Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Massachusetts SWAT Teams Claim They're Private Corporations, Immune To Oversight

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-can-trust-us dept.

New submitter thermowax sends a report on how Massachusetts SWAT teams are dodging open records requests by claiming to be corporations. From the article: As it turns out, a number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board, which is usually made up of police chiefs from member police departments. ... Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it's here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they're private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they're immune from open records requests. Let's be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they've incorporated, they're immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state's residents aren't permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they're used for, what sort of training they get or who they're primarily used against.

4 of 534 comments (clear)

  1. Libertarian nirvana by qbast · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What's wrong with that? Libertarians should love this - government slashed to bare minimum (or below) and everything in private hands. And as we know, *everything* is better when privately operated. Next step should be deregulating LEC market to enable true competition.

    1. Re:Libertarian nirvana by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      As a libertarian though my main issue is really with the state having to much power in the first place. Private security forces are just fine, but they should work for private groups. Your home owners association should be hiring security to keep your neighborhood safe for example, they naturally don't get the legal protection and police powers a 'state' agency would have, which is a powerful and important check on them and you.

      Wow. As if the poor parts of town weren't crime-ridden enough already, you want them to be practically un-policed because they can't afford it? I'd much prefer my money go into a generalized geographical pool so I don't have to be escorted by a private bodyguard whenever I leave my safe little bubble of a neighborhood.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    2. Re:Libertarian nirvana by stenvar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What you call "simply a contracting issue" is at the heart of the problem with crony capitalism, as advocated and practiced by Democrats. The libertarian view is that it is impossible to avoid corruption in these kinds of government-private contract.

      In different words, ultimately, it's private companies doing services for private citizens. Putting the government as a contractor in between the citizens and the businesses removes the primary way by which the widespread greed and abuses of private companies is kept in check: their customers going elsewhere when they are not satisfied.

  2. Re:Repeat after me... by knightghost · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Not really, you're thinking about Politicians rather than police.

    On one hand, damn all lawyers! The corporation stance is stupid legal wrangling. On the other hand, I'd never become a cop due to the incredibly ridiculous amount of liability, red tape, blatantly lying "news" channels and papers, and blame for having to enforce bad laws.

    Go do some ride-alongs with your local police to see what they put up with.