Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Connecticut Consumers to Begin Receiving E-Book Settlement Refunds
Mar 25, 2014 4:09 pm
Connecticut residents will start receiving refund checks or credits this week for e-books purchased between April 1,...more »
Like New Jersey, Direct Retail Sales of Tesla Automobiles Not Allowed in Connecticut
Mar 19, 2014 12:24 pm
The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection is co-sponsoring a contest for the auto dealership...more »

Our Partners

˜

Task Force Takes First Steps Toward Compromise

by Hugh McQuaid | Nov 27, 2013 3:48pm
(4) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: FOIA

Hugh McQuaid Photo

Freedom of Information Commission Executive Director Colleen Murphy, President of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information Jim Smith, Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane

A divided task force on public disclosure and victim privacy took a step toward compromise Wednesday with agreement on proposals allowing some police records to be inspected but not copied.

The group was created under a hastily-passed law intended to prevent the disclosure of crime scene photographs and certain audio recordings collected by police following the Sandy Hook shooting and other homicides.

However, until Wednesday the divided panel — consisting of both open government and victim advocates — had yet to tackle the core issues of public access to crime scene photographs and video and audio recordings made by law enforcement agencies.

But the group made progress during a Wednesday meeting when task force members discussed a number proposals, including one by Klarn DePalma, vice president and general manager of WFSB. DePalma suggested limiting access to crime scene pictures and videos involving victims who are minors.

The proposal would create a central location where the public could view the records, but not copy them. The recommendation included a process for reporters or other members of the public to make a case for releasing certain protected records if they believe disclosure would serve the public interest.

It also includes a punishment. Anyone who removed or photographed protected records could be charged with a crime punishable by up to a $10,000 fine and a 20-year prison sentence.

“This is truly a huge compromise for my industry — a huge compromise. Because right now the public act takes away our ability to see any crime scene photos or listen to audio,” he said.

Klarn said the appeals process to make some records public was necessary for the proposal to work in his point of view.

Hugh McQuaid Photo “If we don’t have that, the whole world of open government goes away,” he said. “I can’t serve the public and hold people accountable if I can’t . . . see what happened at a crime scene.”

The idea seemed to have some appeal among members of the task force. Other sets of recommendations discussed Wednesday, like those proposed by co-chairman Rep. Angel Arce, also called for viewing records with a process to make them public if such disclosure would serve the public good.

Where the two sides seem likely to clash, however, is over just what law enforcement records would be subject to the process. DePalma’s proposal was narrowly written to capture only crime scene pictures and videos involving child victims.

Sen. Len Fasano, R-North Haven, said lawmakers considered including a similar process when they passed the law that created the task force. He said he liked the idea, but not quite as DePalma had written it.

“Just so it’s clear, when we talked about it at the legislature, it was all crimes — we didn’t differentiate between age,” Fasano said.

Rep. DebraLee Hovey, a Republican whose district includes part of Newtown, agreed. She said lawmakers wanted the law to protect all victims of homicide.

“That was very important to a number of people. With regards to Sandy Hook, the only victims were not just minors. There were adult victims also,” she said.

However, James Smith, a task force member and president of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information, said a compromise proposal should apply only to child victims.

“I think the word ‘minor’ is brilliant. If we’re looking for a compromise, the word ‘minor’ pulls us right back to Newtown,” he said. “I for one, am very worried about trying to sanitize crime in Connecticut . . . Some of these things we need to see. We shouldn’t be trying to find ways to hide them.”

Although the scope of the proposal may prove divisive, Don DeCesare, a general manager of a radio station who serves as one of the group’s two chairman, called Wednesday’ discussion “a huge leap” for the group.

The task force is charged with making recommendations to the legislature by January. They have one final meeting scheduled next month.

Tags: , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(4) Comments

posted by: Noteworthy | November 27, 2013  5:20pm

Scam Alert Notes:

1. There should be no compromise when it comes to public records. There is far too much done in secret now - from emails to meetings, to drafting legislation, to budget and public policy and now this.

2. A 20 year prison sentence? Really? That’s absurd.

3. The entire law should be thrown out. It’s specious and unnecessary. It’s time to take the kid gloves off and quit pretending there is something sacred here. What’s truly sacred is our right to know everything that government is doing. Our model and motto is nothing can be hidden. Start from there and not from the position that a lot of suppression of government information is ok. It’s not.

posted by: owenthesecond | November 27, 2013  7:42pm

This new body was created hastily after a horrific incident and now they’re creating new laws without fully understanding the future implications.
This talk about compromise… compromise until there’s nothing left worth anything.

posted by: StanMuzyk | November 28, 2013  10:41am

it’s difficult to impossible—“to undue a hastily passed law.”

posted by: ASTANVET | December 2, 2013  1:20pm

it is nice to know they can compromise with transparency, that they can compromise the compact between citizen and governance, that they can compromise on our right to know that they are doing the right thing, that they are governing in our interests.