(C) Wisconsin Watch

(C) Wisconsin Watch
This story was originally published by Wisconsin Watch and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .

Your Right to Know: Shine more light on open investigations [1]

['Kelly Lecker', 'Wisconsin Watch']

Date: 2024-04-01 17:20:13+00:00

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A horrific scene played out in February in an apartment complex in Middleton, a Madison suburb.

A woman and her two young children had died. The tight-knit community mourned for this family as its members asked: How could this happen?

Several days after the shootings, Middleton police released a statement saying the mother had killed her two children and shot the children’s father before taking her own life. The crime raised questions about mental health issues and whether there had been warning signs in the woman’s troubled life.

To try to give the public more information, the Wisconsin State Journal requested the incident report, any 911 calls related to the incident, and records relating to the original complaint that brought police to the apartment complex that day. (Middleton police were already on scene when they encountered the injured man, who survived the shooting.)

Middleton police denied access, saying it was an open investigation and “no police records” could be released. It did not explain how releasing specific public information might harm their case.

Too often, police agencies in Wisconsin are responding to requests for public information with blanket “open investigation” responses that are not adequately explained or clearly necessary. This denies the media — and the public — pertinent information about crimes that have happened in their backyards.

Kelly Lecker (Photo courtesy of Kelly Lecker)

There is no blanket exemption in Wisconsin’s open records law for records from an open investigation. Records are assumed to be public, but records keepers can perform a “balancing test” between the public’s right to know and the harm that could come from releasing information.

For instance, they could withhold records that could alert a suspect that authorities are looking for him or her, or reveal information known only to the perpetrator. Those are understandable exceptions.

The State Journal staff and other Wisconsin media understand that there are times when releasing information might be harmful. We have worked with law enforcement to prevent the release of victims’ names before the family has been notified. We don’t want to jeopardize a criminal case or endanger citizens.

But having an open investigation cannot be a blanket reason for denying all public records in a given case.

In the Middleton case, authorities had already said that the suspect had died, so there was no risk of jeopardizing a future prosecution. And releasing information such as 911 calls could give insight into what led up to this tragedy, helping the community better understand the situation or prompting someone in crisis to seek help.

Withholding records and public information can serve to fuel speculation and rumors. A public and open process creates a system of checks and balances that are essential to building trust. It helps the media and community members better understand crime trends and identify issues that could lead to change.

Regrettably, some Wisconsin law enforcement agencies have even denied requests for investigative files on unsolved cases that are often decades old. In late March, UW-Madison police denied the State Journal’s request for records related to the death of Christine Rothschild in 1968, citing an active investigation. The homicide has not been solved in 56 years, and releasing information to the public today might be the only thing that moves the case along.

When applying the balancing test, law enforcement agencies should look at each piece of information they feel would be harmful to their open investigation if it were released, and they should provide in their response to the public records request a reason for withholding that information. If some information does need to be withheld for the sake of an investigation, the rest of the requested information should still be released.

Because of the Middleton Police Department’s vague and blanket rejection, we don’t know if 911 calls related to the Middleton shooting exist, or why police were at the apartment complex that day. And we can’t tell if there was a valid reason for withholding information. And that’s a disservice to the public.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Kelly Lecker, a council member, is the executive editor of the Wisconsin State Journal and local news director for Lee Enterprises.

Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Close window X Republish this article This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Scroll down to copy and paste the code of our article into your CMS. The codes for images, graphics and other embeddable elements may not transfer exactly as they appear on our site. *** Also, the code below will NOT copy the featured image on the page. You are welcome to download the main image as a separate element for publication with this story. *** You are welcome to republish our articles for free using the following ground rules. Credit should be given, in this format: “By Dee J. Hall, Wisconsin Watch”

Editing material is prohibited, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and in-house style (for example, using “Waunakee, Wis.” instead of “Waunakee” or changing “yesterday” to “last week”)

Other than minor cosmetic and font changes, you may not change the structural appearance or visual format of a story.

If published online, you must include the links and link to wisconsinwatch.org

If you share the story on social media, please mention @wisconsinwatch (Twitter, Facebook and Instagram), and ensure that the original featured image associated with the story is visible on the social media post.

Don’t sell the story or any part of it — it may not be marketed as a product.

Don’t extract, store or resell Wisconsin Watch content as a database.

Don’t sell ads against the story. But you can publish it with pre-sold ads.

Your website must include a prominent way to contact you.

Additional elements that are packaged with our story must be labeled.

Users can republish our photos, illustrations, graphics and multimedia elements ONLY with stories with which they originally appeared. You may not separate multimedia elements for standalone use.

If we send you a request to change or remove Wisconsin Watch content from your site, you must agree to do so immediately. *** Also, the code below will NOT copy the featured image on the page. You are welcome to download the main image as a separate element for publication with this story. *** You are welcome to republish our articles forusing the following ground rules. For questions regarding republishing rules please contact Jeff Bauer, digital editor and producer, at [email protected] Your Right to Know: Shine more light on open investigations <h1>Your Right to Know: Shine more light on open investigations</h1> by Kelly Lecker, Wisconsin Watch April 1, 2024 A horrific scene played out in February in an apartment complex in Middleton, a Madison suburb. A woman and her two young children had died. The tight-knit community mourned for this family as its members asked: How could this happen? Several days after the shootings, Middleton police released a statement saying the mother had killed her two children and shot the children’s father before taking her own life. The crime raised questions about mental health issues and whether there had been warning signs in the woman’s troubled life. To try to give the public more information, the Wisconsin State Journal requested the incident report, any 911 calls related to the incident, and records relating to the original complaint that brought police to the apartment complex that day. (Middleton police were already on scene when they encountered the injured man, who survived the shooting.) Middleton police denied access, saying it was an open investigation and “no police records” could be released. It did not explain how releasing specific public information might harm their case. Too often, police agencies in Wisconsin are responding to requests for public information with blanket “open investigation” responses that are not adequately explained or clearly necessary. This denies the media — and the public — pertinent information about crimes that have happened in their backyards. <figure class="wp-block-image alignright size-full"><img src="https://wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Kelly-Lecker-headshot-photo.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-1288972" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Kelly Lecker (Photo courtesy of Kelly Lecker)</figcaption></figure> There is no blanket exemption in Wisconsin’s open records law for records from an open investigation. Records are assumed to be public, but records keepers can perform a “balancing test” between the public’s right to know and the harm that could come from releasing information. For instance, they could withhold records that could alert a suspect that authorities are looking for him or her, or reveal information known only to the perpetrator. Those are understandable exceptions. The State Journal staff and other Wisconsin media understand that there are times when releasing information might be harmful. We have worked with law enforcement to prevent the release of victims’ names before the family has been notified. We don’t want to jeopardize a criminal case or endanger citizens. But having an open investigation cannot be a blanket reason for denying all public records in a given case. In the Middleton case, authorities had already said that the suspect had died, so there was no risk of jeopardizing a future prosecution. And releasing information such as 911 calls could give insight into what led up to this tragedy, helping the community better understand the situation or prompting someone in crisis to seek help. Withholding records and public information can serve to fuel speculation and rumors. A public and open process creates a system of checks and balances that are essential to building trust. It helps the media and community members better understand crime trends and identify issues that could lead to change. Regrettably, some Wisconsin law enforcement agencies have even denied requests for investigative files on unsolved cases that are often decades old. In late March, UW-Madison police denied the State Journal’s request for records related to the death of Christine Rothschild in 1968, citing an active investigation. The homicide has not been solved in 56 years, and releasing information to the public today might be the only thing that moves the case along. When applying the balancing test, law enforcement agencies should look at each piece of information they feel would be harmful to their open investigation if it were released, and they should provide in their response to the public records request a reason for withholding that information. If some information does need to be withheld for the sake of an investigation, the rest of the requested information should still be released. Because of the Middleton Police Department’s vague and blanket rejection, we don’t know if 911 calls related to the Middleton shooting exist, or why police were at the apartment complex that day. And we can’t tell if there was a valid reason for withholding information. And that’s a disservice to the public. Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (<a href="https://wisfoic.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">wisfoic.org</a>), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Kelly Lecker, a council member, is the executive editor of the Wisconsin State Journal and local news director for Lee Enterprises. This <a target="_blank" href="https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/04/wisconsin-police-open-records-investigation-public-information/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://wisconsinwatch.org">Wisconsin Watch</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://i0.wp.com/wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/cropped-WCIJ_IconOnly_FullColor_RGB-1.png?fit=150%2C150&quality=100&ssl=1" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;"><img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://wisconsinwatch.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=1288968&ga4=G-D2S69Y9TDB" style="width:1px;height:1px;"> Copy to Clipboard

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/04/wisconsin-police-open-records-investigation-public-information/

Published and (C) by Wisconsin Watch
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons BY-ND 4.0 Intl.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/wisconsinwatch/