By Carlos Miller
An Indiana city attorney gets so drunk one night that he passes out inside his neighbor’s garbage can. Neighbors wake up to find the man with his feet sticking out the overturned garbage can. They call police, perhaps thinking he was dead.
Police arrive on the scene and help him home, which was next door, rather than take him to jail as they could have because he is not only publicly drunk, he is passed out in the street, as you can see in the photo.
However, one of the officers snaps a photo while he slept in the garbage can and distributes it to the media.
Now there is an investigation to determine which officer took that photo of Jeffersonville City Attorney Larry Wilder.
In fact, Jeffersonville Mayor Tom Galligan has gone as far as to offer a public apology to Wilder.
If anybody should be apologizing, it should be Wilder for creating a drunken spectacle of himself.
This is a man who supposedly represents the City of Jeffersonville, so he is a pubic figure. And as a lawyer, he should know that he didn’t exactly have an expectation of privacy by sticking his head in his neighbor’s overturned garbage can on a public street.
In a press conference, Mayor Galligan said the following:
“We are going to take appropriate action to ensure that no police officer will be comfortable abusing their authority again,” Galligan said.
The mayor went as far as to call the officers “renegade”, which prompted the local police union to accuse the mayor of “inappropriate” language.
Now the union is going to hold a press conference Wednesday morning to address the issue. The mayor was not available for comment Tuesday afternoon.
The county attorney, meanwhile, is probably sitting in a bar as the drama unfolds.
While some people might think it was unprofessional for police to distribute the photo to the media – an action they deny – imagine the allegations of police coverup if they would have remained tight-lipped about the incident.
I find it ironic that as many abuses as we’ve seen committed by police on an almost daily basis, it takes a cop to take a a simple photograph for the mayor of a city to complain about them “abusing their authority”.
So I’m siding with the officers on this one. After all, they also have the right to take photos.
And as a reporter, I’m all about them leaking it to the media if it involves a drunken public official passed out in a garbage can.
Popularity: 1% [?]
18 responses so far ↓
1 Difster // Jun 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM
I would side with the cops on this one too UNLESS such actions go against protocol in which case taking the pic was at least a breach of rules. In any case it was nothing more than a minor infraction. But it’s too bad a private citizen didn’t take a picture and distribute it.
2 Robert // Jun 23, 2009 at 9:26 PM
The only think could be even slightly sketchy, the officer that took the picture would have been working. It’s not truly appropriate, regardless of occupation to just whip out a camera and start taking funny pictures in the middle of your shift.
I’m not saying that it’s anything that most people would get in trouble for; but, probably not something you’d want to do in front of your supervisor.
3 Carlos Miller // Jun 23, 2009 at 9:31 PM
I see this as a newsworthy story.
Firefighters frequently take pictures of fires and rescues and hand them to the media and police also take pictures of suspects they arrest and give them to the media (not just mugshots).
So why should this be different? If it were any random drunk, then there wouldn’t be much news value but it was the county attorney.
Besides, as many times as we’ve seen cops beat and shoot and arrest people on false charges, I am willing to turn a blind eye towards this departmental violation, if in fact, it was one.
4 Burger Beast // Jun 23, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Great post.
5 Bran // Jun 23, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Failing to properly dump his butt in the drunk tank is a problem rather than the picture IMO.
6 10-8 // Jun 23, 2009 at 11:34 PM
The officers were called to the scene and escorted the drunken man home. They could have arrested him for public drunkenness but chose not to do so. The photographs were made for evidentiary purposes in the event a similar incident happens in the future. A habitual pattern of public intoxication is valid evidence for a public drunkenness prosecution. While a police officer took the photographs, there is no evidence any police officer released them to the media, contrary to the asshat mayor’s statement. FOP has issued a statement and will hold a press conference tomorrow about the matter:
http://www.newsandtribune.com/breakingnews/local_story_174170838.html
7 Carlos Miller // Jun 23, 2009 at 11:52 PM
10-8,
Just updated the article with the new information you presented.
I think it is obvious one of the cops leaked the photo to the media, even if the original intent was to use the photograph for evidence, which I completely understand.
It’s obvious the mayor is just trying to protect one of his cronies. If that were Joe Blow in the garbage can, the mayor wouldn’t have raised a peep.
8 Carlos Miller // Jun 23, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Furthermore, if they did in fact photograph him for evidence, then the photos should be considered public record.
So the mayor is essentially saying that public records should be kept private when it comes to drunken public officials.
This is one battle he is going to lose.
9 300baud // Jun 24, 2009 at 8:06 AM
Would it change anything if, hypothetically, it turned out that he wasn’t actually drunk at all but rather was having some sort of medical problem? Maybe it’s because I’ve just got up after too little sleep, but this seems a bit ominous, though I can’t quite put my finger on it. It could really streamline arrests if cops didn’t have to do a “perp walk” anymore and could just release their own embarrassing photos of suspects.
I don’t think it’s part of the public record unless it is actually used as evidence. Since no charges were laid, someone at the police has to be responsible for the photo getting out, even if they did not send it directly to the media.
10 Catinthewall // Jun 24, 2009 at 8:18 AM
If they photographed him for evidence, why did they just take him home?
11 NYCPhotorights // Jun 24, 2009 at 8:18 AM
@300baud
Replace the word “cop” with “anyone” and would there still be a difference? If I happened upon that scene, took the picture and sent it to the Daily News, would it be a problem? Public view = fair game.
12 NYCPhotorights // Jun 24, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Correction – I should have said “New York Post” they would lead with this on the front page
13 300baud // Jun 24, 2009 at 9:54 AM
I suppose it’s as you say.
On the other hand, the police have access to a lot of information the rest of us don’t. They’re in a unique position that allows them to create quite a collection of embarrassing photos. What might be even worse than leaking to the media would be keeping them in a safe. Though this may not be illegal, I don’t think it is good for anyone if the police start going down this path.
14 Michaelk42 // Jun 24, 2009 at 4:01 PM
I have a hard time believing that if he was anyone else, he wouldn’t have been hauled off for public intoxication.
The mayor needs to concentrate less on finding out who took the picture and more on making sure his city attorney doesn’t pull something like this again.
15 Freddy Hill // Jun 25, 2009 at 5:29 PM
First, Carlos, thanks for being such a First Ammendment advocate. As an amateur photographer that has been challenged on occasion, I have the same emotional reactions as you do. As somebody that has been helped by the police when it mattered, and that has always been treated courteously by them even when they were – in my opinion – wrong, I am happy that you are defending them.
But I think that you are wrong here. The first ammendment is for citizens and does not apply here. The speech of representatives of the government is not protected by the first ammendment when they are acting as agents of said government. I respect the military, the police, firefighters. But when on duty they are not free to say whatever they wish. I think this interpretation is wise because the temptation for abuse is too high.
Let me clarify: I’m not talking about whistle blowing here. Officers have a moral, if not legal, duty to publicize illegal behavior by their superiors, but this is not that. The guy in the garbage can is a citizen as far as an officer of the law is concerned. One might suspect extra-legal, political motivations for the distribution of this picture.
16 Carlos Miller // Jun 25, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Freddy Hill,
I understand what you are saying and you are not alone.
I’m seeing this through an eyes of a journalist and through the eyes of a citizen.
If a high-ranking city official is unable to handle his drinks and ends up passed out in a garbage can, then the public has the right to know about it.
We can also argue that there would be political motivations – or at least political protectionism – by not releasing the photo.
17 Freddy Hill // Jun 26, 2009 at 9:39 PM
“If a high-ranking city official is unable to handle his drinks and ends up passed out in a garbage can, then the public has the right to know about it.”
You are absolutely right about this. But it is not the cop on the beat that should make the decision about what citizens should know, and which records are to be relased (all records should be released, you will say, but as long as only a few are, then the cop is the wrong person to decide).
Cops should have a code of behavior and stick to it no matter if the guy in the trash can is a poor unemployed laborer, a famous citizen or Mr George Soros himself. And cops should also have a single code of behavior if the gal taking the pic with her iPhone is on welfare or is Miss Paris Hilton herself.
I have a somewhat related observation: I was recently in Beijing, China. There was a traffic accident. The police was doing what cops anywhere must do in these cases, but the interesting thing was that there were about 20-30 Chinese citizens with video cell phones recording the whole thing. The cops waved their hands at those that got closer to them, just like you would try to get rid of a pesky fly, but that was the extent of their reaction. I knew that they would have liked to beat the holy shit out of some of them, but there were too many (and they had cameras!). This is my suggestion to win the battle: let’s encourage americans to get out their phones and point them at cops ALL the time even for most trivial scenes. You see curious citizens milling around emergencies all the time; they should have their phones out so this becomes “normal.”
18 Michaelk42 // Jun 26, 2009 at 11:28 PM
@Freddy Hill
Yes, but not everyone is the same. We have the distinctions between Private Person/Vortex Public Figure/Public Figure for a reason.
Larry Wilder is a public figure by choice. He holds a public position of authority because he sought it out, and is therefore subject to more public scrutiny. His actions are more newsworthy than just some ransom private person.
So no, I don’t have a problem with a police department employee leaking this information to the press. It’s about a public figure that represents the people, and those people should know about things like this. That’s how it works here. It’s not perfect, but it mostly works. If not for anonymous sources within organizations, we’d know a lot less about things we need to know about. Sometimes a little more than we’d like to know gets out… but that’s the price we pay, I think.
Leave a Comment