August 2009
S M T W T F S
      
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
     

Categories


City still refusing to release McIver arrest video Bookmark and Share

2:49 PM Wed, Jul 16, 2008 |

Once again, the City of Seattle is refusing to release a video that recorded the arrest of a current city councilmember. In one month, the City of Seattle has given KING5 News no less than four different explanations why it will not release the video. The reasons range from privacy concerns to the video was nowhere to be found.


In January, King County prosecutors dropped the domestic violence case against McIver largely because his wife refused to testify.
Here's a timeline of all the answers KING5 News received from the city:
• June 27th - Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske sent KING 5 a letter saying his department had searched its records and could not find the video.
• July 7th - One hour before KING 5 was set to do a story on the missing video, Seattle Police said a copy of the video had been found. However, the legal adviser to the police chief said the city would not release the video because it would violate the privacy rights of McIver as spelled out in RCW 9.73.060
• July 8th - The city attorney's office sent KING 5 a letter saying the city will now release the video. However, before the release, the city will first notify council member McIver and offer him 10 business days to decide if he wants to seek a court injunction to prevent the release.
• July 15th - The city attorney's office sent KING 5 a new letter saying it had done more research and has decided once again not to release the video. This time the city says the video is "nonconviction data" and cites the Criminal Records Privacy Act (RCW 10.97.030(2) which "specifically prohibits the retention or mechanical reproduction of the video by any person other than the person who is the subject of the data."

The latest response raises the following question: If the law specifically "prohibits the retention" of the video, why does the police department still have a copy of it?

What do you think?



10 Comments

Eric Harper said:

The reason the city will not release the video is simple, he is a councilmember and they of course are above the law being as tho they are the ones who supposedly write the laws to protect and assist the residents of Seattle. I say phooey, on that.

Ricardo Kelly said:

I completely understand and agree that it shoud be available under the public disclosure act however is it really that important to get the tape since it is no longer a current issue?

Or is it simply the fact that they are being evasive and giving conflicting responses. Is there a reason to believe that there is something on the tape that is of public concern?

Best regards,

Ricardo Kelly

Laura said:

I do not see how the public viewing of this video is going to lead to a better informed and educated public and therefor conclude that King 5 is looking to create more sensationalism than journalism. Sadly, that seems to be Standard Operating Procedure all too often in the current media.

scottie said:

Please do follow up on this. The refusal to provide the video is less important than the obfuscation exhibited in the conflicting responses. This is one of many examples of the excessive secrecy practiced by the SPD under its current administration. There is a responsibility to the citizens of Seattle that is being ignored on an ongoing basis.

Chris Brown said:

It seems strange how when there is an issue personally affecting a public official the system, designed for all citizens, becomes a tool of the public official. Public officials try to be politically correct in every situation and have a hard time admitting a mistake. It seems like the tape in question may have been evidence of the council member admitting a mistake.

inside man said:

Scottie is right on the money. The only thing I would point out is there are two police departments in Seattle: the officers and Sergeants (they would be the ones who arrested McIver even though they knew there would be politcal flak for it) and the Lieutenants and above up to the Chief, who bend to political pressures and cover up for wife-beating drunks like Mciver who are running the city, and are in a state of panic about what would happen to them if they offend City Hall.

Ever wonder why only Lieutenants and above are the only police employees allowed to talk to the media, besides the officers in the Public Information Office?

When we say: "This is one of many examples of the excessive secrecy practiced by the SPD under its current administration. There is a responsibility to the citizens of Seattle that is being ignored on an ongoing basis," any officer would tell you that it's all true. But just don't forget it's those in the ADMINISTRATION (universally hated and loathed by the officers actually on the streets responding to our calls for help) who are to blame.

Afterall...who else would have the authority, or the desire, to make such a recording just disappear?

Wulfe said:

Dosn't EARY body allready know the Gov. Is above the Laws thy all Make

Who Cares said:

who cares...

Ricky Mac said:

Yea, they are obviously hiding something. Nothing new. But then again, King5 and every other news agency make way to big of a deal out of it when they think they have the right to stick their collective noses up every one elses butts.

No Trespassing: Reporters and photographers will be shot on sight.

ledog3 said:

Ok, so he was arrested. Who needs a video of it besides the media to add a bit "Fox" to their presentation? The arrest, the courtroom stuff and everything else will be public record, and yes, eventually the video. Come'on Bernard..Don't turn into one of the media street leaches. You do a great job the way you are. KING keeps trying to go to the shock and awe format of reporting news. If thats the case, they're losing a viewer.


Leave a comment

Please read our comment rules before posting comments




Type the characters you see in the picture above.




More news blog entries