City Government

All Public Records Should Remain PUBLIC

Freedom of Information in Idaho is being attacked by some of the people who have taken an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of Idaho–coppers.

The police bill approved last week by the senate state affairs committee would allow police, prosecutors, and prison guards to conceal their private phone and home address numbers on public documents–like deeds and court records. They would be allowed to list their work address and phone number instead. A similar bill approved by the House would exempt hunter’s names from public scrutiny passed by a 55-14 vote as well.

They claim it is too easy for people “with grievances” to harass coppers, hunters, and their families. The bill presents more questions than answers. What happens when a copper retires? Does he or she still get to keep their address confidential?

A big dilemma arises when a copper gets convicted of a sex crime, which looks–based on today’s news–like a possibility in the near future. The sex offender law mandates he register his address for one and all to know (but not to harass). Since he or she was a copper, the address could be secret to preclude harassment if the proposed law passes.

There are legitimate reasons for exempting victims of crimes and certain others, but to routinely exempt public officials is simply wrong. Soon the judges won’t want citizens to know they live in multi-million dollar homes (or slums), city councilors who pass local ordinances could move to exempt their addresses, and teachers who pass out bad grades will seek exemptions. Then of course there are witnesses in trials, jurors, and car dealers who sell lemons to disgruntled motorists…do we all live in fear of each other?

Ironically, coppers, retired coppers, prison guards, judges, city councilors, school board members, indeed–ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS–are allowed to carry concealed guns without a permit in Idaho. What have we come to when these “rulers” exempt themselves from concealed weapons laws and now they want to be exempt from accountability on public records. They want to “represent” the citizens, but they fear those they represent.

Here are just a few reasons the public has a right to keep public records public:

  • A judge in a civil case would be living way beyond his means, prompting a ruling favoring debtor like himself.
  • A politico could claim to be a hunter, but never held a hunting license…is he a liar or a poacher?
  • Activists like Bruce Willis could claim to have voted a certain way in Idaho, but never have been registered to vote (this happened).
  • Politicos could live outside a district they represent and conceal their address. (A former mayor once listed an address outside the city on a deed).
  • A police chief could assist a crooked mayor moving stolen city property and hide the video from public scrutiny.
  • Wages for public jobs could be misrepresented to garner support.
  • Transportation employee “misuse of equipment” could be concealed from citizens.

When exemptions are made for special interest groups, we all suffer.

UPDATE March 9– In what can only be termed “fair play,” Robert Millage–the poster child for the hunter records secrecy bill–has posted all the comments (mostly negative) about being the first hunter to legally kill a wolf in Idaho in modern times. His WEBSITE. We condemn those who harass him, but defend their right to voice their opinions.

In an ironic twist, Millage posts all the names, phone numbers, Facebook pages, and e-mail addresses on all the comments he has received, even though his site is not a “public record.” Millage offers comments below.

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. Rod in SE Boise
    Mar 7, 2010, 2:54 pm

    Sex offenders only need to register their addresses AFTER they are released from prison. The former cop who was recently arrested may not be released any time soon, if ever.

    Protecting public officials from harrassment is no more important than protecting the rest of us from harrassment, in some cases – harrassment of us by them.

  2. Thank you guardian! I have been waiting for your latest rant. I am suprised at you though…. You haven’t attacted the Boise Coppers in a few days even with this “Nuclear Bombshell” being dropped on your front porch.

    EDITOR NOTE–We understand there will be an announcement on Monday which will no doubt be of interest to you.

  3. What a waste of effort. One can use the internet and find most anybody. If someone wants to harm, they will find a way.
    Their names, photos, phone numbers are probably all posted on myspace or facebook already.

  4. Rod,

    You are so right about harassment from public officials, titled folk and big businesses. Those ordinary citizens subjected to harassment often live in fear and with ruined lives from a system that would protect elected officials and big names at all costs, despite strong and compelling evidence to the contrary. Without means to pursue action, these people suffer silently or become elected officials themselves for protection. Unfortunately, we are seeing closed doors at every turn, even from those who are repeatedly quoted publicly as saying “we are open, we are transparent.” Just rhetoric. We all deserve protection and we all deserve to know what our public officials do behind OPEN doors. What do they have to hide??? As a journalist and an ELOF, I’m behind the BG on this one.

  5. In light of recent cases in the news I think it is important law enforcement can take steps to have their addresses hidden. Look at the guy with the pipe bombs who made threats against police here locally? Look at the cases in California where the gang task force is being targeted and one guy ended up with a bomb planted on his car. Look at all the cases in Washington where Officers have been ambushed – not hard to imagine it could spill over to their home life. Look at the Officer in Gooding who had his house shot up in a drive by shooting (while his wife was at home).

    If an Officer gets convicted of a sex crime then he would have to follow any registration rules just like any sex offender, and that is as it should be. It is quite a stretch to think that he would be except because he was an Officer at some point – and none of the Officers themselves would support that idea.

    A disclaimer – I am an Officer. I have been threatened, my family has been threatened. It shouldn’t be as simple for the person who wants to retaliate against me to walk into the police department or city hall and submit a public information request to find my home.

    The recent Officer in the news is a disgrace to our profession, as are the others who commit crimes. They represent a very small minority, not the majority.

    EDITOR NOTE–LJ, not sure of the exact number of sworn officers in Idaho, but last year alone 22 of them were decertified–their license to be coppers was revoked…run that out over 10 years and more than 200 coppers get the “end of career letter.” At any given time there are in excess of 70 decert cases pending before POST. It is not a pretty picture, but we don’t pretend to have the answers. Despite the best efforts at background checks, psych evaluations, rules, and laws, there are enough rotten apples out there to create full time investigator jobs at the state level and plenty of internal affairs jobs. We ALL want good law enforcement. What we will tolerate is up for debate.

  6. Guardian –
    The number of sworn officers in Idaho varies year to year. It is somewhere around 5500. If you figure 22 officers are de-certified every year we are looking at .004 percent. This is still a small minority of Officers. Not acceptable, but certainly not the majority.

    Look at the numbers of de-certified for some other major cities. LAPD, or New Orleans. The numbers are scary. I am glad we have full time investigators that investigate problems that arise. Proper management now can keep future issues from coming.

    My point is simple – take extra steps to keep the good officers safe. Don’t target them because of a few bad apples.

    EDITOR NOTE–Nobody, including the BG is trying to “target” anyone. We just don’t want to erode the open records law with exemptions for coppers, hunters, judges, or blog editors who take a stand. As for the low rate of decertifications we agree it is a small minority. However, rather than compare to coppers in L.A. or N. Orleans, how about comparing the rate of decerts for doctors, dentists, lawyers, and barbers in Idaho.
    Hint: you can get this info through a PUBLIC RECORDS request.

  7. Follow the Money
    Mar 7, 2010, 10:15 pm

    I am not in favor or anyone targeting police, politicians, executives of greedy corporations, polluters of the earth, etc, etc. Having said that, why give protection to certain groups over others? How about to abused wives, whistle blowers, victims of bullies, or any other potential victims? We would all love to have an invisible cloak sometimes – is a cop’s family any more important than mine? I think not.

  8. LOL, You must think this is America or something.

  9. I am sorry Kappa TA, but if you think law enforcement officers and correctional officers are “elected officials and big names”, you really need to get a life! I respect the Guardian and the many,many sacrifices that have been made for the citizens of this valley by him, but I think there is a perfectly logical reason for exemptions for law enforcement and correctional officers. These people are already “targeted”! All they are asking for is a certain level of insulation from the bad guys!

  10. I think Follow points out some great examples. What about those military and fed’s who have high level clearances that may be targeted due to access of information? There will always be inherent risk involved with most public trust positions that someone, somewhere is going to be annoyed or have a “beef” with them. It becomes an inherent burden of the job and as uncaring as it may sound, If you cannnot handle or don’t want to accept all the tertiary effects of your chosen proffession then you should look for a new line of work.
    This falls right in the line that public trust officials, police included, are and need ot be held to a higher standard in that they represent the people of their fair city or the great state of Idaho.

  11. No Follow, a cop’s family is no more important than your family. They are, however, placed in more danger than your family, due to what they do for a living. It’s a question of what’s right. We can play “what about” from James Bond, to the dog catcher, it doesn’t make sense to compare them. I believe that this should be limited to law enforcement and correctional officers.

  12. Public records are “public”. I can remember JR Simplot was listed in the phone book for years. As were a lot of high profile people. It was routine practice for the State to release your drivers license name and address info to mass mailing advertisers.

    Public records on people in high places need to remain public. How else would they get caught in the act of waste, fraud and abuse of their positions without public records?

    I want to know if my elected and appointed officials are up to no good. Access to these records is not always easy but the media does a decent job of sniffing out falsehoods and deceit by using this access.

  13. Sorry, Zippo, these people are no more important than the rest of us who are also targeted at times. It is their choice to these jobs and to accept the inherent risks. Ordinary folks do not ask for those risks and yet find themselves equally endangered. We need to rid ourselves of this mindset that a specific position entitles someone to more protection than someone else. I appreciate my law enforcement officers and public servants when they do their jobs properly; I also appreciate my 79-year-old retired neighbor and my prison counselor neighbor equally.

  14. You make good points.

    It seems to me that the crimes of harassment, threatening, and so on need vigorous prosecution, regardless of the victim’s status or employment.

    I would guess that convicted sex criminals suffer quite a bit of harassment, but since we’ve all agreed to fully stigmatize “sex criminal,” we’re OK with that.

    It’s a slippery slope we’re headed down, I think, and to no good end. If someone is out for revenge on a LEO, judge, whatever, a little sprinkle of public records secrecy is not going to give meaningful protection.

    Look to the witness protection program for a better indication of what’s actually required for prevention.

  15. Rod in SE Boise
    Mar 8, 2010, 3:32 pm

    It seems like this proposed law will not actually do what it is intended to do. In other words it won’t provide much protection, and could end up protecting wrongdoing. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

  16. If the officer who is in the news now is convicted, and if he ever gets out of prison (which I would hope he would not), he would have to register as a sex offender and that would be open to the public, as is all sex offender registrants. I do not believe the proposed law pertains to a retired officer. If so, him being a sex offender should take priority and it should be open record. If an active officer is ever convicted of this type of crime, he would be terminated from employment, so his address etc would not be protected because he would not be a officer then. Many, many states already have this type of legislation, and have for many years. So, as I have said many times, let those that do the job that none of you want to do, have a little more protection of privacy so they can sleep at night knowing their families are a little more protected. Again Mr. Editor, why don’t you go after some other public servants now and then, and give it a rest on police officers. God, every week you have something to say, get off your step stool and find another rant to start.

  17. Bronco Fan 93
    Mar 8, 2010, 6:49 pm

    For all those opposed to this legislation, please explain to me how you not being able to walk into your local assessor’s office to obtain the home address of a police officer or prosecutor infringes on your rights in any way, shape or form. That’s correct – it doesn’t – I thought so.

    So, for those of you with any common sense whatsoever, please read the proposed bill (on the Idaho Legislative website, it’s under SB1378). You will find that the bill is extremely strict on who could use the exemptions and when. It’s not as easy as you might think. There are also all sorts of avenues by which an officer’s home address can be obtained for legitimate purposes.

    Next time, before spouting off about something you obviously know nothing about, take the time to educate yourself. You’ll look much smarter for it.

  18. Follow –

    My family is not any more important than yours, not implying that it is.

    An example – If you work at a bank or a grocery store, and I am mad at you because of service I received, or something of that nature, I can’t go to your boss or your departments headquarters and demand your home address. Why should law enforcement be different? I understand that we are public employees, but we also have rights.

  19. Dean Gunderson
    Mar 8, 2010, 7:24 pm

    There’s already too much effort spent (even in ‘lil ol’ Idaho) trying to evade the existing public record laws.

    Case in point, the inspection reports on Confined Animal Feeding Operations were (with the overseeing agency’s concurrence) kept at the actual private facility inspected — under the presumption that since the records weren’t on file at a public agency they would not be subject to FOIA requests. The reasoning being that CAFO-owners and the inspecting agency wouldn’t want rabble-rousers from finding out about dangers to the public health. Fortunately, the court did not agree and thenceforth required that these records be kept by the public agency. But this required a court case to be fought.

    It is already too easy to evade existing public records laws in Idaho. If a legislator can point to specific cases (plural) where harm has been inflicted upon an innocent person, through the divulgement of a police officer’s, prosecutor’s, or prison guard’s phone number or address in a public record — I’d be more than willing to stand aside (maybe). And only “maybe” — since someone will have to show me first how this assumed risk isn’t part of the job.

    Here’s another question though, if a prosecutor is considered at-risk — wouldn’t also a public defender? What about a judge, what about a warden, what about the Attorney General?

    Are only “some” members of the Executive Branch of government eligible for such secrecy? Perhaps one’s status as an un-elected law enforcement officer qualifies one for secrecy? Would a county’s (elected) Chief Prosecuting Attorney be prohibited from using such a statute to redact the public record, what about an elected Sheriff?

  20. The Newspapers are the only groups fighting the hunter protection laws, and I think it’s more to protect their ability to stir the pot and create controversy for a story. There is absolutely no good reason to release Hunter info. I tagged the first wolf, and know all to well what the extreme enviro’s are capable of. Maybe if the people against this law had people posting photos of them, their kids, all their contact info, and maps to their homes and work, they would think different. If you want to see first hand how extreme, vile, and crazy these people are, here is a blog I created to post everything sent to me http://www.wolfcomments.blogspot.com . Also, what hunter in his right mind will check a tagged wolf with the Fish and Game, knowing their names will be handed out to the worst domestic terrorist in the country???? Law abiding citizens have a right to not be subjected to harassment and threats by those who would use such measures to try and force them to change their lifestyle and beliefs. The Number 1 job of the government is to protect it’s citizens, not hand out target lists!!!

  21. serendipity
    Mar 9, 2010, 2:42 pm

    Dean Gunderson and the rest of y’all commenters who assert that there is already too much secrecy of public records and doings here, even if they are temporarily deemed “not” public (as in the egregious case of CAFO nutrient info), have exposed another slippery slope specialty of this state.
    Another one has to do with the law about pharmacists being allowed to refuse information or to fill med. scrips, based on their ‘religion’ or moral (?) values. Yet they can recuse their names, so doctors or patients couldn’t tell who they are/were until it was too late?

  22. “UPDATE March 9– In what can only be termed “fair play,” Robert Millage–the poster child for the hunter records secrecy bill–has posted all the comments (mostly negative) about being the first hunter to legally kill a wolf in Idaho in modern times. His WEBSITE. We condemn those who harass him, but defend their right to voice their opinions.

    In an ironic twist, Millage posts all the names, phone numbers, Facebook pages, and e-mail addresses on all the comments he has received, even though his site is not a “public record.”

    Voicing an opinion is not what this bill defends against, it defends against personal attacks and harassment. I only posted what was sent to me, if a person wants to send me a message of hate, I have every right to do with it what I wish, this doesn’t even compare to the State releasing a list of law abiding hunter names to Extreme Enviromentalist, to draw comparisons between the two is really a deep dig…

  23. I think that if the records on who harvested a wolf are to remain public anyone wanting to post them in a newspaper for the rest of the public to view should have to pay for every name of every hunter who harvested and filled a tag on any species to be published not just the wolves harvested. Can not convince me that the intent of the person who paid to put the ad in your newspaper did not do it with intent for people to harrass people that were on the list! Mr. Millage did post out of frustration and retaliation and for the light to shine on the issue of the groups who are rallying to harress him along with now the ones on the list in the newspaper. I for one find it funny that a list of who hunted a wolf is of anyone’s right to know. The only reason they have the list in the first place is for the protection and management of the wolves for balance and control of the hunt for them. The fish and Game have had to ask for the wolves to be brought in and documented on the hunt and to study the health of them as well. If it were just any other species as in coyotes no one has the ability or right to that list? So get real on what this issue is about. Selling newspapers for you MR. Editor, and for the anti wolf hunters a way to harrass. Can people not see it for what it is?

    EDITOR NOTE–Connie, I do this blog only as a public forum (no ads, no fees). I simply don’t have any dog in the wolf fight (pun intended).
    My only issue is to preserve the right of citizens to public records–be they driver licenses, deeds, or video of a public place. Anyone harassing another person is wrong period. Please read the post again and see some of the reasons we want to keep public records public.
    A solution to the hunter issue could be to issue wolf–or any tags–by number only. If the info is not collected, it can’t be released.

  24. I guess I totally fail to understand the connection between hunter permits and the police protection bills. To me they are entirely different worlds. Even Doctor’s and Lawyers. They have licenses to do their work. They are professional licenses. Those, should be public record. Others, such as hunters, have private licenses. Not for professional use. (An outfitter’s license, I would consider a professional license). Is a driver’s license considered public record?

    Hunter’s records being open as public record have been abused. The abuse must stop. I believe we should side on the side of those that are victims in this, the hunters.

    I do believe that the anti-hunters should be allowed to say whatever they want. The problem, is that some have raised the level to “incitement to violence” levels. They themselves wouldn’t attack a hunter, or Robert, but they would probably be happy to point the crazy guy who would, to their families. Ultimately, that is what this debate is about.

    As for Robert publishing their identities. If you send that kind of vitriol over, don’t be surprised if your entire message, including email, are used. Otherwise, he could be making it all up. Going after “private” records to publish is completely different than posting an attacking email that has that kind of information on it.

  25. Once while filling out a police report for an incident that occurred at work, I asked the police officer to put my work contact info instead and got an earful on how I need to stand up, be a man and take the risk that is associated with my freedoms. Seems like the police are not taking their own advice.

  26. steve lewis
    Mar 9, 2010, 8:20 pm

    Just so you know jj, if you did do a police report and someone asked for it under the freedom of info act, your personal info, address, ssan, dob etc would be blacked out so others could not use it to harass, intimidate etc etc.

  27. I completely agree with Millage.

    Since when is it ok to harass/threaten someone for hunting or any other sport for that matter. Millage posting everyone’s e-mail and phone numbers is no different than the Guardian accidently sending out an e-mail and forgetting to BCC everyone on it.

Get the Guardian by email

Enter your email address:

Categories