[Vision2020] UI security

[Art Deco]

Kai,

I am afraid you are correct.

Christ Church tried this awhile back (see below).  If the UI tries this, they may end up being the unsuccessful defendants in a Section 1983 civil rights action.

W.

_____________________________

Interdiction of Wayne A. Fox by Moscow Police 0n May 6, 2004.  Re: Taking Photographs of Anselm House (Headquarters of Christ Church); Description and Comments

 

 

Description

 

On Thursday, May 6, 2004 at around 11:00 am, I drove to Moscow, Idaho from my home on Moscow Mountain, parking near the public library.  My objectives were to run errands and to take some photographs of Anselm House, headquarters of Christ Church and associated organizations.  Anselm house is located at the southeast corner of Washington and Fifth Streets in Moscow.  The purpose of taking these photos was to preserve evidence relating to tax and other matters that appertain to the building and adjuncts of Anselm House and the organizations present there.

 

I am a 63 year old Caucasian male.  My appearance on May sixth was normal and not in any way indicative of criminal intentions, associations, or vagrancy.  Having just showered before leaving home, I was clean and clean-shaven.  I wore clean, intact, free of holes or rips, belted light blue jeans, a clean, light blue tee with a small mountain scene and the words "Jasper, Canadian Rockies" stitched on the front, and hiking boots whose original cost was in excess of $100.00.  I wore prescription Polaroid glasses.  On my right wrist was a one inch wide, flat copper band.  This band is a bracelet decorated with images of elk and bear in very shallow relief and supplies transdermal copper for health purposes.  My dark brown hair was of average length and casually groomed.  I did not wear a hat and I have no tattoos and no large normally visible scars.

 

I carried a digital camera kit around my neck whose initial cost was in excess of $500.00.  I carried no other photographic apparatus - no tripod, no light meter, no camera bag, etc.  .  In front of and strapped around my waist was a black, medium-sized European pouch/purse containing my wallet, checkbook, coin purses, etc.  

 

I took seven photographs.  At all times while actually shooting the photographs, I was on public property - either on a public sidewalk or in a public alley.  At no time did I enter any area where I was not legally permitted.  I did not take any photographs whose principle subject was other than Anselm House and its adjuncts.  The first two of these photos were taken from the public alley behind Anselm House.  The other five were taken from various positions on Washington Street.  At all times during this entire described incident, I behaved in a normal manner and also in an open, completely legal manner.  I made no sudden or erratic moves.  I went about my photographic chores and attendant actions in a measured, deliberate, methodical manner.

 

As I was finishing taking the second photograph in the public alley running between Fifth and Sixth Streets just east of Anselm House, a petite young woman pushing a baby carriage with two toddlers in it turned into the alley from Fifth Street.  I smiled at her and said "Hi."  She smiled and returned the greeting.  She then walked with the baby carriage into the parking byway just south of Anselm House and eventually entered the building through a doorway on the south side of the building.  We exchanged no other words except the short, friendly greetings.

 

As I was taking the fifth photo from the northwest corner of Washington & Streets, I noticed a semi-portly, bald, Caucasian male wearing a dark green polo/golf type shirt, belted dark slacks, and oxford type shoes walking west­ward toward Washington Street near the corner on the south side of Fifth Street next to the Anselm building.  This person appears as an incidental in the fifth photograph.

 

As I was taking the sixth photo near the southwest corner of Washington and Fifth Streets, the person described above approached me introduced himself as Blake Blakey, Jr.  He asked if he could help me.  I said, "No."  I clearly showed by my posture and my concentrated attention to my camera and photographing chores that I was not interested in any further interaction.

 

Blakey then started to ask me questions including who I was and why I was taking photographs of the Anselm House.  I told him he was harassing me and asked him to stop.  Because I was waiting for my digital camera to reset and preparing to take the final photo, a task requiring some concentration, I did not wish to be interfered with.  I did not want to speak at all with Blakey.  Blakey continued asking me questions about what I was doing.  I again asked him to stop harassing me and threatened to call the police.

 

At that point Blakey started to retreat.  However, as I was taking the seventh photo (it took a little while to frame the shot and make appropriate camera adjustments), he again approached me asking questions, which I ignored momentarily, though I considered such questions further harassment and found such in the circumstances to be quite distracting, offensive, and annoying.  I again asked him to stop harassing me.  He asked if he should call the police.  I said he was free to do what he wished but that if he accused me of a crime to the police, I would sue.

 

I then walked to the Latah Federal Credit Union using the alley just east of Washington Street as is my regular practice and made a transaction.  After that, I walked back toward Sixth Street again using the same alley just east of Washington.  When I was between Seventh and Sixth Streets, still in the alley, I saw a Moscow Police Cruiser turn into the alley from Fifth Street.  I turned south upon reaching the south side of Sixth Street in order to buy a USA Today on Main Street near The Breakfast Club.  At all times during this entire episode, I walked at a normal pace in a normal manner.

 

Just before I reached the southeast corner at Washington and Sixth Streets a different police cruiser pulled up alongside and an officer asked me asked me to stop.  This interdiction occurred approximately 15 minutes after I had taken the seventh photograph.  An officer whose name I failed to discover correctly, hereinafter called Officer One, emerged from the passenger side of the cruiser and engaged me, ordering me to stop.  I clearly expressed my desire not to interact with the officers.

 

Officer Corporal Carl Womack shortly thereafter emerged from the driver side of the cruiser and joined the two of us.  As we began to engage in a discussion, a second Moscow Police cruiser stopped on the north side of Sixth Street about 150 feet east of Washington and another officer crossed to near where we three were standing.  This officer did not participate in the conversation as such, but relayed information to the two other officers apparently from radio contacts.  He stood behind the other two officers during the encounter at a distance of about 8 - 10 feet.

 

Although the third officer did not participate directly in the discussion between the other two police officers and myself, his behavior was not at all times, in my opinion, appropriate.  This officer wore heavy, short-cuffed, semi-gauntlet type gloves.  While staring at me in a hostile manner, several times he alternately made a fist with one hand while rubbing the fist with the other hand.  Such gestures were seen by me as threatening and intimidating.

 

I was under the impression that this entire encounter was being recorded.

 

I started to leave but Officer One indicated by his actions and words that I was not free to do so.  I was being involuntarily held - custodial detention is, I believe, the technical term.

 

A sometimes heated discussion occurred between the officers and myself.  I was still disturbed at Blakey's rude, distracting, intrusive behavior.  I was now disturbed at this illegal detention by the police officers.  I exhibited at times a somewhat belligerent attitude.  I was asked to show identification.  I refused.  I asked if they were investigating a crime.  I asked and continued to ask what suspicion they had that I had committed any crime and, if so, what crime.  Officer One explained that someone from the Anselm building had reported that a "suspicious" person had been taking pictures of their building and the officers were making an investigation.

 

I asked again whether they were investigating a crime.  Officer One immediately admitted that they did not know if a crime had been committed or criminal activity had occurred.  He said they were stopping me and questioning me in order to determine if a crime had been committed.  At no time during this entire episode did Officer One even mention the possibility of any specific crime.  They had no glimmering of an idea whether any crime had occurred or, if so, what crime.  They were attempting a fishing expedition without any notion of what kind of fish they were after or, in fact, any notion if there were any fish in the water they were plying at all.

 

Despite this admission near the outset of our encounter that the officers did not have any objective, articulable evidence supporting suspicion that criminal activity had occurred, they continued to demand identification, insisting that I had no choice but to produce it.  Officer One again repeated, while continuing to hold me against my will, that they were talking to me to determine if there was reason to suspect that a crime had, in fact, been committed.  They appeared (no pun intended) completely clueless in this regard.

 

At some point a somewhat heated discussion took place about whether this encounter was a Terry stop or not (see references 1, 2 and 7, below).  I said that if they had an articulable, objectively based suspicion that I had been engaged in any criminal activity, then I would show my identification.  Officer One had already admitted that they did not.  I further said that if I had entered the Anselm building (which I did not), started taking pictures, was asked to leave, then refused to do so, they would have a genuine suspicion that a crime had been committed.  I told the officers that I had been taking evidentiary photographs.

 

I continued to refuse to produce identification.  Officer One asserted that Idaho Code gave law enforcement officers the right to insist upon identification in the circumstances at issue.  [Comment:  I have not found any such Idaho Code section applicable to these circumstances.]

 

Officer Womack then suggested that I had been taking photos of the federal building.  (I had not.)  I asked him if he had any such evidence.  He had none, although later in the discussion he directly accused me of having taken photos of the federal building.  I again asked him what evidence he had that such was the case.  He could produce none.  I said that I did not appreciate being lied to or words to that effect.

 

I pointed out that it would not be a crime to actually photograph the federal building; that photos of such buildings appeared on postcards, for example.  [Comment:  Were it the case that it was illegal to photograph federal buildings, then millions of Washington D.C. tourists with cameras would be legally open to be interrogated while being held in custodial detention.]

 

At least twice during our discussion I pointed out that it was not a crime to take pictures from public property of a building in plain public view (see reference 3, below).  I pointed out that newspersons, private investigators, and law enforcement personnel could and do take photos frequently in such circumstances and that private citizens have the same rights.

 

At some point during the encounter I argued that if anyone had committed a crime, it was Blakey by continuing to harass me after he had been asked to stop.  Officer Womack took visibly disturbed umbrage at this claim.  He said that the encounter could be interpreted that I was harassing Blakey.  Since I had not spoken to Blakey except basically to indicate that I did not want to interact with him and to ask him to stop harassing me, I was amazed.  These absurdities uttered by Officer Womack caused the feelings that I had had from almost the beginning of the encounter to change from mere suspicion to very high probability.  I now believed the officers were acting as de facto agents for Christ Church rather than as public law enforcement officers pursuing a legitimate police matter within the purview of their official duties and responsibilities.

 

I pointed out that since there was no criminal activity alleged, it was the problem of the personnel of the Anselm House to endeavor to discover my identity and purpose.  I said that it was inappropriate for the police department to be investigating a non-criminal matter on behalf of Anselm house (see references 4 and 5, below).

 

Several times Officer One said that they were investigating a complaint by personnel at Anselm house of a "suspicious" person taking photographs of Anselm House, and that these people (Anselm House personnel) wanted to know who that person was and why they were taking photographs.  At no time during the entire encounter did either officer offer an explanation or description of what "suspicious" meant.

 

Again, I said that it was inappropriate for the police department to be investigating a non-criminal matter for Anselm house or words to that effect.  I again said that I was taking evidentiary photographs.  I said I wanted to prevent the knowledge of my identification and motives from becoming known to Anselm house personnel at that time.  I said I wanted to control the entire manner in which my identity would be disclosed and the manner in which the photographs would be used.  I said that I wanted my use of the photographs to come as a surprise.

 

Our discussion of Terry stops continued with me citing the elements that had to be present in order for the police to involuntarily hold someone and to demand identification - suspicion based on articulable, objective observations and determinations that criminal activity had occurred, and further, that I had engaged in such activity.  The offices obviously lacked such described suspicion.  It was clear that the officers were exasperated and frustrated at the lack of their interrogation success.  I was extremely disturbed at being subjected to this illegal, intimidating, threatening, oppressive, defamatory, sometimes bullying, embarrassing-in-full-public-view at a busy intersection, time-wasting exercise.

 

At one point Officer One offered to withhold my identity from the personnel at Anselm House, if I showed identification.  I do not know Officer One aside from this encounter.  He must have formed a very low opinion of my intelligence.  Previous experience leads me to believe that such assurances are meaningless.  A report would be written by the officers, my name would be in it, and such a report would be available to anyone to view upon request.  As a test of his straight-forwardness, I asked Officer One if he would sign an affidavit to such effect of non-revelation.  He appeared to agree.  Officer Womack quickly interrupted at that point saying that a notary wasn't present.

 

I talked to the officers about that the possibility that their pursuance of this matter would lead to a 1983 (section of the federal civil rights law, see reference 6, below) action and that I was surprised such actions had not been filed more often before in Moscow.  I pointed out because of my previous experience as a paralegal that I was familiar with criminal procedure.  I suggested further training for them in the proper limits of these kinds of interdictions would be beneficial.

 

I said that I was usually cooperative with law enforcement.  And I am.  Had I been taking photographs under any other conditions where I did not wish to preserve my anonymity and motives, I would have been much more open and informative.

 

As an aside, I did say I was not satisfied with the way the Moscow Police Department enforced traffic laws.  Officer Womack then asked a question suggesting I was sore about a recent traffic ticket.  I replied that I hadn't had a traffic ticket in over twenty years.  I said my complaint was about motorists and others habitually (epidemically) not stopping for stoplights and/or stop signs.  [05-07-04 comment:  Ironically, I see from today's Lewiston Morning Tribune, that Officer Womack responded to a two car accident on Thursday afternoon at Sixth and Jackson Streets which was caused by a motorist running a red light.]

 

Suddenly, Officer Womack said that I was free to go.  I still had not produced any identification.  I do not know why I was dismissed.  Perhaps they had advice relayed to them from the city attorney or they had made an identification through other means (this seems to be the most probable alternative) or they had decided that they were powerless to act because there had been no hint of an allegation of any criminal activity engaged in by me.  Being told that I was now allowed to proceed was once more confirmation that I had indeed been held against my will.

 

During this encounter, it would be fair to say that outside of his illegal detainment of me, his insistence on his absolute right of seeing my identification, his obvious desire to please the personnel at Anselm House, and his transparently fraudulent offer not to reveal my identification if I presented such, the conduct of Officer One was courteous, professional, and as relatively non-confrontative as could be expected under the circumstances.

 

The conduct of Officer Womack did not always rise to the same standard.  At times Womack's conduct was bullying, combative, and untruthful.  Perhaps such conduct is allowable, desirable, and/or even effective when dealing with suspects.  In this case, since there was an admission by the officers that they did not suspect that any particular crime had been committed, a person suspected of any crime was not present.

 

After being told that I could go on my way, I then walked to the south side of Main Street and then walked northward.  I meet Ivan Peterson on the south side of Main Street near the intersection with Fifth Street.  I described briefly my encounter to him.  While we were discussing it, a police cruiser came westward toward us on Fifth Street.  An officer, it appeared to be the third officer from the above described incident, and a woman were in it.  They stopped in the running lane of Fifth Street at the intersection of Fifth and Main Streets for a short while (but much longer than it would have taken had they simply turned left onto Main Street as the cruiser's turn signal indicated was their intention) and appeared to be observing the discussion between Ivan and myself.

 

At that point it should have been more than abundantly clear to the police that I had not engaged in any criminal activity and that neither my actions nor my identity were a proper subject for an official police investigation, interest, or the expenditure of police resources.  There had been nothing in my behavior that would have even remotely suggested criminal activity or motives to any objective observer.

 

This continuing activity and expenditure of resources by the police reinforced my very strong belief that the Moscow Police Department were now acting as de facto agents of Christ Church and not for any legitimate public purpose or in pursuit of any matter of legitimate police interest or responsibility.

 

After finishing talking with Ivan, I walked, continuing at a normal pace in a normal manner, a short bit northward on Main Street and bought a USA Today.  I then walked via Main and Third Streets to the Moscow Coop and looked at the items in the take-out case.  I walked to the post office, retrieved our mail, paid a nine-cent postage due, and walked to the library.  After that, I walked to my car which was parked in front of the Episcopal Church across from the library and drove home.  After doing a few chores, I started to write this document.

 

 

Comments

 

There are several quite troubling aspects of this encounter.

 

First, however, some personal background may be appropriate to place this incident and the invasiveness of it in proper perspective.

 

I have been engaged in photographic endeavors more than forty years.  I have taken many thousands of slides and photographs not only in this country but several other countries.  I have photographed, people, scenery, structures, animals, birds, vegetation, assorted items of infrastructure, etc.  Some of my photographs have appeared as evidence in Idaho court proceedings.

 

I lived in Ethiopia as a Peace Corps Volunteer for almost two years.  Ethiopian security was much more rigorous than that presently the United States.  The predominant religion of the area where I lived was Islam.  Muslims had/have some very restrictive ideas about the taking of photographs.  While residing in Ethiopia, I took many slides and photographs of people, places, etc.  Near the end of my tour of duty with the Peace Corps, I was honored by the United States Information Agency who produced a one-man exhibition in Addis Ababa, the capitol, of about seventy to eighty of my Ethiopian photographs.

 

On one trip during the time I lived in Ethiopia, I traveled to Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania (including Zanzibar during this cold war time that this island was a base for the Chinese Communist Navy).  I took many photographs in all these places of many different subjects.

 

I visited Aden, South Arabia, which is now part of Yemen three times.  On one of these occasions, the waiting room of the airport was bombed by terrorists shortly before my arrival to the same waiting room.  I also visited Djibouti, French Somaliland, and Mogadishu, Somalia.  All of these locations are predominantly Islamic and, in addition, were subject to extreme security measures.  In all of these places, I took photographs, sometimes with a very conspicuous 400 mm telephoto lens.

 

Ironically, the morning of May 6, 2004 in Moscow, Idaho was a milestone.  After legally and non-intrusively taking photographs from a public alley and a public street of a building in open, plain view - a building without any governmental security or any hint of significant infrastructure function - this was the first time in my life I had ever even been approached by any law enforcement or security personnel for taking photographs!

 

Fifteen minutes after openly performing a completely legal photographic chore in a normal manner, I found myself interdicted, questioned, and placed in custodial detention by three police officers, one of whom was at times bullying, and another who was at times making threatening gestures.

 

There is something wrong with this picture.

 

Stopping a person:

 

1.               without an articulable, objectively based suspicion that criminal activity has occurred and therefore without grounds to believe that the person stopped had engaged in any criminal activity,

2.               then demanding and insisting that they have the right to see identification (and the stopped person has no choice but to accede to that request, despite his objections), and 

3.               then continuing to hold involuntarily and continuing to question the stopped person and continuing in full public view to prolong the stigma of interdiction for the interdicted person by three officers at a busy intersection

 

is a clear breach of current allowable criminal procedure and civil rights law as found by the United States Supreme Court.

 

This breach is even clearer considering that the officers openly admitted at the outset that they had no articulable, objective facts on which to base an inference that criminal activity had occurred.  They were stopping an innocent person and demanding that that person give the officers information which may on the off-chance be interpreted as suspicion that a crime has been committed and that person committed it.  These are clear breaches of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.  I said words to this effect to the officers.  I also pointed out that it was Blakey who had most likely committed a crime - he continued to harass me/make a nuisance of himself/interfere with my legal and legitimate photographic activities after I requested him to stop doing so.

 

Officer Womack's insistence that the encounter between Blakey and me could be interpreted such that I had harassed Blakey is quite revealing of his non-professional attitude and his obvious desire to please Christ Church personnel.  It is absurd to hold that when a harassed person tells their harasser to stop and threatens to call law enforcement, that such conduct itself is harassment.

 

A question has been asked immediately by almost everyone I have discussed this matter with:  Why are the personnel at Anselm House (Christ Church) so paranoid about someone taking photographs from what is obviously public property (public street, public alley) of their building which is in plain public view?  Anybody can legally look at it or walk by it at any time.  Anybody could photograph it on Sunday when there is no one likely to be present.

 

There is no law that prevents Anselm House personnel from approaching anyone who is taking photographs and asking questions.  There is no law that prevents them from standing a reasonable distance away and simply observing.  However, after the object of their curiosity signifies that they do not want to be asked questions and clearly indicates that further interference by the interlopers would be perceived as harassment, harassment should stop.  Under the circumstances at issue, the continuation of such harassment by Blakey was most likely criminal act and a certainly a civil tort.

 

Qualifier:  In making the following remarks and asking the following questions about the dispatch function, I am not targeting any particular police dispatcher.  I am concerned about departmental dispatching policy and procedures.

 

A police dispatcher must sometimes make hard decisions.  But some are easy.  It is obvious that if a dispatcher receives a call indicating that an officer is down, that officer needs assistance, that a murder has occurred, or that a robbery is in progress, etc. an immediate dispatch of proper police personnel is the absolutely correct action.  Closer to the present issue:  If some unknown person (or known pedophile) was reported to be surreptitiously photographing school children or someone was reported to be trespassing on posted private property while taking photographs, then clearly that is legitimate cause for the dispatcher's alarm and the result should be an expeditious dispatch of police officers.

 

On the other hand, there are calls to the police dispatcher requiring the use of inquiry, discretion, and tact.  A report of a "suspicious" person performing an otherwise legal act should be a clear signal to ask questions in order to gain more information - "suspiciousness" is a highly subjective term, especially to untrained, non-law enforcement persons.  Unless contrary to law or endangering the public or themselves in some way, a person behaving in a normal manner, taking photographs from a sidewalk of public street of a private, commercial building not associated with any local, state, or federal function, security or otherwise, is clearly not engaging in any criminal activity, but engaging in a legitimate, legal activity protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Therefore, such a person is neither engaged in a matter that should concern the police nor justify the use of police resources.

 

Hence, the following questions are indicated.  (Again, these questions/comments are directed at departmental policy and procedure rather than intended as a criticism of any individual dispatcher.)

 

Why didn't the Moscow Police dispatcher upon hearing that a "suspicious" person was taking photos of Anselm House ask a few questions?

 

For example:

 

What specific behaviors were exhibited that caused the reporter of the incident to use the term "suspicious" person?

 

If photos were being taken of the Anselm House, where were the photos being taken from?

 

Was the photographer acting in any criminally threatening, abnormal, or dangerous manner while taking the photographs?

 

What obligation did Blakey think the photographer had to answer any questions put to him by Blakey?

 

Why did Blakey continue to harass the photographer after being asked to stop?  Did it occur to the dispatcher that possibly it was Blakey who was out of line or who committed a crime?

 

Etc.

 

A few judicious, tactful questions by the dispatcher would have resulted in determining that no criminal act had occurred or was even alleged, and therefore it was not a police matter.  An elementary knowledge of well-publicized paparazzi law (it is not a crime to take photographs from publicly owned property such as streets or alleys of a building in plain, public view or of a person in plain, public view) should have led the dispatcher to conclude that no criminal activity occurred.  Also, an elemental knowledge of Terry Stop law on the part of the dispatcher or a request for assistance from a senior officer present might have avoided the dispatch of personnel who could possibly provoke an unnecessary incident which could be the basis for an expensive and embarrassing 1983 action.

 

Experienced, well-seasoned officers like Womack and Officer One certainly should have know that the taking of photographs from open public property of a building in open, plain, public view did not constitute a crime.  There were no objective facts suggesting anything other than legal, normal behavior had occurred.  My observations, and inferences therefrom at that time, convinced me that, in fact, the officers really did know this, but continued to press for information to be relayed to the personnel at Anselm House.  The public police officers were at this point acting as private investigators using municipal resources.  They were acting as agents for Christ Church and not as public law enforcement officers.

 

There is no difference in this case between the police behavior and that of a road district employee who snowplows or grades a private driveway or of a county clerk who gives free copies of court files to a favored person.  Such actions may well be theft of services under criminal law.

 

The police have a sometimes difficult job to do.  They sometimes deal with very violent, unbalanced, impaired, dangerous, and/or without-respect-for human-life persons.  Their lives and bodily security are always at risk.  Their work sometimes takes a horrible toll on their family and personal lives and on their psyches.  They respond to threats of and the actual occurrences of a broad assortment of crimes and other emergencies.  They are witnesses of some very grisly, unpleasant matters.  Since 9/11, police have important, challenging, and expanded security concerns and duties.

 

Sometimes there is too little time for officers to make an appropriate decision.  However, if police beliefs of suspicion are based on articulable, objective facts and reasonable inferences based thereupon considering the entire situation given the officers' observations and knowledge:

 

1.               that criminal activity has occurred, and 

2.               that a given person may engaged in such activity, 

 

then it is certainly reasonable, desirable, and legal for officers to stop that person, demand identification, hold them against their will for a short while, and ask questions until their suspicions are either confirmed to the extent of probable cause or disconfirmed.

 

However, until circumstances arise where:

 

1.               there are articulable, objective observations based on knowledge of the entire situation that give reason to believe that criminal activity has occurred, and 

2.               there are articulable, objective observations based on knowledge of the entire situation that indicate there is reason to believe person they are interdicting has engaged in that criminal activity,

 

the police must be quite circumspect and certainly act entirely within the current law for such situations.

 

In the face of the lack of articulable, objective suspicions that criminal activity has occurred, police officers can ask for identification, but the giving of such by the interdicted party is completely voluntary.  The police can ask questions, but answering them by the interdicted party them is voluntary.  In these circumstances, the police may not hold someone against their will.  Ordinary, lawful citizens against whom there is no allegation of criminal behavior may not be harassed, held against their will, and commanded to produce identification.  It is an unpleasant experience with adverse consequences, one of which is the loss of respect for and confidence in the department and the officers involved.  Other adverse effects are the possibility of expensive litigation and of unfavorable public relations for the police and for the entire community. This is Moscow, Idaho, not Baghdad, Iraq.

 

After Officer One admitted that they had no articulable suspicion that I committed any crime or that, in fact, any criminal activity had occurred at all, the interrogation should have been terminated.  At that point (or before) the officers had a duty to tell Anselm House personnel that no crime had occurred and that the incident was not a matter upon which they were allowed by law to expend any more police resources.  Merely openly taking photos in broad daylight from open public property of a building in open, plain public view is not a crime or even suggestive of criminal activity.

 

I submit that any reasonably well trained officer(s) would know that he/she/they was/were legally compelled to allow me to proceed on my way at the time an admission was made that there were no articulable, objective grounds to suspect that any criminal activity had occurred.  I believe that both Officers One and Womack knew that it was illegal to continue holding me against my will, continue to demand identification, and continue to ask questions about why I was photographing Anselm House.  I believe that they were trying very hard to please Christ Church personnel.

 

Another factor to be considered in this incident was the timing.  This situation was not a murder in progress or an emergency of any kind.  There were no fleeing suspects.  No split-second decisions were required.  About 15 minutes had elapsed between the taking of the last photograph and the interdiction by the police officers.  There was ample time for an officer to meet with and to question Blakey.  There was ample time to discover that no crime had been committed (except possibly one by Blakey).  There was ample time to discover that Blakey was motivated by a private, frustrated curiosity, and was not the anguished victim of any crime.

 

I try very hard not to engage in any illegal acts.  I hope I succeed.  I expect the same attitude on the part of law enforcement personnel.

 

Questions myself and others have asked about this incident:

 

Why did the officers, most likely knowingly, continue their illegal conduct in this Anselm House (Christ Church) matter?

 

Why did the officers repeat during the encounter that the personnel at Anselm House wanted know who was taking photos and why?  Why is this legitimate police business?

 

Why was the Moscow Police Department expending public resources by obviously acting as a cat's-paw for Anselm House (Christ Church)?

 

Why were the police trying to please the personnel at Anselm House (Christ Church) even at the risk of generating a 1983 action?

 

In a small community like Moscow, it is not unknown or even undesirable for the police to want to maintain good relations with the citizenry by supplying certain information similar to that requested by the personnel at Anselm House in this case.  They police are free to do this within the constraints of the law.  However, they may not engage in this kind of activity by committing civil rights violations.  Also, when no crime has been committed or the matter is outside police responsibility, police may not act as private inquiry agents on city time using city resources.  Such behavior is clearly outside the scope of police responsibility.  Such behavior would be committing a theft of public services.  Such behavior would be called corruption.

 

I hope I am raising several questions to which the public is entitled to know the answers.  I hope these answers are forthcoming once this narrative is emailed to Moscow Police Chief Dan Weaver.  Perhaps the Chief Weaver should seriously consider investing in a little Terry Stop training for all his personnel.  The cost of such training is much less than the cost of defending a 1983 action.

 

If the combined efforts of the headquarters staff of Christ Church and the Moscow Police Department are meant to intimidate people from photographing or videotaping the buildings associated with Christ Church, their crude efforts most likely will not succeed.  It is not unlikely that in the coming months many photographs/videotapes of the Christ Church buildings and of adult Christ Church Cult figures of interest will be both openly and surreptitiously taken.  It is not unlikely that private citizens be taking photographs/videotapes.  It is not unlikely that media outlets, private investigators, and possibly law enforcement agencies will be exercising their professional rights and pursuits by taking photographs/videotapes.  For one, I will be taking such photographs/videotapes.  These photographs/videotapes taken by many different persons will have a variety of purposes.  Some photographs/videotapes will certainly appear in various widespread media, including the internet.  Some may eventually appear in more formal venues.

 

It is also not unlikely that if other photographers/videotapers are treated by Christ Church personnel and the Moscow Police Department as I was, expensive and embarrassing litigation will be spawned and adverse publicity for the City of Moscow will be generated.

 

In the current issue of Intelligence Report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, there is an article by Mark Potok entitled "Taliban on the Palouse?"  http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=376&printable=1

The article, among other things, discusses Christ Church and its attempt to take over Moscow.  The above described incident and others relating to the non-prosecution of certain crimes associated with Christ Church entities and attendant persons could suggest that this attempted takeover by Christ Church is being knowingly and perhaps enthusiastically abetted by the Moscow Police Department.
Suggestions for Avoiding Litigation in this Case

 

I am a strong believer in the Rule of Law as opposed to the Rule of Man.  I have been successful raising issues in and being affirmed by the Idaho courts in such matters.  I intend to persuade the City of Moscow to abide by the Rule of Law.  I have not decided at this point what legal action to take with regard to the Moscow Police Department, if any.  It is not my intention at this early stage to bring an action merely to enrich myself.  I am interested in ensuring that steps are taken to prevent future occurrences of the kind of civil rights violations described above.

 

However, it is my belief that incident described above and others similar to it indicate an acute problem.  This problem presents a serious threat to the quality of life on the Palouse, and it presents a threat of needless harm and unpleasantness to many law abiding citizens.  Civil rights violations by police can become epidemic, both in number and degree of seriousness, if not held in check by a vigilant police command structure and/or private citizens.  Hence, if no other satisfactory solution can be found to illegal police conduct, then litigation must be considered as an option.  The matter of the police giving inappropriate assistance to persons and organizations is also an issue that needs to be investigated, discussed, and prevented.

 

Below is an offer to Police Chief Weaver and other city officials to settle this matter on behalf of the city (but not Christ Church) in a constructive manner, hopefully beneficial to all.  This proposal does not call for, but does not preclude, any admission of wrongdoing, any apologies, and/or any disciplinary action.

 

An immediate condition of this offer is as follows:

 

If, at any time during the period between now and when the offer expires or when it is either accepted or rejected, any harassment of or illegal conduct, by any member of the Moscow Police Department or its authorized agents, is directed toward either my wife or myself, such conduct will immediately terminate this offer.  For the purposes of this condition, I will be the sole determiner of whether this condition has been violated.

 

Note to any attorneys who might get involved in this matter:  The above offer of settlement represents the minimum conditions acceptable to me.  Please do not waste my time by attempting to negotiate any substantial changes.



Offer of Settlement

 

I unequivocally agree not to bring any legal action against the City of Moscow or any of its personnel within the purview of the single, isolated incident described in the above narrative if Moscow Police Chief Dan Weaver provides me with written assurances within 18 (eighteen) calendar days of the dispatch of this narrative that:

 

[1]   All Moscow Police Department officers who have any responsibility to investigate or respond to any criminal matters will receive within the next 45 (forty-five) days cogent, up-to-date refresher training in police procedure, especially on the basic principles found in United States Supreme Court Fourth and Fifth Amendment criminal procedure cases such as Terry and its progeny.  This training shall be provided by a qualified, competent person or persons not currently employed by the City of Moscow.

 

[2]   Written policies and procedures are set up to monitor and to attempt to insure that all Moscow Police personnel and their authorized agents abide at all times by the material to be presented in [1] above and within the law in general.  This monitoring system shall be designed so that the entire departmental command structure including the police chief are made aware of all alleged infractions of this policy in a timely manner.  These policies and procedures shall contain appropriate disciplinary measures for violations.

 

[3]   Written policies and procedures for dispatching are reviewed and revised so as to attempt to reduce and/or to prevent the dispatching of and the use of police resources for investigative matters that are for private, non-criminal, non-police responsibility matters.

 

[4]   Written policies and procedures are set up to reduce and/or to prevent the use of any and all police resources for investigative matters that are for private, non-criminal, non-police responsibility purposes.  All police personnel shall conscientiously act to insure that private citizens satisfy their private curiosities and concerns about non-criminal, non-police responsibility matters by expending their own energy and resources and not that of the police department.  These policies and procedures shall contain appropriate disciplinary measures for violations.

 

[5]   That neither my wife, Linda Kirk Fox, nor myself be subjected to any further harassment of any kind by any member of the Moscow Police Department or by any of their authorized agents.

 

[6]   That in any interactions or transactions with either my wife or myself, all members of the Moscow Police Department or their authorized agents will conduct themselves honestly and adhere scrupulously to the law as found in applicable regulations, ordinances, statutes, and court case law.

 

If all of the above conditions are met then I have no further interest in pursuing this matter through litigation with either the City of Moscow or any of its personnel.  However, if any of the conditions above are not promised, or promised but not met, then I reserve the right to pursue any and all remedies including litigation seeking substantial monetary damages.

 

If this offer is not accepted and/or the written assurances described herein are not made within 18 (eighteen) calendar days of the dispatch by email of this narrative to Chief Weaver, then the offer is withdrawn.

 

 



References

 

1.    Original Terry Stop Case:  Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1967)

 

"[I]n justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.This demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicated is the central teaching of this Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. And simple "'good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate."

 

 

2.    Further Terry Ruling: United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981)

 

''In determining what cause is sufficient to authorize police to stop a person, the totality of the circumstances - the whole picture - must be taken into account.  Based upon that whole picture the detaining [449 U.S. 411, 412]   officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.  The process of assessing all of the circumstances does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities, and the evidence collected must be weighed as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement.  Also, the process must raise a suspicion that the particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing."

 

 

3.               Legal Handbook for Photographers, Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at Law (Amherst Media, 2002)

 

The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs.  Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs.  Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.  Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations.

 

There are some exceptions to the general rule.  A significant one is that commanders of military installations can prohibit photographs of specific areas when they deem it necessary to protect national security.  The U.S. Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated nuclear facilities although the publicly visible areas of nuclear facilities are usually not designated as such...

 

The government can restrict photography only if an overriding government interest can be shown.

 

Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places.  Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.

 

Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:  accident and fire scenes, children, celebrities, bridges and other infrastructure, residential and commercial buildings, industrial facilities and public utilities, transportation facilities (e.g., airports), Superfund sites, criminal activities, law enforcement officers.

 

Taking a photograph is not a terrorist act nor can a business legitimately assert that taking a photograph of a subject in public view infringes on its trade secrets.

 

On occasion, law enforcement officers may object to photography but most understand that people have the right to take photographs and do not interfere with photographers.  They do have the right to keep you away from areas where you may impede their activities or endanger safety.  However, they do not have the legal right to prohibit you from taking photographs from other locations.

 

They have limited rights to bother, question, or detain You.

 

Although anyone has the right to approach a person in a public place and ask questions, persistent and unwanted conduct done without a legitimate purpose is a crime in many states if it causes serious annoyance.  You are under no obligation to answer such questions in any state and do not have to disclose your identity or the purpose of your photography.  If the conduct goes beyond mere questioning, all states have laws that make coercion and harassment criminal offenses.

 

Sometimes agents acting for entities such as owners of industrial plants and shopping malls may ask you to hand over your film.  Absent a court order, private parties have no right to confiscate your film.  Taking your film directly or indirectly by threatening to use force or call a law enforcement agency can constitute criminal offenses such as theft and coercion.  It can likewise constitute a civil tort such as conversion.  Law enforcement officers may have the authority to seize film when making an arrest but otherwise must obtain a court order.

 

If someone has threatened, intimidated, or detained you because you were taking photographs, they may be liable for crimes such as kidnapping, coercion, and theft.  In such cases, you should report them to the police.  You may also have civil remedies against such persons and their employers.  The torts for which you may be entitled to compensation include assault, conversion, false imprisonment, and violation of your constitutional rights.

 

 

4.               Impropriety of using police resources pursuing private matters:

Idaho Code 59-702, Ethics in Government

 

 

59-702.  POLICY AND PURPOSE.  It is hereby declared that the position of a public official at all levels of government is a public trust and it is in the public interest to:

 

(1)   Protect the integrity of government throughout the state of Idaho while at the same time facilitating recruitment and retention of personnel needed within government;

 

(2)   Assure independence, impartiality and honesty of public officials in governmental functions;

 

(3)   Inform citizens of the existence of personal interests which may present a conflict of interest between an official's public trust and private concerns;

 

(4)   Prevent public office from being used for personal gain contrary to the public interest;

 

(5)   Prevent special interests from unduly influencing governmental action; and

 

(6)   Assure that governmental functions and policies reflect, to the maximum extent possible, the public interest.

 

 

5.               Impropriety of using police resources pursuing private matters:

Idaho Code 18-2402, Theft [Emphasis added.]

 

18-2402.  DEFINITIONS.  The following definitions are applicable to this chapter:

 

(1)   "Appropriate."  To "appropriate" property of another to oneself or a third person means:

 

(a)   To exercise control over it, or to aid a third person to exercise control over it, permanently or for so extended a period or under such circumstances as to acquire the major portion of its economic value or benefit; or

 

(b)   To dispose of the property for the benefit of oneself or a third person.

 

(2)   "Deception" means knowingly to:

 

(a)   Create or confirm another's impression which is false and which the offender does not believe to be true; or

 

(b)   Fail to correct a false impression which the offender previously has created or confirmed; or

 

(c)   Prevent another from acquiring information pertinent to the disposition of the property involved; or

 

(d)   Sell or otherwise transfer or encumber property, failing to disclose a lien, adverse claim, or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of the property whether such impediment is or is not valid, or is or is not a matter of official record; or 

 

(e)   Promise performance which the offender does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed. Failure to perform, standing alone, is not evidence that the offender did not intend to perform.

 

(3)   "Deprive." To "deprive" another of property means:

 

(a)   To withhold it or cause it to be withheld from him permanently or for so extended a period or under such circumstances that the major portion of its economic value or benefit is lost to him; or

 

(b)  To dispose of the property in such manner or under such circumstances as to render it unlikely that an owner will recover such property.

 

(4)   "Obtain" means:

 

(a)   In relation to property, to bring about a transfer of interest or possession, whether to the offender or to another; and

 

(b)   In relation to labor or services, to secure the performance thereof.

 

(5)   "Obtains or exerts control" over property, includes, but is not limited to, the taking, carrying away, or the sale, conveyance, or transfer of title to, or interest in, or possession of property.

 

(6)   "Owner." When property is taken, obtained or withheld by one (1) person from another person, an owner thereof means any person who has a right to possession thereof superior to that of the taker, obtainer or withholder.

 

(7)   "Person" means an individual, corporation, association, public or private corporation, city or other municipality, county, state agency or the state of Idaho.

 

(8)   "Property" means anything of value.  Property includes real estate, money, commercial instruments, admission or transportation tickets, written instruments representing or embodying rights concerning anything of value, labor or services, or otherwise of value to the owner; things growing on, affixed to, or found on land, or part of or affixed to any building; electricity, gas, steam, and water; birds, animals and fish, which ordinarily are kept in a state of confinement; food and drink; samples, cultures, microorganisms, specimens, records, recordings, documents, blueprints, drawings, maps, and whole or partial copies, descriptions, photographs, prototypes or models thereof, or any other articles, materials, devices, substances and whole or partial copies, descriptions, photographs, prototypes or models thereof which constitute, represent, evidence, reflect or record a secret scientific, technical, merchandising, production or management information, design, process, procedure, formula, invention, or improvement.

 

(9)   "Service" includes, but is not limited to, labor, professional service, transportation service, the supplying of hotel accommodations, restaurant services, entertainment, (a communication system) the supplying of equipment for use, and the supplying of commodities of a public utility nature such as gas, electricity, steam and water. A ticket or equivalent instrument which evidences a right to receive a service is not in itself service but constitutes property within the meaning of subsection (8) of this section.

 

(10) "Stolen property" means property over which control has been obtained by theft.

 

 

6.    Damages allowed by federal civil rights statute:

Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I, Section 1983.

 

Section. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights. 

 

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

 

 

 

7.               Fourth and Fifth Amendments, United States Constitution

       [Emphasis Added.]

 

Fourth Amendment:  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Fifth Amendment:  No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

 

This document was finalized, proofread, and emailed on Sunday, May 16, 2004.

 

 



Wayne A. Fox

1009 Karen Lane

P.O. Box 9421

Moscow, ID  83843

 

(208) 882-7975

waf at moscow.com

 


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kai Eiselein 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] UI security


  My guess is that Allied - Barton will be engaging in vital security missions such as preventing people with cameras from lawfully photographing the publicly funded buildings and grounds of the university.
   
  Their reasoning will be, "We are in the post 9-11 era."
   

   
  > From: vision2020-request at moscow.com
  > Subject: Vision2020 Digest, Vol 50, Issue 92
  > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
  > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:20:03 -0700
  > 
  > Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to
  > vision2020 at moscow.com
  > 
  > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
  > http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020
  > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
  > vision2020-request at moscow.com
  > 
  > You can reach the person managing the list at
  > vision2020-owner at moscow.com
  > 
  > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
  > than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."
  > 
  > 
  > Today's Topics:
  > 
  > 1. Idaho, US HIghway 12, and Temporary Restrainig Orders
  > (Moscow Cares)
  > 2. Re: Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens whofund it
  > is appalling (lfalen)
  > 3. Re: Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens whofund it
  > is appalling (lfalen)
  > 4. Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens who fund it is
  > appalling (Garrett Clevenger)
  > 5. Re: Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizenswho fund it
  > is appalling (Warren Hayman)
  > 
  > 
  > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  > 
  > Message: 1
  > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
  > From: "Moscow Cares" <MoscowCares at moscow.com>
  > Subject: [Vision2020] Idaho, US HIghway 12, and Temporary Restrainig
  > Orders
  > To: "Moscow Vision 2020" <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
  > Cc: chicory at wildblue.net, Kathy Judson <ponysnpups at gmail.com>
  > Message-ID: <9c4ee092e6c76db920aba0971ce62c90.squirrel at secure.fsr.com>
  > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
  > 
  > Greetings Visionaires -
  > 
  > The "Idaho Transportation Department, Exxon-Mobil, and Highway 12" portion
  > of the "Moscow Cares" website has been updated with:
  > 
  > -----------------------------------------------------
  > 
  > Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or/ Temporary Injunction filed
  > in Idaho County by Linwood Laughy, Karfen Hendrickson, and Peter Grubb on
  > August 16, 2010
  > 
  > http://www.MoscowCares.com/Highway12/TRO_Motion_LauHen_081610.htm
  > 
  > -----------------------------------------------------
  > 
  > Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
  > 
  > "Moscow Cares"
  > http://www.MoscowCares.com
  > 
  > Tom Hansen
  > Moscow, Idaho
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ------------------------------
  > 
  > Message: 2
  > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:56:11 -0700
  > From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
  > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for
  > citizens whofund it is appalling
  > To: "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com>, "Vision 2020"
  > <vision2020 at moscow.com>
  > Cc: lrozen at dnews.com
  > Message-ID: <e6dc73a1639ee2dd684ebc629d4baf70 at turbonet.com>
  > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
  > 
  > The SBOE is not doing any better of a job now than they did under Hoover. What good is a board that rubber stamps anything that the administration wants?
  > Roger
  > -----Original message-----
  > From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
  > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:17:52 -0700
  > To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
  > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens whofund it is appalling
  > 
  > > I agree that the whole process that evolved here was/is inappropriate for a public institution for which transparency, fiscal responsibility, and accountability is more than just a reasonable expectation. 
  > > 
  > > The process was wrong and it has led to an decision that is clearly wrong for a number of reasons.
  > > 
  > > However, Mues is not the only culprit.
  > > 
  > > Based on materials and other information made available to me, I agree that Mues is severely under qualified for the position which he now occupies. Not only that but it appears that his original hire was prompted more by some external pressures than by his qualifications, meager as they are; it seems that elevating him to and establishing him in his present position was former UI President White's way of giving a final finger to the UI on his way out.
  > > 
  > > However, the total fault doesn't not rest alone with Mues.
  > > 
  > > Where is present UI's president's oversight? Did he not understand the financial, community relations/economy, and efficacy of the results of this decision? How could this proposal even get to the SBOE in the first place?
  > > 
  > > And to the SBOE: If you do not want to take the time and effort to scrutinize decisions very carefully, the get the hell off the board and let some more conscientious take your place.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Wayne A. Fox
  > > 1009 Karen Lane
  > > PO Box 9421
  > > Moscow, ID 83843
  > > 
  > > waf at moscow.com
  > > 208 882-7975
  > > 
  > > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > > From: Saundra Lund 
  > > To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  > > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:52 AM
  > > Subject: [Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens whofund it is appalling
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Many thanks to the friend who sent this to me!
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > I think this editorial hits the nail squarely on the head: Mues is not only utterly unqualified for his position at the UI, he is also fundamentally unsuited to work for a public institution where public accountability & transparency are crucial. This is just the most recent in a string of sneaky decisions that track back to him where those outside of the administration are kept in the dark before -- after decisions -- are made. I can just see Mues sitting behind his desk at the UI rubbing his hands together in glee at the coup of keeping the whole AlliedBarton issue secret until it was too late for anyone to have any effective input.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > I agree with the editorial that while this kind of crapola is suitable at a private college, it is wholly inappropriate at a public institution where even UI's top administrators are accountable to those who pay their salaries, and that would be we-the-taxpayers.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Further, there's something grossly obscene about the UI's decision to pay a private security contractor nearly $400K during these tough financial times where student fees were just jacked up 9.5%, programs have been cut into the bone, severe understaffing of all but the top level of administration is rampant, and all faculty & staff but those making less than a living wage in Idaho - a paltry $22,360 - were forced to take a very real pay cut in the form of mandatory furloughs.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Saundra Lund
  > > 
  > > Moscow, ID
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > The least I can do is speak out for those who cannot speak out for themselves.
  > > 
  > > ~ Jane Goodall
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > -----------------------------------
  > > 
  > > OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens who fund it is appalling
  > > 
  > > Posted on: Monday, August 16, 2010
  > > 
  > > We apparently are too stupid to consider properly how the University of Idaho plans to spend our money. 
  > > 
  > > The university is trying to upgrade its security services, and it turns out that is going to cost a lot more money, some $300,000 more, than it took last year when it was all handled by the Moscow Police Department. 
  > > 
  > > What is the necessity for that upgrade? What dire risks are facing our local institution of higher learning to require this substantial increase in spending of public tax dollars. It must be pretty important, considering the budget-cutting going on throughout government, including our colleges and universities.
  > > 
  > > When Daily News reporter Holly Bowen asked that question Tuesday, before the increase had been approved, she was told the UI was "not making anyone available." There would be no comment on this big increase in state spending until after Thursday's meeting of the Idaho State Board of Education where the proposal was to be considered, approved and funded. 
  > > 
  > > After that meeting - where the proposal was indeed approved - Lloyd Mues, UI vice president for finance and administration, explained pompously and vacuously, "The absolute best thing we can do in a process like this, as with any of them, is all of that negotiation and all of that communication is pretty private." 
  > > 
  > > Gee, Mr. Mues, we thought the UI was pretty public, actually. There are many pretty private colleges around here, but not the UI.
  > > 
  > > But what about those serious security threats we have to pay $300,000 a year to stop? 
  > > 
  > > Mues again: "Every now and then, someone will decide they want to drive across the Administration Building lawn in a four-wheel drive." He apparently was perfectly serious.
  > > 
  > > So, will a heavily armed vehicular deterrence team be roaming campus?
  > > 
  > > No, it turns out this expenditure will pay for one to three unarmed security guards to roam campus on foot around the clock. 
  > > 
  > > It's no wonder the university didn't want the press or taxpayers asking serious questions about this proposal before it was approved. 
  > > 
  > > - Lee Rozen, for the editorial board
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  > > 
  > > 
  > > =======================================================
  > > List services made available by First Step Internet, 
  > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
  > > http://www.fsr.net 
  > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  > > =======================================================
  > > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ------------------------------
  > 
  > Message: 3
  > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:14:07 -0700
  > From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
  > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for
  > citizens whofund it is appalling
  > To: "Saundra Lund" <v2020 at ssl.fastmail.fm>, "'Art Deco'"
  > <deco at moscow.com>, "'Vision 2020'" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
  > Cc: lrozen at dnews.com
  > Message-ID: <283dff534f949480521b5b27ad786a64 at turbonet.com>
  > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
  > 
  > The UI is being illegal in not taking minutes and making them available to the public. The UI regularly refuses to supply information under the FOI law. They till you to take it to the District Court, knowing that most people do not have the money to do that. This is why I have tried(with no success) to get enforcement moved to the attorney General.
  > Roger
  > -----Original message-----
  > From: "Saundra Lund" v2020 at ssl.fastmail.fm
  > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:53:51 -0700
  > To: "'Art Deco'" deco at moscow.com, "'Vision 2020'" vision2020 at moscow.com
  > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens whofund it is appalling
  > 
  > > Hi Wayne,
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > I agree that Mues isn't the only culprit, but I'm more familiar with his
  > > mindset than I am with that of others since I've actually spoken to Mues in
  > > person. I provided him with information straight from the UI about the
  > > steep decrease in UI payments for retiree health costs. His response was
  > > that the info we'd received "had" to be wrong and that he'd check into it
  > > and provide us with the "correct" information. Almost a year later, I'm
  > > still waiting. The only conclusion I can draw from that is the data
  > > received directly from the UI was, in fact, accurate, and the UI's claim
  > > about retiree health care costs being responsible for the shockingly
  > > escalating employee premiums (particularly for employees with families) for
  > > reduced coverage was a load of crapola.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > During the same meeting, Mues also informed me that he was responsible for
  > > telling the BAG (Benefits Advisory Group) not to take meeting minutes - he
  > > stated minutes had been kept prior to his tenure. This was during the same
  > > time the UI was trying to extort $100 from me (at $25/hour) to "locate" what
  > > were non-existent records and another $50 (1000 pages at $0.05 per page) to
  > > copy those same non-existent records.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > I will add, however, that Rose Huskey & I attempted to bring our concerns to
  > > Dr. Nellis' attention shortly after he arrived. Clearly, he was
  > > uninterested in Mues' history of thwarting transparency and accountability
  > > then, and he is apparently uninterested now.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Inquiring minds want to know why over the past few years the UI has
  > > accumulated quite the record of contracting with non-local right wing whack
  > > jobs that always wind up soaking the UI, UI employees, and the taxpayers for
  > > far more than expected rather than with local entities (i.e., MPD) and
  > > companies (i.e., Regence BSI) where there might be some genuine
  > > accountability and interest in providing quality service for a fair cost.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Saundra Lund
  > > 
  > > Moscow, ID
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
  > > nothing.
  > > 
  > > ~ Edmund Burke
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2010 through life plus
  > > 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
  > > the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
  > > author.*****
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
  > > On Behalf Of Art Deco
  > > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 10:18 AM
  > > To: Vision 2020
  > > Cc: lrozen at dnews.com
  > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens
  > > whofund it is appalling
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > I agree that the whole process that evolved here was/is inappropriate for a
  > > public institution for which transparency, fiscal responsibility, and
  > > accountability is more than just a reasonable expectation. 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > The process was wrong and it has led to an decision that is clearly wrong
  > > for a number of reasons.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > However, Mues is not the only culprit.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Based on materials and other information made available to me, I agree that
  > > Mues is severely under qualified for the position which he now occupies.
  > > Not only that but it appears that his original hire was prompted more by
  > > some external pressures than by his qualifications, meager as they are; it
  > > seems that elevating him to and establishing him in his present position was
  > > former UI President White's way of giving a final finger to the UI on his
  > > way out.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > However, the total fault doesn't not rest alone with Mues.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Where is present UI's president's oversight? Did he not understand the
  > > financial, community relations/economy, and efficacy of the results of this
  > > decision? How could this proposal even get to the SBOE in the first place?
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > And to the SBOE: If you do not want to take the time and effort to
  > > scrutinize decisions very carefully, the get the hell off the board and let
  > > some more conscientious take your place.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Wayne A. Fox
  > > 1009 Karen Lane
  > > PO Box 9421
  > > Moscow, ID 83843
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > waf at moscow.com
  > > 208 882-7975
  > > 
  > > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > > 
  > > From: Saundra Lund <mailto:v2020 at ssl.fastmail.fm> 
  > > 
  > > To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  > > 
  > > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:52 AM
  > > 
  > > Subject: [Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens whofund
  > > it is appalling
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Many thanks to the friend who sent this to me!
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > I think this editorial hits the nail squarely on the head: Mues is not only
  > > utterly unqualified for his position at the UI, he is also fundamentally
  > > unsuited to work for a public institution where public accountability &
  > > transparency are crucial. This is just the most recent in a string of
  > > sneaky decisions that track back to him where those outside of the
  > > administration are kept in the dark before -- after decisions -- are made.
  > > I can just see Mues sitting behind his desk at the UI rubbing his hands
  > > together in glee at the coup of keeping the whole AlliedBarton issue secret
  > > until it was too late for anyone to have any effective input.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > I agree with the editorial that while this kind of crapola is suitable at a
  > > private college, it is wholly inappropriate at a public institution where
  > > even UI's top administrators are accountable to those who pay their
  > > salaries, and that would be we-the-taxpayers.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Further, there's something grossly obscene about the UI's decision to pay a
  > > private security contractor nearly $400K during these tough financial times
  > > where student fees were just jacked up 9.5%, programs have been cut into the
  > > bone, severe understaffing of all but the top level of administration is
  > > rampant, and all faculty & staff but those making less than a living wage in
  > > Idaho - a paltry $22,360 - were forced to take a very real pay cut in the
  > > form of mandatory furloughs.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Saundra Lund
  > > 
  > > Moscow, ID
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > The least I can do is speak out for those who cannot speak out for
  > > themselves.
  > > 
  > > ~ Jane Goodall
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > -----------------------------------
  > > 
  > > OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens who fund it is appalling
  > > 
  > > Posted on: Monday, August 16, 2010
  > > 
  > > We apparently are too stupid to consider properly how the University of
  > > Idaho plans to spend our money. 
  > > 
  > > The university is trying to upgrade its security services, and it turns out
  > > that is going to cost a lot more money, some $300,000 more, than it took
  > > last year when it was all handled by the Moscow Police Department. 
  > > 
  > > What is the necessity for that upgrade? What dire risks are facing our local
  > > institution of higher learning to require this substantial increase in
  > > spending of public tax dollars. It must be pretty important, considering the
  > > budget-cutting going on throughout government, including our colleges and
  > > universities.
  > > 
  > > When Daily News reporter Holly Bowen asked that question Tuesday, before the
  > > increase had been approved, she was told the UI was "not making anyone
  > > available." There would be no comment on this big increase in state spending
  > > until after Thursday's meeting of the Idaho State Board of Education where
  > > the proposal was to be considered, approved and funded. 
  > > 
  > > After that meeting - where the proposal was indeed approved - Lloyd Mues, UI
  > > vice president for finance and administration, explained pompously and
  > > vacuously, "The absolute best thing we can do in a process like this, as
  > > with any of them, is all of that negotiation and all of that communication
  > > is pretty private." 
  > > 
  > > Gee, Mr. Mues, we thought the UI was pretty public, actually. There are many
  > > pretty private colleges around here, but not the UI.
  > > 
  > > But what about those serious security threats we have to pay $300,000 a year
  > > to stop? 
  > > 
  > > Mues again: "Every now and then, someone will decide they want to drive
  > > across the Administration Building lawn in a four-wheel drive." He
  > > apparently was perfectly serious.
  > > 
  > > So, will a heavily armed vehicular deterrence team be roaming campus?
  > > 
  > > No, it turns out this expenditure will pay for one to three unarmed security
  > > guards to roam campus on foot around the clock. 
  > > 
  > > It's no wonder the university didn't want the press or taxpayers asking
  > > serious questions about this proposal before it was approved. 
  > > 
  > > - Lee Rozen, for the editorial board
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > _____ 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > =======================================================
  > > List services made available by First Step Internet, 
  > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
  > > http://www.fsr.net 
  > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  > > =======================================================
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ------------------------------
  > 
  > Message: 4
  > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:00:34 -0500 (CDT)
  > From: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
  > Subject: [Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizens
  > who fund it is appalling
  > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
  > Message-ID: <681757619.205960.1282014034952.JavaMail.root at vznit170066>
  > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
  > 
  > Saundra writes:
  > 
  > "Mues is not only utterly unqualified for his position at the UI, he is also fundamentally unsuited to work for a public institution where public accountability & transparency are crucial"
  > 
  > 
  > It's particularly frustrating considering the UI knew there was community interest in the outcome of the security decision. It seems they didn't want any input folks may have provided if we knew the potential for this decision.
  > 
  > Sounds like the city council's Hawkins deal!
  > 
  > btw, Mues is also the guy who gutted Wheatland Express's bus service, and why there is no summer bus anymore. I guess rent-a-cops are more important than public transit...
  > 
  > 
  > gclev
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ------------------------------
  > 
  > Message: 5
  > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:20:09 -0700
  > From: "Warren Hayman" <whayman at roadrunner.com>
  > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for
  > citizenswho fund it is appalling
  > To: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>,
  > <vision2020 at moscow.com>
  > Message-ID: <FF4A3E1DF1394D2CAD748C25767EFB05 at Homeboy>
  > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
  > reply-type=original
  > 
  > A question: who was behind the RV life on wheels (or whatever-- can't 
  > remember the name exactly) in the shift down to LCSC?
  > 
  > Warren Hayman
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
  > To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
  > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:00 PM
  > Subject: [Vision2020] Daily News OUR VIEW: UI's disdain for citizenswho fund 
  > it is appalling
  > 
  > 
  > > Saundra writes:
  > >
  > > "Mues is not only utterly unqualified for his position at the UI, he is 
  > > also fundamentally unsuited to work for a public institution where public 
  > > accountability & transparency are crucial"
  > >
  > >
  > > It's particularly frustrating considering the UI knew there was community 
  > > interest in the outcome of the security decision. It seems they didn't 
  > > want any input folks may have provided if we knew the potential for this 
  > > decision.
  > >
  > > Sounds like the city council's Hawkins deal!
  > >
  > > btw, Mues is also the guy who gutted Wheatland Express's bus service, and 
  > > why there is no summer bus anymore. I guess rent-a-cops are more 
  > > important than public transit...
  > >
  > >
  > > gclev
  > >
  > > =======================================================
  > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
  > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
  > > http://www.fsr.net
  > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  > > =======================================================
  > > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ------------------------------
  > 
  > =======================================================
  > List services made available by First Step Internet, 
  > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
  > http://www.fsr.net 
  > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  > =======================================================
  > 
  > End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 50, Issue 92
  > ******************************************



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  =======================================================
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100817/4cb3ebe5/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2887 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100817/4cb3ebe5/attachment-0001.jpe