News-Record.com

The City uses the Duke case as a cautionary example to defend its secrecy (City Manager, Mitch Johnson has also brought it up in a press conference in response to releasing information about the Wray investigation). It's a twisted and irrational defense.

The Duke students were able to be "Nifonged" precisely because a public employee kept information secret from the public. It was not until Nifong's actions came to light that the truth was revealed. When the city tries to use the Duke fiasco as an excuse for their actions, I hear: "We have to keep secrets to avoid a terrible situation like the one that happened at Duke because of secrecy."

Is the paper willing to go to court to get the information the city is wrongfully withholding?

We're pursuing the possibility right now.

I can't help but believe that Linda Miles is still running the show. The council needs to clean house by firing Johnson, Bellamy and most of the legal dept. How can we EVER begin to heal with those people running the city?

What are they afraid Of?

Roch, please review the updated comments on Ryan's blog. The Duke comment was taken out of context and was in no way intended to "defend its secrecy."

My guess on what might be happening: Internal Affairs is conducting an internal personnel investigation to determine if a crime occurred. If they determine a crime occurred then a formal criminal report will be filed and the information specified under GS 132-1.4 will be available to you at that time.
Perhaps the use of the term "criminal investigation" in press releases and statements from the City was a general reference and wasn't meant to definitively classify the legal status of the investigation.

In other words, when the City said "criminal investigation" they weren't talking about something that follows the norm when a citizen makes a formal complaint, they were referring to the nature of the investigation.
My best guess? The victim/officer reported it to Internal Affairs as it involved some kind of personal dispute or officer-to-officer conflict between GPD personnel and those things are routinely handled internally. When the nature of the complaint became known and officers were suspended while the investigation continues then GPD or Chief Bellamy decided to err on the side of caution and go public with the fact that an incident/suspensions occurred so they wouldn't be accused later on of "covering up" something if it turned into a criminal case.
I don't think there's a statutory definition of exactly when an investigation becomes a "criminal" investigation and therefore triggers disclosure under GS 132-4. It's a vague area and something not easily defined by statute. It's almost a subjective determination, sort of like defining when an "arrest" has been made. (Legally, an arrest occurs when the person is no longer allowed to leave of his own free will. The words "You're under arrest" are not pertinent.) There may be some case law on this, and perhaps this is what GPD is relying on. Again, just my guess, but I think when a Case Number is assigned and a report filed then it is formally a "criminal" investigation. Prior to that I'd think it was still an internal personnel investigation. Generally, reporters have access to the info or a copy of the report after a case number is assigned and a written report filed. If there isn't some logical, generally accepted time frame for this then a reporters could just follow cops around and demand all the "facts" 5 minutes after the cop arrives on the scene. That's just not practical.
Heck, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for GPD.
I understand the N&R has a stake in making sure the City complies with disclosure required under law. I'd guess it's also a matter of professional principle with you and I don't fault you for that. And while I appreciate your position in seeking info so the N&R won't be accused of "missing the boat" on another potentially big story involving GPD, I also appreciate that GPD is reluctant to release any more info than they're required to by their interpretation of personnel laws. The more statements they publish, the more their words can be parsed or misinterpreted.

Just my thoughts, and they're worth exactly what you paid me for them.

As you may have seen on my site I spoke with Elaine from the Public Affairs department yesterday and I really feel like their hands are tied. From a PR standpoint the city generally goes about things of this nature all wrong. The legal department seems to be the guiding light for this issue... as well as many other issues.

I know there are a lot of people that very much dislike Mitchell Johnson but I can't help but wonder if most of his actions are due to what the legal department suggest that he do.

For all we know this could turn out to be a case that bears no weight... but because the city is playing tug of war with the information the N&R, TV outlets and bloggers have covered the case heavily since day one. If the information would have been released I can't imagine that the story would have received nearly the attention that it has to this point.

Ryan

Here's something to chew on. If any civilian adult is accused of a crime the names quickly go before the public-- why is this not the same for police officers and other city employees?

Has a crime been committed? I don't know but obviously a complaint has been filed. If someone files a complaint against John Robinson or Billy Jones then GPD will quickly make that information public but when it's one of their own they immediately go into hiding.

This sort of thing is a breeding ground for rumor and worse. The truth shall set you free.

There may or may not be valid reasons for withholding information about the current case. In today's N&R front page account, Chief Bellamy is quoted as referring to this being a federal matter. I can't help but wonder if there are some additional federal issues involved that may come to light in due course. Federal authorities deal with criminal activities that cross state lines, such as drugs and prostitution. The real story may be deeper than the immediate calls for release of information.

Part of the plight of the police department is that it's command structure was torn apart 2-3 years ago, so that now there has to be a serious question about its ability to effectively command and supervise its own ranks. If the department is short 80-100 sworn personnel (the number depends on who you ask) and if it is short handed on experienced command personnel needed for proper supervision and discipline, a prompt detailed fitness study on the department - as the City Council noted - should be undertaken without further delay. The city must gain control of the police situation soon lest more qualified personnel abandon ship and recruitment of qualified candidates becomes more difficult.

Thanks for the discussion, all. I think jaycee outlined the legal issues pretty well.

And I agree with Ryan that the legal department is holding more sway than it should. As a taxpayer, I think the city council should declare this one of the times that the credibility of the city is at stake and they will release more information, rather than less. It's the lesson they eventually learned 18 months late in the Wray case. If they would apply those lessons right now, things would be better.

John, I want to point out that the input provided by the city legal legal department does not always prevail. Only 3 days ago, the City Council voted in a manner directly opposite to what the city legal department recommended on the minimum wage matter.

There is more at work in these situations than just blind obedience to the input given by the legal department. We need to understand the political dynamics.

You could be right, Joe. I wonder, though, how long the council will wait to overturn the prevailing opinion from the legal staff. There is not another council meeting scheduled until next year.

JR,

I'm glad to hear the paper is at least willing to consider it.

That link to the Mitch Johnson letter takes me to some webmail interface and not the letter itself.

I see nothing in that letter that provides any justification for withholding time, date, place and nature of the incident. They've already released the "nature of the incident." Releasing the time, date, and place will do absolutely nothing to hamper any investigation, criminal or internal, and any city official, police or otherwise, who says it will is full of it.

It's sad to once again see Greensboro using personnel laws to hide from its duty to disclose public business to the public.