You are here
Officials Requesting Police Investigations of Political Opponents: A Serious Misuse of Office
Sunday, January 24th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Which is the more troubling misuse of office? A local government
official having a citizen arrested for criticizing him, or a local
government official using tax dollars to pay off a citizen so that it
doesn't come out that the politician has influence over whom the police
arrest?
This choice of evils comes from a Jim Dwyer column in today's New York Times. The article contains two similar stories, one complete, the other still in process.
In 2001, a city employee wrote to the Staten Island borough president to complain about the closing of a community center in a predominantly black neighborhood. It was a pretty rough letter, but there was no threat in it. The day after the letter arrived, the city employee was arrested and spent the night in prison. He was not charged.
He sued anyway. Had the case gone to court, officials would have been questioned under oath about the case. To prevent this, city lawyers offered him $200,000, and he accepted it.
In August 2009, another Staten Island citizen was arrested for writing "The Jerk" on a poster for the re-election of another Staten Island borough president. The citizen had also written letters to officials and to local newspapers opposing the borough president’s plans to develop the waterfront. He was charged with a misdemeanor, but the D.A. refused to prosecute him.
He too filed a suit.
The Times columnist asked the mayor, the police department, and the borough president: who asked for the investigation, why city resources were squandered on the case, and what about freedom of speech? They did not respond.
Will the city let the relationship between its politicians and its police become public? Is this something any local government will allow to be disclosed? Is this not as serious a case of misuse of office as there is? And yet it is common.
There is a word for the situation where politicians control the police: a police state. Even when an official has limited authority to request investigations for political acts, it can lead to an environment of fear and intimidation. The knowledge that even one citizen has been arrested for writing critical letters or speaking out openly against an official will lead many other citizens to keep quiet.
Police commissions must insist that police officers tell officials they cannot use the police to further their political goals. When there are tough calls, a neutral opinion should be sought. When officials insist, after being told no, police officers should be required to report them to the local or state ethics commission.
And city attorneys, asked by officials to pay off those who would spill the beans about the official-police relationship, should refuse to do so. They have an obligation to the public interest in transparency, especially about something that so directly affects the rights of citizens to speak out on local government issues.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
This choice of evils comes from a Jim Dwyer column in today's New York Times. The article contains two similar stories, one complete, the other still in process.
In 2001, a city employee wrote to the Staten Island borough president to complain about the closing of a community center in a predominantly black neighborhood. It was a pretty rough letter, but there was no threat in it. The day after the letter arrived, the city employee was arrested and spent the night in prison. He was not charged.
He sued anyway. Had the case gone to court, officials would have been questioned under oath about the case. To prevent this, city lawyers offered him $200,000, and he accepted it.
In August 2009, another Staten Island citizen was arrested for writing "The Jerk" on a poster for the re-election of another Staten Island borough president. The citizen had also written letters to officials and to local newspapers opposing the borough president’s plans to develop the waterfront. He was charged with a misdemeanor, but the D.A. refused to prosecute him.
He too filed a suit.
The Times columnist asked the mayor, the police department, and the borough president: who asked for the investigation, why city resources were squandered on the case, and what about freedom of speech? They did not respond.
Will the city let the relationship between its politicians and its police become public? Is this something any local government will allow to be disclosed? Is this not as serious a case of misuse of office as there is? And yet it is common.
There is a word for the situation where politicians control the police: a police state. Even when an official has limited authority to request investigations for political acts, it can lead to an environment of fear and intimidation. The knowledge that even one citizen has been arrested for writing critical letters or speaking out openly against an official will lead many other citizens to keep quiet.
Police commissions must insist that police officers tell officials they cannot use the police to further their political goals. When there are tough calls, a neutral opinion should be sought. When officials insist, after being told no, police officers should be required to report them to the local or state ethics commission.
And city attorneys, asked by officials to pay off those who would spill the beans about the official-police relationship, should refuse to do so. They have an obligation to the public interest in transparency, especially about something that so directly affects the rights of citizens to speak out on local government issues.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
