Here is something that might stop the growing trend of people who are arrested for a minor crime and then having their firearms collection put on display by the police chief's. Of course the chiefs are just trying to kiss up to the soccer mom's.
The media headlines are "Dangerous arsonal found in neighborhood home." This is followed up with comments from a neighbor like "he was a loner" or "he was an NRA member", not to mention the police leaking information on the person's religion (especially Mormon, Christian or Muslim).
Then somewhere buried in the media story is the fact that the suspect was arrested for having stolen a mop bucket from a school district he used to work for (true story) or he had an ounce of marajuana.
The problem with all of this showboating is that it destroys the persons right to have a fair trial.
Here is an article where they are telling police in Illinois not to talk to the media because of this. Perhaps the ABA guidelines also apply to your state as it mentioned that 43 states have adopted them.
Perhaps a polite inquiry to your local city council (with copy to media) is in order when your police chief does this.
__________________________________________
Prosecutors, Police Clam Up
Under New Media Rules
CHICAGO — Illinois prosecutors are sending letters to local police departments with some simple advice for dealing with the media: Clam up.
AP/Wide World
Illinois police are hesitant about releasing even the most basic information under the new rules
The Illinois Supreme Court implemented new rules last month that limit what lawyers, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials can say about pending cases. That has prompted police in some areas to block the release of even the most basic blotter information.
Media groups say the rules reflect a national trend.
"What you're doing is telling the people with the most accurate information that they can't talk," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va. "That means the media is going to have to rely on leaks and rumors and innuendo."
The high court's new rules follow the guidelines of the American Bar Association. They advise lawyers against talking about confessions, physical evidence or the possibility of a guilty plea. They also hold prosecutors responsible for making sure law enforcement officers don't disclose information that could hurt a suspect's right to a fair trial.
Illinois is one of 43 states to adopt the rules, according to the ABA. The rules were revised after a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the power of states to restrict what lawyers can say about pending cases.
William R. Quinlan, chairman of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee, said the changes merely spell out the responsibility of lawyers and prosecutors in guaranteeing suspects a fair trial.
"There was no effort to make it more restrictive," Quinlan said. "The effort here was to clarify what was expected of prosecutors."
But Cook County State's Attorney Dick Devine and several other prosecutors contend the rules are too cumbersome and are considering a court challenge. Even so, Devine and other state's attorneys have sent out letters warning police departments to "strictly comply" with the rules.
Courts might not be the friendliest place for the prosecutors to turn. Dalglish cited as an example a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, who in the past two years has ordered attorneys and parties in 219 cases not to talk to reporters.
"What I think is going on is judges don't like to see ... cases in the media, period," Dalglish said.
One lawyer experienced with trial publicity rules said the ABA revisions actually give lawyers more freedom of speech.
Dominic Gentile, a Las Vegas attorney who sparked the 1991 Supreme Court decision by holding a news conference blaming police for a crime for which his client was charged, helped the ABA write the revisions. He said past rules were vague, and the new rules give defense lawyers a chance to respond to negative publicity and let all sides talk about issues that would be admissible in court.
But some police departments already have been spooked. In the St. Louis area, a few departments cut off access to police reports, arrest information and even ledgers containing basic summaries of criminal activity soon after the rules were implemented.
After reporters protested — noting state law requires the release of such information — most departments relented, although gathering information still has been somewhat difficult, said Brad Weisenstein, an assistant city editor for the Belleville (Ill.) News-Democrat.
Weisenstein said reporters recently had to rely on a secondhand account — and noted that in the story — to write about an apparent beating death in Belleville. Police would say only that there had been an altercation and a death but would give no other details, he said.
"What we typically would have been able to expect is a narrative of what happened, a Joe Friday 'just the facts,'" Weisenstein said.
The media headlines are "Dangerous arsonal found in neighborhood home." This is followed up with comments from a neighbor like "he was a loner" or "he was an NRA member", not to mention the police leaking information on the person's religion (especially Mormon, Christian or Muslim).
Then somewhere buried in the media story is the fact that the suspect was arrested for having stolen a mop bucket from a school district he used to work for (true story) or he had an ounce of marajuana.
The problem with all of this showboating is that it destroys the persons right to have a fair trial.
Here is an article where they are telling police in Illinois not to talk to the media because of this. Perhaps the ABA guidelines also apply to your state as it mentioned that 43 states have adopted them.
Perhaps a polite inquiry to your local city council (with copy to media) is in order when your police chief does this.
__________________________________________
Prosecutors, Police Clam Up
Under New Media Rules
CHICAGO — Illinois prosecutors are sending letters to local police departments with some simple advice for dealing with the media: Clam up.
AP/Wide World
Illinois police are hesitant about releasing even the most basic information under the new rules
The Illinois Supreme Court implemented new rules last month that limit what lawyers, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials can say about pending cases. That has prompted police in some areas to block the release of even the most basic blotter information.
Media groups say the rules reflect a national trend.
"What you're doing is telling the people with the most accurate information that they can't talk," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va. "That means the media is going to have to rely on leaks and rumors and innuendo."
The high court's new rules follow the guidelines of the American Bar Association. They advise lawyers against talking about confessions, physical evidence or the possibility of a guilty plea. They also hold prosecutors responsible for making sure law enforcement officers don't disclose information that could hurt a suspect's right to a fair trial.
Illinois is one of 43 states to adopt the rules, according to the ABA. The rules were revised after a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the power of states to restrict what lawyers can say about pending cases.
William R. Quinlan, chairman of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee, said the changes merely spell out the responsibility of lawyers and prosecutors in guaranteeing suspects a fair trial.
"There was no effort to make it more restrictive," Quinlan said. "The effort here was to clarify what was expected of prosecutors."
But Cook County State's Attorney Dick Devine and several other prosecutors contend the rules are too cumbersome and are considering a court challenge. Even so, Devine and other state's attorneys have sent out letters warning police departments to "strictly comply" with the rules.
Courts might not be the friendliest place for the prosecutors to turn. Dalglish cited as an example a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, who in the past two years has ordered attorneys and parties in 219 cases not to talk to reporters.
"What I think is going on is judges don't like to see ... cases in the media, period," Dalglish said.
One lawyer experienced with trial publicity rules said the ABA revisions actually give lawyers more freedom of speech.
Dominic Gentile, a Las Vegas attorney who sparked the 1991 Supreme Court decision by holding a news conference blaming police for a crime for which his client was charged, helped the ABA write the revisions. He said past rules were vague, and the new rules give defense lawyers a chance to respond to negative publicity and let all sides talk about issues that would be admissible in court.
But some police departments already have been spooked. In the St. Louis area, a few departments cut off access to police reports, arrest information and even ledgers containing basic summaries of criminal activity soon after the rules were implemented.
After reporters protested — noting state law requires the release of such information — most departments relented, although gathering information still has been somewhat difficult, said Brad Weisenstein, an assistant city editor for the Belleville (Ill.) News-Democrat.
Weisenstein said reporters recently had to rely on a secondhand account — and noted that in the story — to write about an apparent beating death in Belleville. Police would say only that there had been an altercation and a death but would give no other details, he said.
"What we typically would have been able to expect is a narrative of what happened, a Joe Friday 'just the facts,'" Weisenstein said.