Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts SWAT Teams Claim They're Private Corporations, Immune To Oversight
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.
Citizen, you will be sent to a re-education camp. Cease resisting and comply with the security officer's request.
So, if they're not government entities, then they're private entities, and as such not entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, right? So if they damage a house or hurt an individual, they're on the hook for damages (and criminal actions), and can't claim immunity from the courts...
in history class in a thousand years. That one by one, "private" corporations installed themselves, cancer-like, into the public money stream while at the same time claiming to be "private".
While the population 3D printed coffee cups and masturbated to Mars fantasies.
If that's how they want to play it, the solution is simple. No taxpayer funding.
Wasn't "No taxation without representation" coined in (what became) the Commonwealth?
Charge 'em with breaking and entering, assault and battery, and conspiracy to do those things. Guys, are you sure you're not with the government?
Not a libertarian, but to play devil's advocate for a moment: the problem is that they're a state-appointed-and-run agency, so this isn't properly privatised. You have the bad half of privatisation, but not the good half. You could argue that if the system was actually an open market with private security firms competing for the government's business then you'd have open-ness.
Now as far as I'm concerned, history has proven that it'd never actually work out that way, but there you go.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Libertarians should love this
What's your next guess, asshole?
Libertarians are against the initiation of violence, whether the perps are government thugs or quasi-private organizations like this. You can shove your smug little digs right back up the hole it came from.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
FBI raid and arrest everyone in the SWAT team, put them in prison and charge them with Racketeering. Do it very public, invite the media and make these scumbags a lesson to cops across the country that they work FOR the citizens and must act as "public servants" and not a street gang.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
That sounds pretty violent.
Mostly random stuff.
that will create a private army paid for by the rich, right here on US soil. The simple solution is, no open records = no policing powers.
Government officials and organizations have immunity from lawsuits for the most part, however private corporations are not. I'm sure there are any number of potential lawsuits that could be brought against them. I'd say it would be fun to watch them try to dance around the subject but it's not, really. It's sickening.
Now they're private police forces and not subject to oversight?
Fine, then they're not law enforcement officers, and have far fewer room to operate legally, and any deaths and the like means they go to jail, right?
Exactly. If you're private corporations, you're not cops, you're vigilantes and operating outside of the law. If you're officers of the law, you're subject to oversight.
And, once again, the 'police' have no interest in upholding the law, just covering their own asses.
If this doesn't get tossed out by a court or the law makers, this is a terrible precedent. They're asking for the right to do anything they want without oversight or responsibility.
And it sounds like they've got a long history of doing things which they'd prefer to keep hidden from oversight -- like accidentally killing people.
In the immortal words of NWA ... Fuck tha police.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Wait, is that a global warming joke?
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
I think most libertarians would say there is nothing wrong with government outsourcing law enforcement; but there is something wrong with doing so as a way to skirt legal requirements.
In this example the PEOPLE have enacted records requirements for state and local law enforcement. If the various municipalities want to outsource that is fine but whoever they hire needs to be subject to the same legal requirements. If they are working for the 'state' they are state actors and should be expected to follow the same rules the state is subject; that should be in their contract and if they don't want to agree to those terms then they can't bid on the job. Just like if I want my house painted, anyone is welcome to bid on the job but if you won't make it the color I want than I can't hire you. If the LEC can't follow the records rules for all activities related to their working for law enforcement they can't be hired or that is how it should work.
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.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
This is basically the plot of Continuum [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_(TV_series)], which is currently in its third season.
I know this is a tangent, but there is a pretty good intersection of interests here on Slashdot between science-fiction and rights of the people versus government. The show makes it interesting because the viewer is meant to basically hate both sides, plus it has time-travel.
*shrug*
This is simply a contracting issue. The state can put disclosure and transparency requirements in the contract, the private company can agree or not get the contract. Failure to properly contract is the problem.
So, they're vigilantes then?
Sorry, but if it looks like a cop, and shoots people like a cop, and can arrest people like a cop, it needs oversight like a cop.
If people think police departments are terrible at investigating their own wrong doing now, wait until they're private corporations and can simply say "piss off".
If these clowns want to be private corporations, fire them all, and then tell them they're only legally allowed to be mall cops.
If they want to be cops, they're part of whatever level of government gives them the legal authority to operate, and subject to the applicable laws.
Any refusal to hand over the records should lead to dismissal, or criminal charges.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Well, no, libertarians in the current erra are against 3rd party public oversight of initiated violence.
It never stops entertaining me when someone who's not a member of a group feels compelled to explain to people who are members of the group how the aforementioned group thinks.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Well, he never said that he was a Libertarian.
No, this is a government entity which has decided it isn't a government entity, but still has the right to operate as if it were.
Sorry, but a government entity doesn't get to declare independence from the part that gives is legitimacy.
If these guys are a corporation, they can pay their own salaries, and operate under the sames rules as private security firms. Which means they're no longer police officers.
If they want to be law enforcement, well, that means they aren't private corporations, and they are subject to oversight.
Especially when they have a history of playing fast and loose with the law, 'using fictional informants to obtain warrants ', and other shady activities.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Such a coincidence, just today I read this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... "10 Facts About The SWATification Of America That Everyone Should Know" "The number of SWAT team raids in the United States every year is now more than 25 times higher than it was back in 1980."
If you read it carefully jcr was actually suggesting the OP should harm himself rather than rely on others to attack him.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I work for local government (in a different state). A number of cities and counties around the state have banded together to manage custom software projects, etc, using a legal device known as a "Joint Powers Agreement".
The JPA creates a legal entity, much the same way that a contract creates a trust. This entity is essentially a delegation of authority from the various local government entities that constitute it, so it has some strange properties. For example, it has bank accounts, employs staff, rents an office, etc, but does not file tax returns.
It also, as far as our lawyers can tell, is exempt from all data practices laws. This isn't the end run you might seem to think. If a data request comes in to the entity, the staff there tells them to contact the relevant member entity. The requestor can then ask me (for example), and I am obligated to collect the data from my systems, and from the organization.
Basically, the legal reasoning is that the entity doesn't own anything, it merely possesses things on the behalf of the member entities. This is also why it doesn't file tax returns.
I don't know the legal situation in Massachusetts, but these are principles that derive from western jurisprudence in general, rather than from the laws of my state, so I suspect it is pretty similar. No idea where the 501(c)(3) thing comes in. I suspect that is more about being able to accept donations than anything else.
Personally, I think the citizens of that state should ask their legislature to pass a law to require such entities to respond to information requests, if that entity is involved in police operations. It is in the public interest to be able to request data from a consolidated entity of this nature, rather than having to deal with each individual member entity.
See that "Preview" button?
It is about as entertaining when a member of a group feels compelled to explain how other members of the group think.
It's become a rather common excuse. These days it is typically mixed up with corporate claims of privacy. Essentially corporate secrecy is used as a way if short circuiting the rule of law. That's how the police departments that use Stingray cell phone interception technology to shred constitutional protections avoid admitting what they are doing: they have a confidentiality clause with the company who makes the device. Same thing with fracking chemicals: they can pump any toxic crap that they want to into the ground because it's a business secret.
So where were all the right wingers when this was going down during the Bush era? You know, the ones who are now claiming that Obama is destroying the constitution? Massive amnesia and/or massive hypocrisy?
(Personally I am furious with Obama because he has continued the blatantly unconstitutional policies of the Bush years, but at least I am not lying through my teeth and supporting one executive while screeching like a stuck pig when a democrat does the same kind of crap.)
Why is Snark Required?
Not a libertarian, but to play devil's advocate for a moment: the problem is that they're a state-appointed-and-run agency, so this isn't properly privatised. You have the bad half of privatisation, but not the good half. You could argue that if the system was actually an open market with private security firms competing for the government's business then you'd have open-ness.
Now as far as I'm concerned, history has proven that it'd never actually work out that way, but there you go.
I am a Libertarian and your devils advocate argument is dead on. Good job :-)
Your concern about "history" is a valid one. But you need to look at a validly unregulated market to compare. We rarely, if ever, have those.
None of the people quoted in the article seem to have any idea what they are saying. The most disturbing thing is that the ACLU is whining about this as if this was a legitimate argument. It is not.
Here are a few of the most poignant reasons why this argument fails:
First and foremost 501(c)(3) is an IRS regulation that means a corporation does not have to pay income tax. 501(c)(3) is NOT a method by which a corporation maybe formed.
Second, states not the federal government create the rules for creating a corporation.
Third, there are many different types of corporations, one of those types is a municipal corporation. Just because you have something called a corporation does not mean it is private. Municipal corporations are subject to FOIA
Fourth, corporations can register with the IRS as 501(c)(3) non-profits, but to use it as a tool to hide information would be incredibly stupid because 501(c)(3) status means you must release more information about your internal workings than a normal private corporation would need to disclose.
Either the ACLU is whining because they don't have the sharpest knife in the drawer dealing with these FOIA requests, or this is a calculated move to drum up donations.
Almost right, but you got your ideologies mixed up a little.
If they voluntarily pool their resources to protect themselves, that is libertarianism.
If they are prevented from pooling their resources and government forces them to pay for the protection through an unaccountable private corporation, that is progressivism.
As this case illustrates.
This is simply a contracting issue. The state can put disclosure and transparency requirements in the contract, the private company can agree or not get the contract.
Whether or not they put it in a contract is irrelevant. A contract is void if it contradicts the law and the argument they are making pretty clearly contradicts the law in all likelihood. The argument this company is making is that they are not subject to rule of law, specifically the oversight that applies to law officers and their activities. Essentially they are arguing that the law doesn't apply to them because the check is from a private company even though the activities are unambiguously on the behalf of the government.
Basically if their argument is correct then they are private citizens engaging in vigilante activities and they should be in jail. If their argument is wrong then they are in violation a host of other laws and they should be in jail. Either way it has nothing to do with contract law.
Actually, this may not be so bad. If they're not government agencies, then they're not immune to lawsuits and when they bust in the wrong house, that person can sue the hell out of them, right?
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
In its purest ideological form, Libertarianism is about promoting Liberty and the limitation of the use of force by the government for police and common defense not the privatization of the use of force. "Privatizing" by merely contracting with corporations instead of individuals to act as police or government agents has nothing to do at all with libertarianism. Privatizing in this sense is just a form of contract with a group of individuals instead of individuals directly. Similarly to contracting with a labor union that represents public employees.
In this sense "privatizing" in general has nothing to do with libertarianism if it means that government is still paying with taxpayer money which is collected by the use of force. Police and Military are fundamentally the only legitimate use of government's taxing authority and even then taxes should be considered a necessary evil, but only necessary if the government can't collect sufficient money with a voluntary system.
In this case I think an important line would have been crossed if the SWAT team direction, oversight and management is coming from a private corporation. To abdicate the police powers of the government to a private corporation would be very much anti-libertarian. Very anti-libertarian. And regardless of ideology I hope people will recognize it as a bad idea that should be reconsidered.
I think liberty is a worthwhile ideal to work towards, but first you have to understand what it means.
The problem with suing them is that you can only target the corp's assets. Structuring it in such a way that the 'company' doesn't actually have any is pretty standard.
I'm thinking that the BATFE needs to come inspect them to make sure they're in full compliance with the NFA. The regulations are completely different between being a government agency like a police department and a commercial company like a 501(c)(3). I'm also willing to bet that they use government letterhead to purchase restricted stuff.
BATFE: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
NFA: National Firearms Act. Federal law regul
I don't read AC A human right
That's an interesting thought. You can still sue a governmental agency but as far as I know there's a wholly different set of protections and limitations when it comes to suing cops vs. private corporations.
I'd also question the legality of them acting as government agents (i.e. cops who arrest/detail/etc.) if they're a private corporation. Last I heard private security does NOT have the same powers as police. Not even close.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
...in Massachusetts. Seriously, no joke. After the marathon bombings there was an unending outpouring of adulation for the "first respondahs." You'd think they had, at enormous losses, turned back the Taliban from invading Cambridge and raping the childrens. Not, in actuality, shut down the entire city while they raced around with giant hardons in a largely bungled effort to locate a bleeding, unarmed boy hiding in someone's boat in their back yard (whom the homeowner found and frankly should have clubbed to death on the spot). In the process of arresting this unarmed miscreant they unleashed a barrage of fire on the boat very nearly killing the kid in the process.
.
Meanwhile folks are still running around with their "Boston Strong" shirts on in one of the lamest displays of self-congratulatory faux heroism that I've ever seen
The cops and firefighters are milking it with giant billboards touting some BS about being "on the home team", trying to get people to donate to some police fund. It's pathetic.
This 501(c)3 nonsense is just further evidence of their warped perspective of what it is "to protect and serve."
Sue? Where is the law that gives them criminal immunity and how is it remotely constitutional?
If they are a private company, they should be subject to the same laws every other company and citizen or person is subject to.
The problem with suing them is that you can only target the corp's assets. Structuring it in such a way that the 'company' doesn't actually have any is pretty standard.
That isn't entirely the end of it, though. Where the formation of the corporation is little more than a sham, one can "pierce the corporate veil" to target specific tortfeasors within the entity. There are a whole host of different factors that must be proven by a plaintiff attempting to do so, so I won't speculate on whether any particular factor would apply here.
That being said, the corporate defense appears to be an effort to distance themselves from the legal requirements applicable to a government agency. So if they claim to be immune to FOIA requests, I assume they would agree that sovereign immunity and the need to proceed through a 1983 action against their members in Federal court are equally inapplicable?