Killer cops deadly secret,fear of an APster planet?

Matthew X profrv at nex.net.au
Sun May 9 06:20:35 PDT 1999


http://www.theledger.com/local/local/16hear.htm
Sheriff Keeps Name of Officer Secret, for Now
Friday, August 16, 2002
By JOHN CHAMBLISS
The Ledger
BARTOW -- The Polk County sheriff received a temporary injunction Thursday 
to stop The Ledger from publishing the name of an undercover officer who 
shot and killed a man during a July 26 drug raid.
Chief Judge Charles Curry also directed Sheriff's Office attorneys to call 
Circuit Judge Ron Herring today to arrange for a full hearing within the 
next five days.
Curry granted the temporary injunction after a 45-minute hearing that 
included testimony from Sheriff's Col. Gary Hester.
In a statement, Sheriff Lawrence W. Crow Jr. sharply criticized The Ledger.
"I am absolutely at a loss to explain why The Ledger will be printing this 
detective's name. It serves no purpose, other than a tabloid fascination 
with creating controversy.
"If this officer's name is revealed, we will immediately take steps to 
protect him and his family. We will also be forced to reassign him out of 
his undercover position, which will interrupt his career development. His 
training and experience in his undercover capacity will take time and money 
to replace," Crow wrote.
The officer shot and killed Jason Michael Britt, 22, during a raid on 
Britt's home in Lakeland. Sheriff's officials say Britt was shot after he 
threatened the officer with a baseball bat and refused to drop it.
Because the officer works undercover, sheriff's officials have refused to 
release his name. It is the first time in memory that a Polk police agency 
has not disclosed the name of an officer who killed someone.
The Sheriff's Office's investigation of the shooting was sent to the State 
Attorney's Office earlier this week for review. The State Attorney's Office 
will determine whether the shooting was justified and should release its 
findings next week.
Louis Michael "Skip" Perez, The Ledger's executive editor, contacted 
sheriff's Col. Grady Judd early Thursday morning to tell him that the 
newspaper had learned the name of the deputy and was prepared to publish it 
when the State Attorney's Office report is released.
Perez said he called Judd to give him a chance to take whatever measures he 
thought necessary to protect the deputy, including transferring him or 
removing him from undercover.
"When a government agent shoots someone, rightly or wrongly, an open 
society has a right to know who it was," Perez said, adding that undercover 
agents often testify in public trials using their real names.
"We're confident this issue will be resolved in our favor soon since 
there's no precedent in this country's legal history for successfully 
ordering a newspaper not to print something," Perez said.
Ledger attorney Jim Lake of Holland & Knight in Tampa said he was 
disappointed with the temporary injunction but thinks the newspaper will 
prevail.
Lake said any shooting is of great public interest. "Unfortunately, police 
are involved in shootings. When that happens, it is newsworthy.
"The public interest in this deputy's name is itself manifestly 
overwhelming -- the death of anyone at the hands of law enforcement is of 
obvious public concern," Lake said.
In a written brief Lake said, "The United States Supreme Court has 
emphatically stated that prior restraints on speech and publication are the 
most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights."
During the hearing, Lake said Col. Hester told the judge that the 
undercover deputy had been threatened.
In the brief, Lake cited a 1976 case -- The Miami Herald vs. Mcintosh Co.
"A party seeking a prior restraint must demonstrate that freedom of speech 
would constitute an immediate, and not merely likely, threat . . .
"The danger to be prevented must not be remote or even probable, it must 
immediately imperil."
"Before First Amendment freedoms can be abridged, substantive evil must be 
extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high."
In the brief, Lake wrote the Sheriff's Office has not proven that the 
threat is high.
"This argument ignores the fact that this deputy was removed from 
undercover work during the Sheriff's Office review of the shooting. 
Consequently, it is not clear that the deputy is participating in any 
ongoing investigation (or ever will be again)," Lake wrote.
Lake continued by saying the deputy might have already identified himself 
by testifying in court.
"The Sheriff's Office, therefore, has not shown how publication of his 
actual name will interfere with his work or his safety."





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list