Deputy in Gibson Case Claims Harassment

[Sheriff]

Deputy in Gibson Case Claims Harassment

LOS ANGELES (AP) - The sheriff's deputy who arrested Mel Gibson for drunken driving six months ago says his superiors have harassed him ever since a report detailing the star's anti-Semitic tirade was leaked to a celebrity new Web site.

Deputy James Mee was transferred to another assignment, interrogated for several hours, and investigators seized a computer and phone records during a search of his home, his attorney told the Los Angeles Times for its Thursday editions.

"His life and career would be a lot different had he not made that arrest," attorney Richard Shinee said.

Neal Tyler, a division chief who oversees the sheriff's office where Gibson was booked, denied that Mee was singled out and said he didn't know of any problems with Mee's treatment.

He declined to discuss Mee's specific complaints because of confidentiality rules, but he said, "I disagree with the assessment that personnel in the department or at the station have been relating to him or supervising him in an unfair manner."

Mee arrested Gibson July 29 in Malibu on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. An arrest report signed by Mee and posted on the celebrity news Web site TMZ said Gibson was belligerent and quoted him as saying: "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."

The actor-director later apologized to the Jewish community and pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of drunken driving.

After Gibson's much-publicized arrest, investigations were opened into whether Gibson received preferential treatment, and into who leaked Mee's report to TMZ.

"My client has denied he gave the report to anyone," Shinee said.

[Group9]

Well, someone sure leaked the report. It doesn't seem unreasonable to investigate the person who wrote it as a possible suspect, as well as anyone else who handled it.

[Sheriff]

Well, someone sure leaked the report. It doesn't seem unreasonable to investigate the person who wrote it as a possible suspect, as well as anyone else who handled it.

True. I suspect www.thesmokinggun.com pays people good money to leak reports like this. It could have been anybody.

[Stan Switek]

True. I suspect www.thesmokinggun.com pays people good money to leak reports like this. It could have been anybody.

This was discussed in the LE area. It was clearly explained to you that arrest reports in Ca are public information. It was also explained there were 2 versions of the report. The original which contained the anti semitic remarks. Then there was the second cleaned up version the deputy was ordered to write. Obviously someone was unhappy LASD was trying to cover this up & gave the report to the media. You implication that Thesmokinggun.com bribed someone is completly out of line. In fact, they were not the ones who broke the story. You might want to get your facts in order before you start tossing around wild rumors.

[Sheriff]

This was discussed in the LE area. It was clearly explained to you that arrest reports in Ca are public information. It was also explained there were 2 versions of the report. The original which contained the anti semitic remarks. Then there was the second cleaned up version the deputy was ordered to write. Obviously someone was unhappy LASD was trying to cover this up & gave the report to the media. You implication that Thesmokinggun.com bribed someone is completly out of line. In fact, they were not the ones who broke the story. You might want to get your facts in order before you start tossing around wild rumors.

I didn't say The Smoking Gun was involved in this particular case. I was implying them as an example only. As to how certain people or organizations receive confidential documents.

And, can you explain this please?

After Gibson's much-publicized arrest, investigations were opened into.... who leaked Mee's report to TMZ.

If the arrest report was public record, why did it have to be leaked? Is it possible the arrest report wasn't yet public information since the investigation was still ongoing? That's the way it works in some states.

[Scruit]

You implication that Thesmokinggun.com bribed someone is completly out of line. In fact, they were not the ones who broke the story. You might want to get your facts in order before you start tossing around wild rumors.

I don't think the suggestion that TSG *DID* bribe someone - just that he suspected TSG *WOULD* bribe someone, given the opportunity. I may be wrong.

[Sheriff]

I don't think the suggestion that TSG *DID* bribe someone - just that he suspected TSG *WOULD* bribe someone, given the opportunity. I may be wrong.

That is exactly what I meant. A prime example of how certain people and organizations get their hands on official documents they are not entitled to.

[Stan Switek]

Your implication was clear. You continously throw out misinformation as if it is fact.

[Stan Switek]

I don't think the suggestion that TSG *DID* bribe someone - just that he suspected TSG *WOULD* bribe someone, given the opportunity. I may be wrong.

It is public information. Why would you have to pay someone for public information? If one take time to look at what is on the smoking gun, one sees it is public record.

[Sheriff]

Since we have now gone off-topic.....

Trust me, I know how public information works.... or doesn't work. I have personally been denied public records myself recently.

But here's how requests for public records goes in Virginia.... it's pretty embarassing that the local governments aren't abiding by the law. And just as with a criminal suspect, their ignorance of the law is not a defense. :D

-------------------------------

http://www.wvec.com/sharedcontent/AP...D8MB7NIO0.html

Dec 30, 2006

A man walked into the Prince Edward County sheriff's office not long ago and asked to see the county's crime log — a list of crimes committed the past weekend.

As a Virginia resident, who might want information about criminal activity in his neighborhood, he was entitled by law to see the documents.

Yet a captain walked in and ended a short conversation by saying: "I told you straight up, we're not giving out no records."

Another Virginia resident walked into the Fairfax City Hall and asked for e-mail correspondence between the mayor and city council members for a two-week period. You can have them, he was told, but it will cost a minimum of $7,000.

A third person walked into a fire department in Montgomery County and asked for the latest fire inspection reports on two schools.

After being told the records were available, he was denied access because he would not say why he wanted the information.

The citizens were actually newspaper employees, who were dispatched to every city and county in the state last fall to see how the 134 local governments responded to requests for public information that should be available under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

The media representatives, most of whom visited the local governments Sept. 12-13, did not identify themselves as reporters, editors or media employees, and instead stated they were interested citizens who wanted information about the particular communities.

The requesters asked for the latest two weeks of e-mails from each county's chairman or each city's mayor to their respective county boards or city councils; the previous weekend's crime logs or reports from police or sheriff departments, and the fire inspection reports for two schools in each locality.

The results were hardly encouraging for citizens who want to see how their government works, said advocates for open government.

A little less than half of the media representatives saw the requested public records.

Roughly one of every five times, the person seeking the information was denied access to what is supposed to be public information.

"That's much too high a percentage" said Frosty Landon, executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government. "Unfortunately, some localities just have a predisposition to keep things secret."

In 30 percent of the cases, either the records did not exist, were kept in Richmond or reporters did not correctly ask for information.

Compared with the results of a similar survey done eight years ago, progress has been made with police and sheriffs.

In 1998, just 16 percent provided copies of crime logs. This year, 50 percent of the media representatives asking for the crime logs saw the documents while 43 percent were denied.

Ginger Stanley, executive director of the Virginia Press Association, said that part of the survey "is a bright light."

She said police chiefs and sheriffs were embarrassed by their response eight years ago and made a concerted effort to educate their staffs.

The state of Virginia was also concerned about the 1998 survey results, and in 2000 established the Freedom of Information Advisory Council, which gives seminars and distributes information to localities on open government.

"They've done a lot of great work," Stanley said.

In light of all of that work, Stanley acknowledges that this year's survey results "are disappointing."

Eight years ago, the vast majority of reporters asking for reports of violence at schools, travel vouchers from government officials or for health inspection reports were able to get them. Those asking for salaries of high school football coaches got them 47 percent of the time.

Most of the numbers weren't that high this year.

Of those seeking e-mails of city and county officials, 42 percent saw the documents and 10 percent were denied access. Most of the remaining cities and counties reported they did not use e-mail.

Fifty-two percent of the cities and counties provided fire inspection reports while 13 percent denied access to them. In the remaining places, the results were inconclusive mostly because the state inspects their schools and the records are kept in Richmond.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, praised the police and sheriffs, yet called the overall survey results "appalling."

"Unfortunately, it shows we have a long way to go."

Only 13 jurisdictions provided all the information asked for - the cities of Alexandria, Bedford, Charlottesville, Portsmouth, Radford and Winchester, and the counties of Albemarle, Charlotte, Greene, New Kent, Prince George, Scott and Wise.

Wise County puts a premium on open government, said county administrator Glen "Skip" Skinner, because it's good government.

Skinner said a group of business people proposing an economic development project in his county offered to provide him with promotional information only if it could be kept confidential. Although he could have classified the materials as "working papers," he declined to do so.

"It's a gray area I just didn't want to get into," he said.

Landon said Virginia Beach, the state's largest city, also deserves praise.

After being embarrassed by a series of missteps in responding to requests for information several years ago, the city set up a freedom of information office.

"Other localities may not have the resources of Virginia Beach, but they can follow their example by adopting their mind-set," he said.

That was not exactly the mind-set many other reporters found last September.

When sheriff's departments in Stafford and several other counties refused to give crime logs, they advised people to read crime information in the local newspapers.

Instead of providing information, sheriffs in Buckingham and some other counties researched the names of requesters and discovered they worked for newspapers.

In 10 percent of the records requests, the media representatives were told they could not receive the records unless they stated why they wanted it. State law does not require citizens to say why they want to examine a public record.

Some government officials gave quirky responses to requests.

A reporter in Dinwiddie County was told to "hire a lawyer and return with a Subpoena Ducus Tecum" if he wanted to review crime logs.

A reporter in Shenandoah County was told the sheriff releases information only about crimes that he feels should be known to the public.

Dalglish said it not uncommon for requests for e-mails to be met with the most resistance.

"People view e-mail as personal, private communication," she said. "They are shocked to find out it is not their private property."

Landon said such a reaction is "inexcusable."

"It's very clear that under the law, a record is a record is a record, whether it is an e-mail or on old-fashioned paper. That should no longer be an issue."

He said after being sued over access to e-mails, Fredericksburg began archiving its e-mail. Every city and county should do the same, he said.

"When you archive e-mail, the information is there without having to reinvent the wheel," he said. "That sends the signal that everyone in local government wants to obey the law."

[BP348]

LOS ANGELES (AP) - investigators seized a computer and phone records during a search of his home,

This is the part that gets me. I can understand them interviewing the officer to find out if he leaked the report but go to his house and seize his computer? Wonder where they got that warrant.

[acreature]

Wonder where they got that warrant.

I wonder why? :mad:

[Sheriff]

This is the part that gets me. I can understand them interviewing the officer to find out if he leaked the report but go to his house and seize his computer? Wonder where they got that warrant.

Dunno.

It's much easier now to get search warrants in the area in which I live, as compared to 15 years ago. Just about the entire staff of local Magistrates are young and inexperienced. They will issue a warrant for anything, anywhere, at any time. Wasn't long ago a new magistrate flunked their probationary period and exam. They are then assinged 1 on 1 help to make sure they pass it the next time.

[Nole795]

Dunno.

It's much easier now to get search warrants in the area in which I live, as compared to 15 years ago. Just about the entire staff of local Magistrates are young and inexperienced. They will issue a warrant for anything, anywhere, at any time. Wasn't long ago a new magistrate flunked their probationary period and exam. They are then assinged 1 on 1 help to make sure they pass it the next time.

That may be true, but when your dealing with a high profile case involving a major celebrity, the DA office is going to be more careful on approval of any SW related to said case.

I am sure there is more to the case then what has been released.

[Stan Switek]

Some may be missing the point here. This has nothing to do with the report on a celeb being "leaked." In Ca, most PD's have a board at the records counters that list all arrests. At my department for example, the media reviewed this list several times daily. In LA celeb arrests make the news all the time. Nicole Ritchie, Paris Hilton, Sean Penn, Tommy Lee to name just a few. When it comes to celeb arrests, there are no secrets.

This is about contempt of LASD management. The deputy was ordered to delete the anti Semitic remarks from his original report by his watch commander. The deputy submitted a second cleaned up report. The original version of the report, thought by management to have been destroyed, turned up in the hands of TMZ.com. The most likely scenario is that someone at LASD angered by this attempted cover up, provided the original report to TMZ.com. It's very doubtful any money exchanged hands for this report. This is about LASD management showing the troops who is boss through heavy-handed intimidation.

ALADS represents the rank & file at LASD. They are a very strong union. The deputy will be will defended. I think the only chance of this deputy losing his job over this is if they can prove he made any untruthfull statements to investigators.