The State Supreme court has ruled that the public has the right to review photographs taken by Manchester police officers. The decision affirms a lower court ruling in a suit brought by the New Hampshire civil liberties union. The organization wants to analyze the photos to determine if the Manchester police department engaged in racial profiling. The photos date back to 1998, and were snapped during stops that did not result in arrests.
Today?s ruling likely brings to close a fight that?s been going on since April of 2000. That?s when NH ACLU director Claire Ebel started getting complaints about the Manchester police department. Specifically, that officers had routinely asked citizens to consent to having their photos taken. These requests come in situations that run the gamut from basic traffic stops??..to pedestrians waylayed during Sunday strolls. But while the particulars varied??Ebel says in the dozen or so complains she received?.. one element remained constant.
"The individuals who rote to me were all either African American or Hispanic. And so it raised issue as to if this was a racial profiling potential."
Concord Attorney Andru Volinsky argued the case for NH civil liberties union. He says the best way to allay concerns over police practices is for the Manchester to allow public scrutiny.
"They apparently have a pile of photos in various places in the police department that they claim can?t put together. Well, we want them to put them together and put them on a big table and let us take a look."
For its part, the Manchester police department has denied that it?s ever practiced racial profiling. Arguing before the courts, Manchester city solicitors said they did not want to release the photos because to do so would invade the privacy of the individuals in the pictures?. Attorney Dan Mullen of the Manchester city solicitors office further claimed that releasing the photos could also subject the city to potential lawsuits.
"Without going into specifics because I?m not going to discuss hypotheticals?..cases. But obviously someone might feel that you?ve done something wrong ? that?s a possibility. Obviously there was an indication here that some of the subjects had expressed an interest in not being revealed."
Such arguments, however, failed to convince the court. Its unanimous opinion said the spirit of the right to know law, and court precedent make clear that the public?s right of access to government records shall not be unreasonably restricted?? That government agencies must maintain public records in a manner that makes them available to the public?..And that in right to know cases?.the party seeking non-disclosure has the burden of proof. According to Attorney Volinsky, the ruling amounts to big win for all who want the government to be accountable to the public.
"It really went back and stressed that the purpose of the right to know law is to give people an idea of what there government is up to. It shows that the right to know law is still vigorous and subject to enforcement. So that?s a good thing."
Manchester city solicitors and the police department say they are still reviewing the decision. But says they have no intention of challenging the court?s will.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo