Tweet
A criminal is a criminal regardless if her records are allowed to be made public. Secrecy should not be used to protect criminals--but it is.
"Antiochs government prevailed last week in a lawsuit that accused the police of racially harassing an African-American woman receiving a Section 8 housing subsidy. City officials believe the verdict bodes well for a similar class-action suit that will be going to trial.
Onita Tuggles sued the city after the police Community Action Team wrote a letter in March of 2007 notifying the Contra Costa Housing Authority, which oversees the Section 8 program, that Tuggles had two juveniles living with her who had recently been involved in multiple violent assaults in Antioch. The housing authority sent Tuggles a 30-day notice of termination of her Section 8 voucher and alerted her property manager, who then notified her that she would be liable for the full amount of rent: $1,850 per month.
At a hearing to determine if Tuggles benefits were lawfully terminated, two police officers disclosed information from juvenile police reports, which according to the suit violated a confidentiality provision in state law. Tuggles Section 8 voucher was then reinstated due to a failure to provide specific reasons for the termination on her termination notice."
The lady violated the terms of taxpayer paid for housing. she needed to be evicted--the police reported the facts honestly, the lady wanted the truth kept out of the report and court.
In this case the people were being protected. Isn't that the role of government--no special favors, especially for law breakers?
"The (Tuggles) case hinged on accusations that the Citys practice of notifying landlords and the Housing Authority of crimes and nuisance activity was improper. In rejecting this claim, the verdict affirms that a city that hopes to protect its residents in a meaningful way must retain the ability to share information with all parties involved, including property owners, managers and housing agencies.
The jury also rejected the plaintiffs claim that Antiochs community policing efforts were discriminatory because the makeup of those whose homes were the subject of crime and nuisance abatement efforts did not match the demographics of the larger community. Insisting that a city must produce crime statistics that somehow mirror the racial or economic demographics of the community is in direct conflict with a citys mission to provide effective and unbiased policing."
Unbiased policing isn't that what freedom is all about?
More...
"Antiochs government prevailed last week in a lawsuit that accused the police of racially harassing an African-American woman receiving a Section 8 housing subsidy. City officials believe the verdict bodes well for a similar class-action suit that will be going to trial.
Onita Tuggles sued the city after the police Community Action Team wrote a letter in March of 2007 notifying the Contra Costa Housing Authority, which oversees the Section 8 program, that Tuggles had two juveniles living with her who had recently been involved in multiple violent assaults in Antioch. The housing authority sent Tuggles a 30-day notice of termination of her Section 8 voucher and alerted her property manager, who then notified her that she would be liable for the full amount of rent: $1,850 per month.
At a hearing to determine if Tuggles benefits were lawfully terminated, two police officers disclosed information from juvenile police reports, which according to the suit violated a confidentiality provision in state law. Tuggles Section 8 voucher was then reinstated due to a failure to provide specific reasons for the termination on her termination notice."
The lady violated the terms of taxpayer paid for housing. she needed to be evicted--the police reported the facts honestly, the lady wanted the truth kept out of the report and court.
In this case the people were being protected. Isn't that the role of government--no special favors, especially for law breakers?
"The (Tuggles) case hinged on accusations that the Citys practice of notifying landlords and the Housing Authority of crimes and nuisance activity was improper. In rejecting this claim, the verdict affirms that a city that hopes to protect its residents in a meaningful way must retain the ability to share information with all parties involved, including property owners, managers and housing agencies.
The jury also rejected the plaintiffs claim that Antiochs community policing efforts were discriminatory because the makeup of those whose homes were the subject of crime and nuisance abatement efforts did not match the demographics of the larger community. Insisting that a city must produce crime statistics that somehow mirror the racial or economic demographics of the community is in direct conflict with a citys mission to provide effective and unbiased policing."
Unbiased policing isn't that what freedom is all about?
More...