- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/49154936
In December, McDonald said critics of the conditions in his jail are “lying.” In his statement, he rejected the allegations of mistreatment.
“I am proud of the humane care and custody we provide in the Plymouth County Correctional Facility,” he said. “We are …routinely audited by federal and state agencies, and routinely exceed all applicable standards.”
We shouldn’t have to take his word on that, though. Which is why the ACLU of Massachusetts asked for a bunch of records that would show what kind of medical care detainees are getting in Plymouth, how much it costs, and whether any immigrants have been sick enough to be sent to outside medical facilities.
The sheriff refused to hand over the bulk of them, because some contain detainees’ identifying information – even though the ACLU specifically asked that all records be anonymized. When the ACLU sued for the records in February, the sheriff’s response included an argument that could have enormous implications if it is allowed to stand.
It uses an expansive principle called “field preemption,” which holds that state law simply does not apply in a field such as immigration enforcement, which is wholly governed by federal laws. In other words, because of the sheriff’s contract with a federal agency, the state public records law does not apply.
“The argument seems to be that the state is not allowed to have a public records law that requires any transparency that relates to Plymouth’s immigration detention operation,” said Dan McFadden, managing attorney at the ACLU. “That means it would be entirely shielded from public scrutiny, which would be highly concerning.”
It sure would. It cannot be that signing a contract with a federal agency puts a county official beyond the reach of the state public records law, and effectively beyond review by the voters and taxpayers who put him in office and largely fund his operation.
McDonald argues that federal law, and a couple of decisions by the Commonwealth’s Supervisor of Records in other counties, tie his hands here.
The two sides argued their positions at Suffolk Superior Court on Tuesday, and the sheriff’s spokesperson said McDonald is looking forward to direction from the judge.
McFadden, of the ACLU, said a ruling in the sheriff’s favor would undermine government transparency in this state “for the purpose of assisting ICE to maintain secrecy in its detention operations.”
None of us should want any part of that appalling project.
You must log in or # to comment.
The position of Sheriff in MA is such a joke. Holdover from the days of county governments that no longer exist anymore. They’re glorified superintendents cosplaying as law enforcement. Their employees are paid by the state, earn state retirement, their budgets are line items. It’s time we fucking get rid of the office of sheriff altogether.
Abolish the police
In December, McDonald said critics of the conditions in his jail are “lying.” In his statement, he rejected the allegations of mistreatment.
“I am proud of the humane care and custody we provide in the Plymouth County Correctional Facility,” he said. “We are …routinely audited by federal and state agencies, and routinely exceed all applicable standards.”
We shouldn’t have to take his word on that, though. Which is why the ACLU of Massachusetts asked for a bunch of records that would show what kind of medical care detainees are getting in Plymouth, how much it costs, and whether any immigrants have been sick enough to be sent to outside medical facilities.
The sheriff refused to hand over the bulk of them, because some contain detainees’ identifying information – even though the ACLU specifically asked that all records be anonymized. When the ACLU sued for the records in February, the sheriff’s response included an argument that could have enormous implications if it is allowed to stand.
It uses an expansive principle called “field preemption,” which holds that state law simply does not apply in a field such as immigration enforcement, which is wholly governed by federal laws. In other words, because of the sheriff’s contract with a federal agency, the state public records law does not apply.
“The argument seems to be that the state is not allowed to have a public records law that requires any transparency that relates to Plymouth’s immigration detention operation,” said Dan McFadden, managing attorney at the ACLU. “That means it would be entirely shielded from public scrutiny, which would be highly concerning.”
It sure would. It cannot be that signing a contract with a federal agency puts a county official beyond the reach of the state public records law, and effectively beyond review by the voters and taxpayers who put him in office and largely fund his operation.
McDonald argues that federal law, and a couple of decisions by the Commonwealth’s Supervisor of Records in other counties, tie his hands here.
The two sides argued their positions at Suffolk Superior Court on Tuesday, and the sheriff’s spokesperson said McDonald is looking forward to direction from the judge.
McFadden, of the ACLU, said a ruling in the sheriff’s favor would undermine government transparency in this state “for the purpose of assisting ICE to maintain secrecy in its detention operations.”
None of us should want any part of that appalling project.
A civil contract does not override any law.
No the fuck it does not.
Conflict of interest is always a fun day in court.
One might think the state has reason to remove that Sheriff from the job, arrest him for breaking state law, throw him in a dark hole along with some of the people he’d previously arrested, and let nature run its course.
Of course, that’s the sort of thing conservatives do. So liberals will stick with the moral high ground, write him a sternly worried letter, and then tell his constituents to Vote Harder if they don’t want the sheriff’s department to black bag them in the middle of the night.
All Cops Are Nazis
