2008 Woodie Awards
Editorial: Webster Groves police let us down yet again
Issue date: 10/5/06 Section: Opinion/Editorial
- Page 1 of 1
Thanks for standing up for democracy, Webster Groves Police Department.
Two weeks ago, The Journal requested a police report for an investigative piece. The report pertained to a certain drug-related mishap involving one of our residents.
Dutifully, we've only written but a small blurb that gave vague information and hearsay in hopes that you, the fine officers of Webster Groves, could confirm any of the thousands of rumors floating around before we wrote something concrete.
Yet when we came to you the first time, you told us to talk to a certain lieutenant in your department. And so we did.
"There was no record of the incident; these things take time," said the lieutenant. We didn't really believe you, but we waited. We're still waiting.
And then, last week, the lieutenant told us the records clerk had just returned from a sunny and relaxing vacation and would be handing him the report that day, which would then be placed into our hands the next day. That's better; we believed you.
But you failed.
You promised to call us the next day, but you didn't. You promised to give us the report, but you haven't. You even promised to let the police chief know of our request, but he has yet to call us back.
And the situation quickly degenerated. We offered to settle for just an incident report, since you did not seem eager to give out a full police report that was still part of an on-going investigation.
"Webster Groves police do not grant incident reports to third parties," we were told in an e-mail from our new friend, the lieutenant.
Liar. We looked up the law. We checked it with our lawyers at the Missouri Press Association. We checked with our media law professors. Our conclusions were the same.
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon said in a legal opinion on the state's Sunshine Law that "Arrest and incident reports are open records."
Open records - it's not a novel idea.
Yes, a person is guaranteed his or her privacy. But it also is true that freedom of information is valued as a pillar of a free democracy. We need to keep our public informed so they can make decisions.
We contacted the suspect who told us the Webster Groves Police Department slapped her with felony.
We don't understand. Really, we don't.
If you've already charged her with a felony, aren't both the police report and the incident report already completed? Are we not understanding something about the process? If so, can you please call us back when you say you will so the situation can be explained?
Whatever you do, just know that we're a little tired of being ignored, lied to and pushed around.
We're not just students, you know. We're also citizens - legal adults at that. More than that, we are journalists. I don't know how many journalists you know, but let us fill you in.
We're not going to stop. We will call you. We will show up at your door. We will e-mail you. We will contact our lawyers if need be. But we're getting that report.
Two weeks ago, The Journal requested a police report for an investigative piece. The report pertained to a certain drug-related mishap involving one of our residents.
Dutifully, we've only written but a small blurb that gave vague information and hearsay in hopes that you, the fine officers of Webster Groves, could confirm any of the thousands of rumors floating around before we wrote something concrete.
Yet when we came to you the first time, you told us to talk to a certain lieutenant in your department. And so we did.
"There was no record of the incident; these things take time," said the lieutenant. We didn't really believe you, but we waited. We're still waiting.
And then, last week, the lieutenant told us the records clerk had just returned from a sunny and relaxing vacation and would be handing him the report that day, which would then be placed into our hands the next day. That's better; we believed you.
But you failed.
You promised to call us the next day, but you didn't. You promised to give us the report, but you haven't. You even promised to let the police chief know of our request, but he has yet to call us back.
And the situation quickly degenerated. We offered to settle for just an incident report, since you did not seem eager to give out a full police report that was still part of an on-going investigation.
"Webster Groves police do not grant incident reports to third parties," we were told in an e-mail from our new friend, the lieutenant.
Liar. We looked up the law. We checked it with our lawyers at the Missouri Press Association. We checked with our media law professors. Our conclusions were the same.
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon said in a legal opinion on the state's Sunshine Law that "Arrest and incident reports are open records."
Open records - it's not a novel idea.
Yes, a person is guaranteed his or her privacy. But it also is true that freedom of information is valued as a pillar of a free democracy. We need to keep our public informed so they can make decisions.
We contacted the suspect who told us the Webster Groves Police Department slapped her with felony.
We don't understand. Really, we don't.
If you've already charged her with a felony, aren't both the police report and the incident report already completed? Are we not understanding something about the process? If so, can you please call us back when you say you will so the situation can be explained?
Whatever you do, just know that we're a little tired of being ignored, lied to and pushed around.
We're not just students, you know. We're also citizens - legal adults at that. More than that, we are journalists. I don't know how many journalists you know, but let us fill you in.
We're not going to stop. We will call you. We will show up at your door. We will e-mail you. We will contact our lawyers if need be. But we're getting that report.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
David Stone
posted 10/05/06 @ 9:27 AM CST
The best way to be treated as responsible (adult) journalists would be to act like them. Your tenacity is a good sign in that regard. You called. You (probably) stopped by. (Continued…)
Post a Comment