Massachusetts SWAT claim immunity from open record, claim private corporation - Polidicks

[quote] As part of the American Civil Liberties Union’s recent report on police militarization, the Massachusetts chapter of the organization sent open records requests to SWAT teams across that state. It received an interesting response. 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. In 2012, for example, the Tewksbury Police Department paid about $4,600 in annual membership dues to the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, or NEMLEC. (See page 36 of linked PDF.) That LEC has about 50 member agencies. In addition to operating a regional SWAT team, the LECs also facilitate technology and information sharing and oversee other specialized units, such as crime scene investigators and computer crime specialists. 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. [/quote] full article: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/[/url] lmao

And here I was thinking privatized police was just a joke we use to poke fun at America being further to the right than most other countries.

I am somewhat impressed with the police department's Lawyers thinking that up, scummy as it may be. perhaps either through legislation or litigation they may make it be that any organization acting under the color of the law has to honor ORRs.

So... They are a PMC, in otherwords, business-type Militia. Fuck man, talk about irony.

And I thought police couldn't get any more unaccountable.

the reason this is happening is because of america's whole "if you're not manipulating the system, the system is manipulating you". if people can use loopholes to get away with shit in court then i guess the po-po can too but honestly i've lived in massachusetts for a major part of my life and with the quality of life up here (except for the cost of living lmao) i think i can compromise [editline]28th June 2014[/editline] this article seriously has enough charged words and blatant bias that i honestly wouldn't even view it as the full truth

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;45235897]And here I was thinking privatized police was just a joke we use to poke fun at America being further to the right than most other countries.[/QUOTE] It actually looks like an organization that a large group of police stations created so they can all have access to a SWAT team. It is more then likely to save cost due to the high cost and training it takes to maintain a individual SWAT team.

So they're private organizations that are composed of LEO's. In that case that shouldn't be allowed to do shit beyond your average Securtiy company. Even if your an LEO if you are moon lighting as a security guard or in this case a SWAT team you cannot act upon warrents and such since you are no longer acting on behalf of the state. Unless Massachusetts has some fucked up law that let's them do that, which wouldn't surprise me.

'Nothing to fear, nothing to hide' indeed..

If they want to claim they're a private corporation they should be charged with break and entry, kidnapping, assault, and armed robbery for every time they went into someone's house to arrest them. Not to mention the possession of all those drugs, moving violations for driving APCs on public roadways, etc.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;45239052]If they want to claim they're a private corporation they should be charged with break and entry, kidnapping, assault, and armed robbery for every time they went into someone's house to arrest them. Not to mention the possession of all those drugs, moving violations for driving APCs on public roadways, etc.[/QUOTE] If only someone would take them to court...

[QUOTE=reedbo;45239516]If only someone would take them to court...[/QUOTE] Seems that in the US justice is for those who can afford it.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;45239052]If they want to claim they're a private corporation they should be charged with break and entry, kidnapping, assault, and armed robbery for every time they went into someone's house to arrest them. Not to mention the possession of all those drugs, moving violations for driving APCs on public roadways, etc.[/QUOTE] Why isn't the prison system charged with false imprisonment? They're granted the authority of law by the government.

[QUOTE=supersnail11;45241069]Why isn't the prison system charged with false imprisonment? They're granted the authority of law by the government.[/QUOTE] His point is that there are two scenarios: either they are acting on behalf of the government or not. If they are, then they have those legal powers, but are also subject to oversight and transparency requirements for government agencies. If they're not acting on behalf of the government, and can claim normal civilian immunities, then they should only have normal civilian legal powers. The power granted to government agencies comes with strict stipulations for accountability and transparency to the people. They can't have it both ways.

Bull shit. I don't care what you think you are because of some silly little incorporation but you are a GOVERNMENT ENTITY now fork over the records shitlords.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;45239052]If they want to claim they're a private corporation they should be charged with break and entry, kidnapping, assault, and armed robbery for every time they went into someone's house to arrest them. Not to mention the possession of all those drugs, moving violations for driving APCs on public roadways, etc.[/QUOTE] I know this is old (2 day bump), but if they are a private entity all of those NFA weapons they have should net them all like, 10+ years in federal prison. Of course the ATF never does enforce the law when it's not convenient, but their argument is ridiculous. [QUOTE=catbarf;45241978]His point is that there are two scenarios: either they are acting on behalf of the government or not. If they are, then they have those legal powers, but are also subject to oversight and transparency requirements for government agencies. If they're not acting on behalf of the government, and can claim normal civilian immunities, then they should only have normal civilian legal powers. The power granted to government agencies comes with strict stipulations for accountability and transparency to the people. They can't have it both ways.[/QUOTE] Honestly, there originally never should have been any "special powers" granted to agents of the government. That is why "citizen's arrest" was a thing, and why you can detain people who are committing crimes, etc. Back in the day, people were all roughly equal. The police force was nothing more than civilians who were paid to enforce the law, because having a dedicated force to that end was seen as beneficial. Police did not exist at the birth of our country. I find the entire idea that police are above citizens to be at the core of the problem, in this case and in many others. Police are citizens.