From the Argus Leader, we’re finding out today that it’s apparently not in the public’s interest to know about police calls to the homes of elected officials:
Police won’t say why they were called to McGowan’s home or why no records of the call exist on public police logs or in archived police radio traffic. Sioux Falls Police Chief Matt Burns has declined to comment due to a department policy not to comment on “matters of specific sensitivity.”
and..
South Dakota law allows 911 calls to be made public, but only at the discretion of the agencies that handle those calls. Metro Communications handles 911 calls for Sioux Falls and Minnehaha County.
In declining to release the call, McMahon cited four laws, including one that allows disclosure of 911 calls if an agency or court “determines that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the interest of nondisclosure.” McGowan, 45, is an elected official who first won office in 2008. He’s one of only a handful of Democratic Party officeholders in Minnehaha County.
Read that here (subscription required).
Maybe I’m a lone wolf out on this one, but given it involves an elected official, does “the public interest in disclosure outweighs the interest of nondisclosure?” You’re damn right it does. And it shouldn’t require someone taking the pd to court.
With it involving an elected official, the public interest in disclosure should be automatic and absolute. In our democracy, how can anyone claim that it isn’t with a straight face? If the law is vague as it is, and open to discretion, it needs to err on the side of disclosure.
When there’s an option, holding police records affecting elected officials as sacrosanct and hiding them from public view is the opposite of open government. Whether any theories about why they’re being held are true or just an accusation of conspiracy theorists, regardless, it smacks of favoritism and preferential treatment. Full disclosure and a ‘palms up’ handling is required for the public trust to be maintained.
If the law isn’t compelling enough now for public officials to release the records, then the law needs to be changed.
You are spot on, Pat. Nobody is above the law, especially our elected officials. The public deserves to know what we’re paying for.
Unfortunately, it would be a daunting task to chip away at the special relationship (I’ll stop just short of “protectionism”) that has long existed between those who enforce the law and those who prosecute it. I guess it’s human nature to stand by those you work with over those you serve.
Gideon and especially Pat raise cogent, persuasive points. They may prove correct. Nevertheless, I write to applaud the SFPD & Burns/McMahon’s compassion. Govt. transparency IS vital to democracy, but we’ve no need to further humiliate McGowan. Human decency matters, too. Does South Dakota *need* to hear an (allegedly) incoherent, unhinged voice screaming, sobbing, or slurring through a 911 call? Each reader knows someone — a friend, a co-worker, a parent or sibling – who’s battled substance abuse, and every lifelong marriage survives a few brutal rows. Most of us have (in fury) uttered words we later regret. More than once I’ve succumbed to wrath, a deadly sin. So I feel pity, not schadenfreude, seeing video of famed actor David Hasselhoff, dead drunk, licking catsup off the kitchen floor. I shudder at the recording of megastar Johnny Depp, in the grip of powerful intoxicants, abusing Amber Heard or at an inebriated Mel Gibson screaming obscenities and offensive accusations. IF McGowan violated the law, he deserves punishment. If he needs a year of rehab to overcome addiction, mid-life crisis, or whatever health issue, he’s neither the first nor the last. No mortal man is perfect, God knows. For now, McGowan should step aside. Gov. Noem and our AG should appoint a qualified attorney to complete McGowen’s term. Minnehaha needs a solid, ethical lawyer in that key role. Next year, McGowen should be eligible to run. If he’s the voters’ choice, he should serve. We don’t benefit from tape of one desperate, dishonorable moment following him forever, ruining his reputation, eviscerating his moral authority, and negating his ability to prosecute those accused of crimes. Was it Napoleon who advised we wash dirty laundry at home, not in public?
This is a great analysis of the issue. As opposed to hyperbole and ad hominem attacks on his character or character of the SFPD.
Agree. Show compassion. Keep it private.
Agreed. In all candor, there are serious questions about Mr. McGowan’s current ability to perform his responsibilities, questions that won’t be answered by the the tape of a 911 call. A resignation would allow him to retain some dignity and privacy during this time. Further, he would be able to focus on healing and restoring his health. He certainly would not be precluded from returning to public life in the future.
So, you’re telling us the incident is about Mr. McGowan’s health? How do you know this to be the truth?
Welcome to DWC – where everyone’s an expert and the facts don’t matter!
From what I have heard, they generally refuse to release these things when it is a private medical matter and nothing criminal. I don’t think they are protecting him for malicious purposes towards the citizens. If situations arise for anyone, they should be allowed leave but we also should have some information. I think we deserve more, just not as far as hearing the 911 call. The commissioners should be able to give us something and the PD probably should have never been the ones cornered.
As troubling is that there is no record in the police logs of law enforcement responding to the incident. Police logs are a public record in SD. It’s as if SF police scrubbed their records clean of any details that might be made public. Perhaps there is nothing sinister or criminal, but law enforcement is not doing the public any favors by hiding all details and records that otherwise should be made public. Only leads to more rumors and speculation.
Well in that case, let’s release the unredacted Mueller Report. 😛
Lacking transparency ? Not to fear, Stehly’s here !
Everyone loves to give Stehly crap but she has been right more than most of her counterparts can say. That should mean something to actual fiscal conservatives.
So I think it depends on the scenario… I have no idea what any of the details are so when they don’t release anything, I and the rest of the public start guessing about what the possibilities are.
1. Private medical event then he should make that announcement himself so as to remove all doubt of any cover up. Very simple answer here. He is a public official.
2. Domestic disturbance of any sort should be released.
3. An outside threat or attack of any kind should be released.
What am I missing? Any scenarios where they shouldn’t release more details? Even if it involved a kid, wouldn’t it make sense for him to come out and say they were going through some private family matters at this time?
I’m torn on this one. On the one hand, public transparency should dictate we have a little more information about public officials compared to an average person. Less expectation of privacy.
On the other hand, 911 calls can contain confidential medical information, especially if the caller is specifically describing or telling the operator about the condition of a person. Certainly if there is alleged criminal activity by an elected official, the public ought to be aware of that, but we don’t know the 911 call would reveal any potentially criminal activity. The tough calls are when a situation might involve a little of both medical information and alleged criminal activity, such as a drug overdose or domestic situation. To be clear, I’m not in any way suggesting either of those things occurred here.
As with all potentially close calls, the best approach is probably to err on the side of not disclosing until the disclosing party can be certain there would be no prohibited breaches of confidentiality.
I’m going to assume the SF police are withholding on the basis that some medical condition or information is involved and not some effort to cover a conspiracy about alleged criminal activity.
To suggest the law should be changed to require the disclose of these kinds of records of public officials ignores the fact that these are people too. In certain circumstances, the public’s right to know, or morbid curiosity, does not outweigh a certain right and expectation of privacy.
Laws around the country regarding public access to 911 calls are all over the board. However, one theme among some states that do allow public access to 911 calls is that it is a public record, unless the recording is part of an ongoing criminal investigation. So, it seems reasonable that a 911 call such as this one in Sioux Falls should be public, unless there is an ongoing criminal investigation. Unfortunately, our public records law regarding 911 calls is not written that way.
What legitimate purpose does everyone have in hearing a 911 call? Having a basic knowledge of what potentially happened, I certainly understand the sensitive nature of its content. My real question here is what is the motive to release this call? Is it out of principle, or being that he is a Democrat, would it be used to embarrass and degrade? Given how the articles have been written on this topic, I assume the former. I agree no one is above the law and the public has a legitimate interest in being informed about its officials. However, a phone call does not necessarily encompass just the public official, but likely has information from others (caller not necessarily Aaron) that hasn’t been discussed either.
Just because it is from the home of a public official, it isn’t a defacto fit for public disclosure.
1). It may involve a non-public person who has a right to privacy.
2). It may involve a medical situation protected under Hippa.
3). The response might be exactly because he is involved in the prosecution of criminals where they act with an abundance of caution. When I was in Pierre, the Deputy Director of DCI was across the street. More than one teen was “apprehended” just trying to take shortcuts across backyards to make it home before curfew and unfortunately didn’t know one of those yards included a wife (with small children)quick to make the call for fear it was a criminal staking out their house to do harm. If McGowan has a teen, maybe he was sneaking into the house. Or maybe his kid (who has juvenile protection rights) did something he shouldn’t.
In short, if we aren’t prudent in how we treat our public officials, we will end up with less qualified public officials. If something nefarious occurred and we have a right to the info,we will find that out in due time. Otherwise, we can just let it go. Republican or Democrat, we need good public servants and McGowan has served us with great distinction.
I usually agree with you but in this case he hasn’t been on the job for 6 weeks. A basic explanation or resignation is in order. As a public official you have a duty and a oath to the public. The view is terrible for the view of special treatment and especially with the spike in crime and 8th & Indiana homeless/drunk/shootings issues that have been going on in Sioux Falls. Most people aren’t entitled to this level of forgiveness or latitude with their employers. The right thing to do is probably resign.
HIPAA does not cover this situation. And yes, it’s HIPAA, not Hippa! Don’t you “work” in the medical-related field, Troy?
As a [federal} statute, HIPAA cover the activities of
#1. “health insurance companies” = BCBS, Dakotacare
#2. “health care providers”= doctors, nurses, dentists, hospitals, psychologists, pharmacists, clinics
#3. “health care information clearinghouses” = companies that store or destroy health records from covered entities #1 and #2
Obviously, neither the police nor the company that maintains 911 communications fall under any of those categories.
There are no HIPAA implications if the police or the dispatchers or the 911 communication storage company release any of the information gathered (even “medical information”) since those entities are not subject to the HIPAA rules.
See, HIPAA governs certain ENTITIES, not whether the info is of a medical nature or not.
As usual, you have it arse backwards TJ. Leave the law to others.
Now, there may be issues of privacy involved that Mcgowen is asserting, but that’s not a matter of HIPAA.
Bravo to A.F.O.E, Realist, Noem Voter, Anonymous(s), J.A.N. and Troy for guides to straight thinking and truthful outspokenness. The degree of vitriol and smug satisfaction demonstrated in this post about an elected official’s apparent personal issue. . . is due to his political party affiliation – plain & simple. It would be hard to imagine a corresponding blog post from this author exhibiting the same fervor were the political shoe on the other foot.
I disagree
Valid, competing arguments have, imho, been raised on both sides. Although I hope we avoid what Bill Clinton called the “politics of personal destruction,” we do need transparency in government, exactly as Gideon and others assert. Several posters propose realistic, common-sense solutions — ideas that deserve exploration. Let’s think not just about the present crisis, let’s think about the future, too. While I don’t expect an SD officeholder to go full Anthony Wiener, crazy stuff happens. Over the next 14-18 months, the shoe may indeed be on the other political foot. Call me pessimistic, but I’ll be surprised if no scandal involving an elected republican arises. Maybe not in here SD, but somewhere in the heartland.
When that occurs, I suspect *one* of JD’s forecasts may prove incorrect. I don’t anticipate hypocrisy from Pat. To the contrary, I predict he’ll be at the vanguard of those demanding full accountability. I doubt he’d tolerate a cover up. When the evidence is clear and the conduct deserves denunciation, he castigates Republicans as well as Democrats.
Agreed