Louisiana statutes concerining :Rights of Law Enforcement Officers While Under Investigation:" http://www.ose.louisiana.gov/laws/pobor.htm

We have been denied access to details of allegations against officers in the past under these protections."

The way I read this, it doesn't prevent or punish journalists from investigating and publishing information against police officers.  It was interesting to me that, had KSLA or any local media news agency taken a few minutes, they could have come up with some information about Officer McDonald's background.  I did, and I have no idea whether it has anything to do with his malfeasance arrest, but in 2013 Officer McDonald was listed as a litigant in a case that was settled by the First Judicial Court Caddo Parish in excess of over $200, 000 -- which said settlement required approval by the Shreveport City Council, as detailed in their published minutes.  I responded to KSLA's explanation of why they don't publish details about police officials and firefighters with this comment:

  Richard Reynolds I was just curious ... does the malfeasance [charge] have anything to do with this settlement matter--I mean, I have no idea ... I'm not saying it does, but over $200,000 for a city settlement in 2013 seems like it's news: "WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport and its employee Logan R. McDonald have been named as defendants in the matter entitled “Robert E. Shaw v. City of Shreveport and Logan R. McDonald”, Docket No. 537,052-A, First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to settle all claims asserted against all defendants for an amount in excess of $200,000; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-175(b) of the Code of Ordinances requires that any claim in a lawsuit that is $200,000 or more may be settled only after it has been approved by the City Council by resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that the Office of the City Attorney is hereby authorized to settle all claims asserted against the City of Shreveport and its employee Logan R. McDonald in the above entitled and numbered matter for an amount in excess of $200,000." (source: http://www.shreveportla.gov/.../View.../Minutes/05282013-171)


I don't have any idea whether the settlement has anything or nothing to do with the story ... but it seems to me that police are not above the law and should not be treated as more than equal to private citizens.  The law "protecting" police and firefighters does not preclude the press from exercising its duty as a free press to investigate and publish and inquire; other states do not have such a protection, probably because they recognize that the public would generally view it is as unfair.  I cited a California case of an officer accused of molesting underage girls and his address block was printed and great detail was given to the allegations against him.

I am perplexed by the willingness of the local media to accept this unequal "protection" for officials accused of crimes without publicly criticizing it in such a way that would force lawmakers to revoke the protection ... not necessarily that it has to be revoked for the press to do its job.

Links: https://www.facebook.com/KSLANews12/photos/a.404897246499.187942.99664861499/10152114494396500/?type=1
http://www.ksla.com/story/25578465/keithville-family-accused-of-offering-sex-drugs-alcohol-to-teens?utm_content=bufferb5405&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

http://www.shreveportla.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/05282013-171
https://www.facebook.com/KSLANews12/photos/a.404897246499.187942.99664861499/10152115261586500/?type=1

No comments:

Post a Comment