TPD officers under investigation - Grand Jury?

[patric]

The Tulsa Whirled finally got around to making a special section for all the related stories:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/continuingcoverage/continuingcoverage.aspx?id=5

[shadows]

The taxpayer of Tulsa should start being concerned on accusations by letters informing that another TPO is under investigation from the grand jury.  The problem is that these officers will receive their pay while relieved of duty that could extend into years.   The system seem to be available for these suspended officers to receive their regular pay and benefits until the city places them on retirement. 

Shouldn't there be a limit to the amount or deducted from their vacation pay and other funds if found guilty?

Crime may not pay but being accused of it sure is a benefit to government employees.  Where does it all stop? 

[Hoss]

The taxpayer of Tulsa should start being concerned on accusations by letters informing that another TPO is under investigation from the grand jury.  The problem is that these officers will receive their pay while relieved of duty that could extend into years.   The system seem to be available for these suspended officers to receive their regular pay and benefits until the city places them on retirement. 

Shouldn't there be a limit to the amount or deducted from their vacation pay and other funds if found guilty?

Crime may not pay but being accused of it sure is a benefit to government employees.  Where does it all stop? 

This has to be the most lucid post I've ever seen from you.

And, believe it or not, one I agree with.

[nathanm]

This has to be the most lucid post I've ever seen from you.

And, believe it or not, one I agree with.

I can see both sides. It sucks that we pay officers to not work. It would also suck if said officer was put on unpaid leave and didn't get the benefit of trial for a year or so thanks to our dog-slow justice system and was eventually found not guilty.

Neither is fair. It's just unfortunate we can't really discriminate between the egregious lawbreaking where the accused is almost certainly guilty and investigations that don't end up going anywhere because the accused is in fact innocent.

Generally, I side with the person least able to afford the unfairness.

[patric]

Meanwhile, Tulsa police declined to release Gray's photograph to the World.

"At this time, the release of his photo would constitute a risk to past, current and future investigations,
including his own safety, and would clearly
be an unwarranted invasion of privacy," Brooks said.

So releasing a mugshot is... what?

[waterboy]

Doesn't seem too outrageous to me. His job is undercover and he is innocent till proven guilty. He could or should be temporarily relieved of duty and some limitation as to how long he could be paid or deferred etc. but I see no reason to blast his face all over the newspaper until he's found guilty (unlike celebrities who never get a break!)

[patric]

Doesn't seem too outrageous to me. His job is undercover and he is innocent till proven guilty. He could or should be temporarily relieved of duty and some limitation as to how long he could be paid or deferred etc. but I see no reason to blast his face all over the newspaper until he's found guilty (unlike celebrities who never get a break!)

The celebrity analogy is interesting, what do you suppose the reasonable expectation of privacy is of a public servant while exercising their authority, compared to that of someone just walking down the street?   

[waterboy]

If the public servant's job dictates his anonymity for success, his expectation of privacy is more than that of a celebrity imo. Remember, this guy is innocent till the evidence mounts up and proves otherwise. His career, and maybe his life, are in the balance. A celebrity normally craves attention and most elected officials have a responsibility to be available for their constituents.

The regular guy walking down the street used to have a very high expectation of privacy. No longer. Anyone and everyone can now simply log online and find out his whole life for free or a few bucks. I Goolgled my name once and found out I am a prisoner in Lexington. When I complained to the company they said I would have to prove otherwise before they would change it!

[patric]

If the public servant's job dictates his anonymity for success, his expectation of privacy is more than that of a celebrity imo. Remember, this guy is innocent till the evidence mounts up and proves otherwise. His career, and maybe his life, are in the balance. A celebrity normally craves attention and most elected officials have a responsibility to be available for their constituents.

The regular guy walking down the street used to have a very high expectation of privacy. No longer. Anyone and everyone can now simply log online and find out his whole life for free or a few bucks. I Goolgled my name once and found out I am a prisoner in Lexington. When I complained to the company they said I would have to prove otherwise before they would change it!

Lets say Im the one who buys the chemicals for the city's water treatment.  Ill get a good deal for the city as long as you dont ask questions, like who I am or where the goods come from.
My anonymity makes my job a success, because the chemical costs are way down.

Unfortunately...
my lack of accountability means you will never know the industrial waste company I get my sodium fluoride from is shipped in tankers that dont get cleaned out after they use them to ship other industrial wastes, so...

The argument just doesnt work, and neither does trying to prop up the other end of the equation by lamenting on the public's diminishing privacy.  Gray's usefulness as undercover was depleted long ago when he gave interviews to TV stations, so TPD's privacy assertions are untruthful.

[custosnox]

Lets say Im the one who buys the chemicals for the city's water treatment.  Ill get a good deal for the city as long as you dont ask questions, like who I am or where the goods come from.
My anonymity makes my job a success, because the chemical costs are way down.

Unfortunately...
my lack of accountability means you will never know the industrial waste company I get my sodium fluoride from is shipped in tankers that dont get cleaned out after they use them to ship other industrial wastes, so...

The argument just doesnt work, and neither does trying to prop up the other end of the equation by lamenting on the public's diminishing privacy.  Gray's usefulness as undercover was depleted long ago when he gave interviews to TV stations, so TPD's privacy assertions are untruthful.

I'm gonna have to side with H20 on this one.  By description of the job an undercover officer relies on anonymity to be able to accomplish his job.  It also is a matter of safety for the officer.  However this does not remove the officers accountability, as demonstrated by the investigation.  Until proven guilty, it should be considered that if the privacy is not maintained then the officer will not be able to return to their profession if found innocent in the same capacity as originally established.

[MH2010]

Kind of a back story about the picture issue....TPD management declined to release the photo of Henderson to the Tulsa World.  The Mayor's office decided to and gave the picture to the Tulsa World.  That is how Henderson's picture got out. 

Now regarding Grey, Captain Brooks was quoted in the Tulsa World saying, "At this time, the release of his photo would constitute a risk to past, current and future investigations, including his own safety, and would clearly be an unwarranted invasion of privacy."

So I don't know what has changed between the Mayor's office overriding TPD management and releasing Henderson's photo and now.

[rwarn17588]

Now regarding Grey, Captain Brooks was quoted in the Tulsa World saying, "At this time, the release of his photo would constitute a risk to past, current and future investigations, including his own safety, and would clearly be an unwarranted invasion of privacy."

I'd say the minute he was implicated in a corruption probe, his cover is blown.

[Conan71]

I'd say the minute he was implicated in a corruption probe, his cover is blown.

If it would hinder an on-going investigation or put fellow officer's lives in danger, I disagree.  If he/she is simply "implicated" I disagree also.  If, after an internal investigation, and even then only if it did not jeopardize ongoing investigations or officers, then fine, make it public.  If the officer was working with a couple of other officers on a different investigation it could lead to the other LEO's being uncovered.

Why should other officers or citizens be put at risk because of the mal-feasance of one person?

[shadows]

Most of the rate payers who depend on a secured justice system which should find if there is a possible cause to look into corruption before the final accusation is made, now should be looking into the difference standards afforded by classes.  Being advised by letter that one is being investigated by the grand jury from those conducting the jury for fraud extends beyond reason an unbiased precedence not afforded to the general public.  In this instance there is a possible cause of fraud having been committed in  order to be presented to the grand jury which as a pubic employee, under shield of trust, could and can be placed on the fast track to establish guilt or innocence.  It is at the courts discretion and obligation to do so in the present unless we continues to accepting double standards.  Thus the mug shot should be published under the same rule as others are published before the determination of guilt of innocence is established.     

[waterboy]

So, I would presume by your argument that rape victims should have their pics put in the paper as well? After all, they may be lying. They certainly put the alleged rapist's pics in the paper and you're all about levelling the classes, so why not?

I'm comfortable with a judge deciding how a case is conducted based on what the prosecutor and defense present to him.