St. Paul city council member Dave Thune is rather peeved that the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department took it upon themselves to handle things within the city of St. Paul, which does have its own police force, as he points out. Then again, the St. Paul city cops are, you know, actual cops, not guys dressed up as officers and carrying sidearms (and pocketing money in videotapes) but mysteriously lacking in law enforcement credentials, unless you consider being best man at the sheriff's wedding a law enforcement credential. My favorite quotes from the linked article by David Hanners of the St. Paul Pioneer Press are these:
Legal experts and state regulators said they would be concerned about Naylon's role as a civilian performing police work. Paul Monteen, standards coordinator of the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards & Training, said he couldn't talk about the case specifically, but generally, if "an individual practices law enforcement outside the license system of the state, it may violate the statutory obligations of impersonating a police officer."
Stephen Cribari, who teaches criminal law and procedure and evidence at the University of Minnesota Law School, said it seemed an unusual case.
"I frankly have never encountered a Police Department that has used its civilian personnel in their investigations, other than in the forensic sense," he said. "It's odd, but I'm not sure there's anything illegal about it. It's certainly interesting if they've got a civilian employee who is acting as peace officer without the qualifications of a peace officer."
"It's certainly interesting" is a phrase which might be translated from the Scandosotan as "ça va pêter des flammes,*" perhaps. (I'm in Montreal at the moment, following Jo Walton's excellent convention Farthing Party.)
Today's protest march in St. Paul is expected to top 50,000, say organizers. We'll see how that goes.
*"Well, that's gonna fart flames." As in, this is gonna hit the fan.
2008-09-01 01:48 pm (UTC)
2008-09-01 02:01 pm (UTC)
If Naylon had had good connections among the criminal set that nobody with a badge had, using him for much of what the RamseyCo SO did would have been okay; not a big deal. But letting the sheriff's Best Man play cop just because he's Fletcher's buddy? A big deal.
Watch the FBI tape. The decision that Rehak and Naylon made to grab and hide the money was very, very quick, and took few if any words. The chances that this was the first time they did something like this is, basically, nil, and the chances that they're the only Friends of Bob with their hand out isn't much larger.
2008-10-09 02:23 pm (UTC)
I'm confused..
2008-09-01 02:16 pm (UTC)
If it is illegal, one has to wonder which country they are now living in.....
Re: I'm confused..
2008-09-01 07:04 pm (UTC)
None of these tactics are new. Minneapolis specifically repealed it's laws about decent police behavior (such as, if you seize film of an event where police are involved, you have to give it back.) especially for the RNC.
Re: I'm confused..
2008-09-02 03:30 pm (UTC)
One wonders what happened to Constitutional rights of free expression and freedom to assemble, then.
2008-10-09 02:51 pm (UTC)
2008-10-09 02:22 pm (UTC)
2008-10-09 02:57 pm (UTC)
2008-10-09 02:39 pm (UTC)
2008-09-01 07:45 pm (UTC)
2008-10-09 02:12 pm (UTC)
2008-09-02 02:06 pm (UTC)
The RCSD has jurisdiction in St. Paul, as St. Paul is in fact in Ramsey County (not being flip, just pointing out- same for Hennepin and Mpls, and so on; that's how this works). 45 minutes is not an excessive time to search some buildings (moderate sized house like my own). They are pulling in forces from all over Minnesota to an event which has been held up to be the happy hunting ground for several whackball groups who protest not to get a point across, but to bust stuff up. This makes law enforcement edgy to begin with...and frankly? It's Really Easy to point at a cop now and say "S/he treated me mean!" as our perception of police officers has been manipulated into "jackbooted thug" by movies, media and the Baby Boomer crowd. SWAT team tactics is nicely emotional, but did anyone ask why those tactics may have been employed? Anonymous tip? Agitprop? Hey, all it takes to get attention is a phone call, and it's lose-lose for the authority figures. Because no matter what goes down, they get the blame. Right or wrong.
Anyway, that's probably going to be seen as me going to the defense of my big brother, but it actually is more than that; it's a call for rational thinking and getting past the emotional manipulation; especially cops bad/protesters sweet flower children. Everybody has a right to protest, and be heard, absolutely and not just in "free speech zones"- but to have the opportunity to cause harm for no reason? Nope.
Edited at 2008-09-02 02:07 pm (UTC)
What you said...
2008-09-02 03:32 pm (UTC)
Exactly so
2008-09-02 04:37 pm (UTC)
But the reports of them not showing warrants, not identifying themselves, and so on are extremely worrisome. (The stuff coming out today about the AP photographer and the reporter and producers from Democracy Now is pretty disquieting too.) It's looking pretty strongly like somebody's trying to discourage videotaping and coverage of any of these activities, and the allegations of dangerous materials and plans are just pretext. If that's the case, either somebody's using the RSCD for their own agenda and figuring the RSCD will be amenable to such things, or somebody within the RSCD is a self-starter on the issue. Sure, I know they act on a tip or on probable cause or the like, but ... well, I'll just come out and say it: provocateurs. Y'know?
Sorry. My neighbor and childhood hero was a sheriff's deputy, and I get kinda defensive when I think such folks are being used for really bad political ends, and I get angry when I think there are bad apples shaping departments so that they are more easily used for such things. The chief doesn't strike me as a model of probity, y'know?
Then again, I wasn't there. Though I am getting forwarded e-mails from people who were, because a bunch of people from my church know them and were working with them to peacefully protest. I tend to believe their accounts.
Note: the rest of this is not about RSCD, but about the events involving law enforcement and protesters as a whole:
After some of the coverage today I am also left scratching my head over some of the charges. I have never heard of "gross misdemeanor riot charges" before. Also, since when does asking for medical attention become grounds for arrest?
(moved two paragraphs to the end because I had a continuity error; nothing has been deleted)
Edited at 2008-09-02 04:42 pm (UTC)
2008-09-02 04:58 pm (UTC)
All that being said, I stand by my belief that the 'cops bad/protestors good' mindset being displayed as the easy (suspect) choice. "Hair" was a long time ago, and both sides got a lot more savvy and manipulative. If officers arrested people unjustly, yep, those officers need to be punished, no matter who they are. If someone is manipulating the police to get an intended result, that too, needs to be punished.
In any case, why can't a protestor have 'started it', so to speak? Is there any hard evidence here to convict either side yet? Not that I've seen, but perhaps someone is in posession of proof that cops live to arrest journalists...and Amy (she's not a journalist, she's an advocate).
2008-09-03 03:27 am (UTC)
In any case, why can't a protestor have 'started it', so to speak? Is there any hard evidence here to convict either side yet? Not that I've seen, but perhaps someone is in posession of proof that cops live to arrest journalists...and Amy (she's not a journalist, she's an advocate).
Having had time to think about it, and also having gotten more information, I do believe I agree with you on those points.
Though I still can't help being suspicious about provocateurs. But anyhow.
2008-10-09 02:14 pm (UTC)
2008-10-09 04:09 pm (UTC)
Once you know that such things happen, it changes how you look at similar current events thereafter. I sifted through a lot of memories, after finding out, looking at things in the light of new knowledge....
As for "something more useful and constructive," could you give some examples, please?
2008-10-09 04:32 pm (UTC)
2008-09-02 05:02 pm (UTC)
Absent death or use of a firearm, a criminal charge of “Riot” in Minnesota is a gross misdemeanor. Minn. Stat. §609.71.
Dunno how that can be applied, but it's on the books anyway. Now off to look up "riot".
2008-09-03 10:58 pm (UTC)
In other words, if the deputies from LACSD were to show up at my door with a warrant, as the lead agency, the warrant would be invalid on it's face.
TK
2008-09-04 01:21 am (UTC)
I also have been assured by my brother that they have special standing orders to shoot me (they'll only cite other citizens) if I so much as jaywalk in the county, as my brother tends to not want me to compliate his day, me being the commie pinko liberal public radio worker of the family, much to his shame.
2008-09-04 03:13 am (UTC)
Well, I'd have to try, anyway.
Probably best that you avoid jaywalking. Yup.
2008-09-04 11:57 am (UTC)
This may just be a 'brother' thing...