Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Douglas County Sheriff’s Office denies request for information about alleged assault

August 15, 2012

Advertisement

For the past month, the Journal-World has been trying to get more information about a complaint from a former Douglas County Jail inmate alleging that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a deputy at the jail. However, Douglas County Sheriff’s Office officials have declined to provide further information about the case, including the denial of an open records request.

Here’s a recap of the case, and the responses the Journal-World received:

• In late June, a woman, who asked that her name not be used, told the Journal-World she was sexually assaulted multiple times by a guard in 2010 while an inmate at the jail. The woman said these assaults occurred during routine pat-downs and included fondling of genitalia and sexual penetration. The woman made a formal complaint to the sheriff’s office in 2011, but the allegations were deemed “not sustained” by the sheriff’s office. The woman said she contacted the Journal-World because she was concerned such assaults could still be happening in the jail.

• We contacted sheriff’s office officials, who confirmed such a complaint was reported and investigated. The sheriff’s office denied an open records request for the completed investigative report of the case, citing a discretionary exemption in the Kansas Open Records Act, identifying the report as a “personnel” record. Officials referred us to information provided to the Journal-World in 2011, when we published a story about internal affairs complaints made to area police departments. The complaint by the woman was summarized by the sheriff’s office as follows:

“Inmate complained that inmate was touched inappropriately during ‘pat-down’ search. Not sustained.”

• We asked the sheriff’s office if a third party had been contacted about the allegations, such as the Kansas Attorney General’s Office, which has authority to investigate alleged crimes committed by law enforcement in the state. However, the sheriff’s office denied this information request.

Jeff Wagaman, a spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, said that office could not “comment, confirm or deny the existence of an investigation of a case unless it has reached a public stage of the proceedings.” Douglas County District Attorney Charles Branson said his office had not been contacted about the case, something that would typically only occur if law enforcement believes there is probable cause that a crime was committed.

• Because the complaint alleged a sexual assault, we asked the sheriff’s office if the alleged victim’s report prompted a criminal complaint, but that request was also denied.

• Sheriff Ken McGovern wrote a letter to the Journal-World, outlining the sheriff’s office’s process for handling complaints against officers, which includes referral to the Internal Affairs Division. That division is “not in the chain of command and do not report to any employee who is under investigation.” McGovern said that such complaints can be handled in a variety of ways, and can be forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office or another law enforcement agency, if appropriate. But if the “investigation discovers no misconduct, the investigation concludes.” McGovern said his decision not to release more information was based on protecting the alleged victim, as well as employees who may have been falsely accused.

“The sheriff’s office also wants to protect its employees who did nothing wrong other than get on the wrong side of an inmate, criminal defendant or other citizen,” McGovern said.

The city’s process

For the past several years, the Lawrence Police Department has denied similar open records requests by the Journal-World for internal affairs documents, also citing the personnel exemption in the Kansas Open Records Act.

The Lawrence police, however, provide the City Commission with summaries of internal complaint investigations twice per year, but that isn’t the case at the county, said County Commissioner Mike Gaughan. A Journal-World email request for comment on the case was “the first we’d heard of” the sexual assault allegations, Gaughan said.

When asked about the possibility of instituting a process for briefing county commissioners, like the city has, Gaughan said, “Some annual reporting would be consistent with the relationship we have” with the sheriff’s office.

Sgt. Steve Lewis, a sheriff’s office spokesman, said the office would be open to providing internal affairs case summaries to county commissioners if asked.

But requiring more information, or monitoring internal affairs investigations within the sheriff’s office, falls outside the powers of the County Commission, said Craig Weinaug, Douglas County administrator.

“Elected officials pretty much have full authority,” he said. Any decision to share information about internal affairs investigations “would be the sheriff’s call,” Weinaug said.

Though they may not have been briefed or consulted on internal affairs cases, Weinaug said his past experiences with the sheriff have shown that “he’s always dealt with these situations appropriately.”

But in cases of potential misconduct, law enforcement should provide the public with enough information to show the case was handled properly, said Ken Bunting, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition.

“You can’t do that based on the information you’ve been provided” in this case, Bunting said.

And there’s an inherent conflict of interest when agencies investigate misconduct within their own organization, said Linda McFarlane, deputy executive director of Just Detention International, a nonprofit that advocates for a reduction of abuse within jails and prisons.

That’s why her organization advocates for referring sexual assault allegations to neutral third parties, such as a state attorney general’s office.

“In good models of oversight, it’s always an outside agency” that investigates abuse allegations against law enforcement, McFarlane said.

Comments

pace 1 year, 8 months ago

Need to have a third party investigation. No reason to suggest because someone is in jail they deserve to be raped or not heard. I don't like the idea my taxes are going to cover up someone raping someone. Need a third party investigation. It also protects the accused. Reason the deputies are accused of rape and the department accused of coverup. Needs a third party investigation. Puts the investigation in a bad light.

3

57chevy 1 year, 8 months ago

While we should all appreciate that publishing unproven allegations against law enforcement would have deleterious effects on our community, the idea that an internal review mechanism is adequate to ensure justice for victims of police corruption is ludicrous. While Lawrence hasn't dealt with real corruption yet, you never know. Police in New Orleans were dealing drugs out of their cars and murdering people that competed with them. Despite multiple complaints, it was years until the federal authorities took over control of the department and caught some of the perpetrators and brought them to justice. The corruption had become endemic. External review is essential to both the reality and perception of honesty in a branch of government that has the power to take away a person's freedom. The LPD, as another writer has pointed out, has already demonstrated enough lack of basic morality (accepting bribes, fixing tickets) that a significant proportion of the population it serves doubts its honesty. The Sherrif's department, until now, has managed to avoid playing loose with its power. For that very reason, it would behoove them to stand tall on this case as well (and set an example for the LPD). A third party review, with total anonimity for both the victim and the officer would suffice. Alternatively, releasing details of the investigation would help althoughtis may compromise the identites of thos involved. Trust, once lost, is almost impossible to regain, but its easy to keep.

2

paulveer 1 year, 8 months ago

J-W is doing their job. Like it or not, it is the duty of the press to hold public agencies up to scrutiny. "Internal Affairs" has an obvious conflict of interest. Corruption by power is a huge problem in any society, and the glare of spotlight by an aggressive press is just about the only protection we have. Regardless of your opinion of the Journal-World, the sheriff's office, or this issue in particular, I think that the J-W deserves a "thanks" for doing this, their most important job.

1

lawslady 1 year, 8 months ago

Records that are created or relate to any investigation into complaints about alleged misconduct by any public employee are usually allowed to be closed because (1) the law allows and (2) otherwise, it would be nearly impossible to hire anyone to do certain jobs (the kind that naturally attract complaints). Despite the curiousity of some members of the public and press, it is in the public's general interest to allow such closure of public records most of the time. See K.S.A. 45-221(a)(4), (11) and (30) at www.kslegislature.org

If you think the rules should be changed so that all records relating to investigations into all complaints about public employees should be made public, why don't you first volunteer to have your whole personnel file made open and/or get a job with law enforcement and make sure that all records about your are provided to the press?

0

Ricky_Vaughn 1 year, 8 months ago

Yeah...we saw what happened when we trusted the LPD to conduct its own internal investigation regarding the ticket scandal. Law enforcement in this town is dirtier than the Kaw.

1

nate cleveland 1 year, 8 months ago

credibility of the woman is no doubt in question. I dont believe male officers are allowed to search women...not 100% sure but pretty sure...

0

consumer1 1 year, 8 months ago

Only in the National Enquirer, er, I mean the Lawrence Journal World can you find this kind of sensationalism.

0

Stacy Napier 1 year, 8 months ago

Guess what there are cameras in the jail. I am sure any contact with her was recorded. Also why doesn't she name the guard? I know that anyone who is in the jail for more than a few hours knows all the guards by name.

This is more about the LJWORLD trying to throw it's weight around against the huge goverment machine. Which by the way was created by the democrats spending on big goverment.

0

verity 1 year, 8 months ago

The article doesn't say if the guard was female or male. Are male guards allowed to pat-down women?

0

toe 1 year, 8 months ago

Just makes you want to give them more money and personnel. Funny how local police type forces resemble military operations with sovereign immunity.

2

somebodynew 1 year, 8 months ago

Wow. I held off commenting for a bit, but....... If this were a story about the LPD in the same circumstance there would already be 102 posts on this story. 100 of them negative and at least 8 calling for a Citizen Review Panel (with subpeona powers!!).

Actually I am surprised that several of the known posters haven't made those comments and not read the article to know that it involved the SO and not the PD.

1

Steve Jacob 1 year, 8 months ago

Something like that I would give the police benefit of doubt, but some sort of outside investigation is probably needed also.

1

Lawrenceks 1 year, 8 months ago

I don't know why the LJWorld requests the information. They won't print anything that involves an arrestee’s name so why bother????

The 12 people arrested yesterday in Topeka for prostitution were named in the Topeka paper and all the TV news outlets. You wouldn't read their names in the LJWorld!

0

OonlyBonly 1 year, 8 months ago

Needs an outside investigation. Any complaint of this type should be investigated by someone not involved with any of the "interested" partys. Now I like Sheriff McGovern and I think he's a good man but this is about "thinking." I want to know the department is clear.

4

biggunz 1 year, 8 months ago

Not sure why she was in jail but I'm guessing her credibility is questionable at best. Also don't believe her story about why she was contacting the LJW. It seems appropriate for the Sheriff's Dept. to refuse to allow the complaint to be made public if an internal investigation revealed no wrong doing. Why give her the satisfaction? Making it public will not guarantee it won't happen to anyone else...if it did indeed happen. Of course I could be 100% wrong.

1

Commenting has been disabled for this item.