Any opinion on Matt Sullivans arrest?

[corner]

if its being used in an internal disciplinary matter foil does not apply it possible for somebody to beat the criminal charges and be disciplined as the difference between a reasonalble doubt and a preponderence of the evidence

[Clipper]

Your previous post was not overlooked Swimmy. I simply was not completely clear on the facts that you presented as it might pertain to the video.

I simply don't see the need for evidence that may be used by EITHER side to be disclosed to the public until after any ensuing legal proceedings. As you said, the video will most likely be made public at some point in time. I guess you have to be a lawyer in order to be completely informed on such issues and the justification for the policies concerning them.

There comes a time when some things are subject to public scrutiny, and some things should be kept under wraps because they simply are no one's damn business and serve no public purpose in being disclosed.

I thought at the time that much of the video released in the tabloids and on tabloid TV was absolutely disgusting, when it came to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, among other that have hit rough times with addiction and other issues in their lives. Celebrity status should not require that an individual lay their very souls bare to the scrutiny of a nosey public simply for entertainment and sick curiosity of the masses.

Anyone that thinks I defend Matt Sullivan because he and I are good friends are mistaken. Matt and I shared a love for his mom, his brothers, and his extended family, but not necessarily for each other. He was a stepson, and that is a rocky place to start to begin with.

My panicky defense at the onset of this situation was in concern for a wonderful family he comes from and for my ex-inlaws. Also for his dad, whom I went to high school with and always held in a position of high respect. His dad, Maurice (Tim) Sullivan was a retired BCI investigator, and a Federal Marshal at the Federal Building in Utica. He was an honorable man, and a great father to his three boys. He passed away while running to train for the Heart Run and Walk.

I simply say this. When we ask for all this dirt to be dug up on Matt Sullivan, remember that with every negative piece that hits the papers, his innocent family receives an unwarranted and painful jab in the heart.

I also make the same observation about Gear that you do Corner. I also suspect that there is some unknown motive behind Gear's desire to see it socked to Sullivan, and the constant negative attitude towards law enforcement and authority in general. That is his business though, and there is no FOIL request that we can file to find out what that motive is. this issue has become almost an obsession with him it seems. No offense intended, just a personal observation and opinion Gear.

[gearofzanzibar]

Jun 11, 2009 9:52:19 GMT -5 Clipper said:

Why is the slow moving legal process being described as sweeping something under a rug? I would say that there is no rug on the floor as long as the case is front page news every time someone involved breaks wind.

Despite the SP investigation being completed they refuse to release any records specifying who made the decision to wait three hours before arresting Trooper Sullivan. A decision that, as all the officers involved were well aware, made his BAC pointless.

The dashcam video may or may not be a public record. I don't know if that has been ruled upon as of yet on a wider stage than the Sullivan case. Police reports and other DOCUMENTS are public record, and those should be released, but I am not sure dashcam video IS a pubic record, that it would be mandatory to release to the media and public. Swimmy may be able to shine light on that issue.

Realistically, they're fighting the tape becoming public because they know it's going to be a huge hit on the internet. At least one national reporter, Radley Balko, is already likely to feature the Sullivan case once the tape goes public.

We have plenty of information already about the night in question, and the reports and paperwork describe the events quite well.

Except for providing no explanation what so ever for who made the decision to protect Sullivan. 'Cause, you know, people take a dim view of that kind of thing.

As far as the State Police defending their own, I don't think that is going to change in our lifetime, no matter what we would like to see. That "blue line" and fraternal wall that goes up in defense of a brother officer, has existed for as long as there has been law enforcement officers in organized departments. WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE SO SURPRISED OR SHOCKED BY THAT?

Because all men are equal in the eyes of the law. Or at least they're supposed to be. Normal citizens subject to a traffic stop don't get to flee without consequence or have the cooperation of law enforcement in destroying and eliminating evidence.

Gear, I ask one question. For someone that would be the first to cry foul if "Big Brother" were to want to look over your shoulder, how can you justify this desire for the courts and the state police to release all this information that has no productive use to the public other than to inflame public opinion against an offender that has not been tried yet.

Because they're public documents.

I think that the OD should be sued for bringing his affiliation with the Irish Festival, and his domestic situation or marriage situation into play. It has no bearing on the drunk driving case and was simply tabloid shit dug up by the OD. It brings the privacy of others into the mix for no productive purpose. Matt is the alleged offender, not his wife, children, or the Irish Festival board.

Yeah, that sucks, but such is life. When you make yourself a public personality you, unfortunately, accept the consequences.

We are not going to agree on this subject any time in the near future, but I do respect the civil discussion without any anger or personal attacks coming into play. It IS a hotbed issue and emotions run high with such a subject on the table.

Of course we're civil. We're adults. Demonizing the people that disagree with you is a stupid, silly thing to do.

I might note that I am personally wondering why the Garramone cases have not raised as much interest. One of the brothers is accused of RAPING a young girl. IS THAT NOT MORE DISGUSTING THAT A DWI AND DRIVING AWAY FROM A TRAFFIC STOP??? My god. One is a lawyer, and both brother's are the sons of a retired judge, and a prominent name in legal circles. I wonder how many bottles of wine and complimentary dinners, it took to keep this out of the OD?

I think some pressure has been brought to bear, but I suspect it's mostly a matter of the confidentiality laws for minors.

Let me close this post with this: HAPPY BIRTHDAY GEAR, AND MAY ALL YOUR WISHES COME TRUE TODAY! Have a great birthday and eat lots of cake. It only comes once a year and your blood sugar depends on the once a year boost, haha.

Thank you, it's much appreciated. Since Drudge hasn't had a headline about Angelina Jolie, Laura San Giacamo, and Kate Winslet suddenly vanishing into thin air I suspect that not all of my wishes will be coming true today. Heh.

[gearofzanzibar]

Jun 11, 2009 10:43:02 GMT -5 corner said:

the gearster really needs to look at why he is so anti law enforcement ive read his musings on other sites and the same anti cop theme comes through

Please be good enough to provide a link to such anti-cop "musings" or kindly retract your statement. I'm not anti-cop in the slightest, but I think my public record of being anti-abuse of power is pretty solid. To my knowledge the only other law enforcement incident I've heavily weighed in on was the Franco case, where a Utica police officer tortured a handcuffed and kneeling suspect.

[gearofzanzibar]

Jun 11, 2009 12:01:47 GMT -5 Clipper said:

I also make the same observation about Gear that you do Corner. I also suspect that there is some unknown motive behind Gear's desire to see it socked to Sullivan, and the constant negative attitude towards law enforcement and authority in general.

I think my motive is crystal clear- I hate the abuse of power. Since you've agreed with some of my rants in the past I would suggest that, perhaps, you're viewing my actions through the eyes of someone who's ox has just been gored. I certainly don't remember similar comments when I was questioning the actions of any other government figure.

That is his business though, and there is no FOIL request that we can file to find out what that motive is. this issue has become almost an obsession with him it seems. No offense intended, just a personal observation and opinion Gear.

You know it takes a bit more than that to offend me. Heh.

[Clipper]

Whew. I feel relieved that I was not included with Angelina Jolie, Kate Winslet, and Laura San Giacamo, haha.

I have not heard any confirmation that the State Police Investigation is complete, or that their personnel issues have been resolved.

The issue of the delay in arresting him was made by Sullivan himself when he holed up in his home and they had no legal reason to break down his door at that point and to forcibly arrest him. Why would a trooper risk his own well being to enter a home where weapons are known to be present over a traffic violation and a suspected DWI? I remember someone along the line stating that the trooper was prevented from entering the house because there were weapons present for some strange reason, but I could be mistaken.

As far as avoiding a DWI by hiding in his house, I don't think that will be relavent in the end. He has many more serious issues against him than the BAC. His punishment for DWI will be made moot, by the seriousness and the penalties he could receive for his other offenses that he is alleged to have committed.

I imagine that the high ranking officer that came up from downstate to resolve the issue, told the troopers to just stand by until he got there. If there is a history between Olney and Sullivan, it most likely became necessary for an uninterested party outside the area to intervene, rather than local troopers. Sullivan's rank was higher than ANY of the other road patrol generic troopers. None of them were about to put their ass or their career on the line to drag him bodily from his home.

As far as the matter of "whose decision it was to protect sullivan, I would assume it was the high ranking commander from downstate, and then only until he could arrive on scene and take command.

Other than the fact that his BAC was moot after the three hour wait, I see no evidence being destroyed or eliminated. Simply held until a determination is made as to whether it is legally imperative that it be released to the public before trial.

The very fact that this Radley Balko dude is waiting to post it on the net and create some more sensationalized disdain for law enforcement is reason enough by itself for a judge to rule it off limits to the public until after trial. I am sure that this Balko dude is not going to be the next David Brinkley. Just another hack reporter living off of sensational tabloid crap. He should apply at the OD. He would probably fit right in.

As for the video being a "public document" I would say it won't become a public document until it IS released to the public, and that status has yet to be determined by a judge. Simple logic prevails there.

Having read your birthday wishes in the other thread, I gotta extend an invitation for a cup of coffee and some great face to face time, if you take up Kim's invitation for riggies at her house. You will be passing real close to me on your way to NC, haha.

[dgriffin]

I am still confused, despite reading Swimmy's re-statements. I do not understand why the tape is is not public at this point in time.

If I were to walk into the court of jurisdiction and ask the judge why I as a citizen can't see the tape, what reason(s) would he give me? NOT logical reasons, necessarily, but by what piece of the law am I not allowed to see it? Is evidence always confidential? Is it ever confidential? Or had the judge determined that public access might somehow risk the proper conduct of the investigation? Shouldn't he say that, so that later the public can determine if he was lying? Sorry, I'm no lawyer and I don't get it.

[Swimmy]

2. FOIL s. 87 [2][e][ii] is the specific provision being argued against public disclosure. I would assume FOIL s. 87 [2][e] is another argument being used.

Each agency shall, in accordance with its published rules, make available for public inspection and copying all records, except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that:

(a) are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute;
(b) if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of subdivision two of section eighty-nine of this article;
(c) if disclosed would impair present or imminent contract awards or collective bargaining negotiations;
(d) are trade secrets or are submitted to an agency by a commercial enterprise or derived from information obtained from a commercial enterprise and which if disclosed would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the subject enterprise;
(e) are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would:

i. interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings;
ii. deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication;
iii. identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation; or
iv. reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures;

3. NYS Civil Rights Law Art. 5, section 50-a also comes into play because the record requested involves a police officer. New Hartford used this provision to deny a request for a letter complaining about a rogue police officer who was on suspended pay.

S 50-a. Personnel records of police officers, firefighters and

correction officers. 1. All personnel records, used to evaluate

performance toward continued employment or promotion, under the control

of any police agency or department of the state or any political

subdivision thereof including authorities or agencies maintaining police

forces of individuals defined as police officers in section 1.20 of the

criminal procedure law and such personnel records under the control of a

sheriff`s department or a department of correction of individuals

employed as correction officers and such personnel records under the

control of a paid fire department or force of individuals employed as

firefighters or firefighter/paramedics shall be considered confidential

and not subject to inspection or review without the express written

consent of such police officer, firefighter, firefighter/paramedic or

correction officer except as may be mandated by lawful court order.

2. Prior to issuing such court order the judge must review all such

requests and give interested parties the opportunity to be heard. No

such order shall issue without a clear showing of facts sufficient to

warrant the judge to request records for review.

3. If, after such hearing, the judge concludes there is a sufficient

basis he shall sign an order requiring that the personnel records in

question be sealed and sent directly to him. He shall then review the

file and make a determination as to whether the records are relevant and

material in the action before him. Upon such a finding the court shall

make those parts of the record found to be relevant and material

available to the persons so requesting.

4. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any district

attorney or his assistants, the attorney general or his deputies or

assistants, a county attorney or his deputies or assistants, a

corporation counsel or his deputies or assistants, a town attorney or

his deputies or assistants, a village attorney or his deputies or

assistants, a grand jury, or any agency of government which requires the

records described in subdivision one, in the furtherance of their

official functions.

Also, the following is an advisory opinion from Robert Freeman, Chairman of the Committee for Open Government, www.dec.ny.gov/public/40984.html.

And the Civil Rights Law also provides specific provisions regarding disclosure of information regarding victims of sexual offenses. Civil Rights Law sec. 50-b

Right of privacy; victims of sex offenses. 1. The identity

of any victim of a sex offense, as defined in article one hundred thirty

or section 255.25 of the penal law, shall be confidential. No report,

paper, picture, photograph, court file or other documents, in the

custody or possession of any public officer or employee, which

identifies such a victim shall be made available for public inspection.

No such public officer or employee shall disclose any portion of any

police report, court file, or other document, which tends to identify

such a victim except as provided in subdivision two of this section.

2. The provisions of subdivision one of this section shall not be

construed to prohibit disclosure of information to:

a. Any person charged with the commission of a sex offense, as defined

in subdivision one of this section, against the same victim; the counsel

or guardian of such person; the public officers and employees charged

with the duty of investigating, prosecuting, keeping records relating to

the offense, or any other act when done pursuant to the lawful discharge

of their duties; and any necessary witnesses for either party; or

b. Any person who, upon application to a court having jurisdiction

over the alleged sex offense, demonstrates to the satisfaction of the

court that good cause exists for disclosure to that person. Such

application shall be made upon notice to the victim or other person

legally responsible for the care of the victim, and the public officer

or employee charged with the duty of prosecuting the offense; or

c. Any person or agency, upon written consent of the victim or other

person legally responsible for the care of the victim, except as may be

otherwise required or provided by the order of a court.

3. The court having jurisdiction over the alleged sex offense may

order any restrictions upon disclosure authorized in subdivision two of

this section, as it deems necessary and proper to preserve the

confidentiality of the identity of the victim.

4. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to require the

court to exclude the public from any stage of the criminal proceeding.

See also FOIL sec. 89 [2]

(a) The committee on open government may promulgate guidelines regarding deletion of identifying details or withholding of records otherwise available under this article to prevent unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. In the absence of such guidelines, an agency may delete identifying details when it makes records available.
(b) An unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes, but shall not be limited to:

i. disclosure of employment, medical or credit histories or personal references of applicants for employment;
ii. disclosure of items involving the medical or personal records of a client or patient in a medical facility;
iii. sale or release of lists of names and addresses if such lists would be used for solicitation or fund-raising purposes;
iv. disclosure of information of a personal nature when disclosure would result in economic or personal hardship to the subject party and such information is not relevant to the work of the agency requesting or maintaining it;
v. disclosure of information of a personal nature reported in confidence to an agency and not relevant to the ordinary work of such agency; or
vi. information of a personal nature contained in a workers' compensation record, except as provided by section one hundred ten-a of the workers' compensation law.
(c) Unless otherwise provided by this article, disclosure shall not be construed to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subdivision:

i. when identifying details are deleted;
ii. when the person to whom a record pertains consents in writing to disclosure;
iii. when upon presenting reasonable proof of identity' a person seeks access to records pertaining to him or her; or
iv. when a record or group of records relates to the right, title or interest in real property, or relates to the inventory, status or characteristics of real property, in which case disclosure and providing copies of such record or group of records shall not be deemed an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

2-a. Nothing in this article shall permit disclosure which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy as defined in subdivision two of this section if such disclosure is prohibited under section ninety-six of this chapter.

In all honesty, I'm not sure how else to state my answer to your question. Because Sullivan is a police officer, different rules come into play.

[Swimmy]

And you're confusing public disclosure versus keeping evidence confidential from the person against whom it is intended to be used. Here, Sullivan has already seen the tape, he's aware of its existence and its contents.

Unless I missed something, the judge has not determined whether the video tape is FOIL-able at this point to the general public.

I believe the state police denied the od's FOIL request. Now, the od is appealing it and put it before the judge. The State Police's reasons for denying access are for the sections of laws cited and quoted. If a judge were to agree, those would be the reasons why.

So, even though the investigation is complete and one section of FOIL is no longer a viable exception to disclosure, there are other sections of FOIL and Civil Rights Law that may further prevent disclosure. It is the same thing with evidence, though something might not come in under one hearsay exception, it does not mean it can't come in under another hearsay exception.

Therefore, if the judge finds that releasing the video would taint the jury pool under FOIL 97 [2] [e] [ii], then it's not going to be disclosed until trial time (or at a suppression hearing), even though under the investigation exception the video should be disclosed at this point.

[dgriffin]

Oh ... OK. I'm glad I read your final post before chewing on all of the stuff above it! If I can sum up, the SP decided that releasing the tape would impede their investigation, and now that the investigation is complete, they still won't release it for other reasons, possibly Civil Rights. The OD disagrees ... their job ... and a judge is deciding. And no one is in a hurry.

Hope I remember this for the quiz.

[Swimmy]

Jun 11, 2009 21:53:14 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

If I can sum up, the SP decided that releasing the tape would impede their investigation, and now that the investigation is complete, they still won't release it for other reasons, possibly Civil Rights.

Yes. The other reason stated in court is that release of the video will "deprive a person (here, Matt Sullivan) of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication."

And now, it is up to the judge to determine whether the SP are justified.

I am really sorry I was not able to better explain it before. Been busy responding to motions lately and forgot that citing to every piece of law is confusing and not always necessary on an online forum. I hope there are no hard feelings. :-)

I would like to go on the record as sharing Gear's disdain for people who abuse their power." I am sensitive to the emotional tension exhibited in this thread so I've tried to choose my words carefully. Personally, the argument used to keep this from the public is a lame one for someone in Sullivan's position or any person's position who has legal training because we are held to a higher standard and should have taken such an argument into consideration BEFORE engaging in the questionable conduct.

Gear, have a happy birthday. Still managed by 18 minutes :-)

[Clipper]

I would also hold disdain for abuse of power, but I actually don't see that as a factor here.

Sullivan simply drove away from a traffic stop. I have not seen anywhere that he expected to get any special treatment. He may well have had no idea of how it would play out from that point on.

His power became a moot point when he ran. He had no way of knowing if they would bust down his door and cuff him, or if he would be immediately fired. He had no power over the situation at that point did he?

He abused the law, but not any "power". I am sure he realized that driving away from a traffic stop for whatever reason, while under the influence of alcohol was not going to have a pleasant outcome. I would say he was "powerless" over his own fate from that point on.

Hell, until we see the case go to court, we will not know if he is even going to get any special treatment or consideration. I may be alone in my opinion that he will be punished severely and made an example of. He won't be cruising to the Bahamas on his yacht, as Gear stated, LOL.

[dgriffin]

Swimmy, of course no hard feelings! In fact, I should have read more thoroughly what you wrote earlier, and also reviewed the earlier part of the thread where this was discussed. Now that I think of it, I even looked up the FOIL some time ago ... not sure if it was in regard to this thread ... and should have remembered it.

Clipper, "Sullivan simply drove away from a traffic stop," is quite a statement, equivalent to "he simply ran from the arresting officer,' although I recognize he had not yet been arrested (we don't believe.) Did you mean, "I have not seen anywhere that he expected to get any special treatment," as a rhetorical statement? Because of his position, I can't believe he expected the same treatment and you or I would if we drove off from a DWI stop.

[Swimmy]

Clipper, I disagree. What would realistically happen if you or I were at that traffic stop and we tried to drive off? The dashcam video would be one that "Real TV" or "Most outrageous videos" would air on Spike TV. A road block would most certainly be in place long before we made it to our homes (assuming we live in Utica). And even if we got to our house, because of the hot pursuit exception to the 4th amendment, the police would storm the house and arrest us. We know this because we've seen clips on tv and read accounts in the newspaper. We know this because we know someone who did something similar and the above account is what happened to them.

We certainly would not be allowed to leave the traffic stop without incident. And we certainly would not be allowed to wait 3 hours before surrendering ourselves to the police.

Matt Sullivan has already received special treatment. He knew that because he was a fellow officer of the law, he could just drive away. Now, maybe that is the case ordinarily after you get your balls busted. It sounds like Onley was doing just that and Sullivan could not take it, and drove off. He knew there would not be any roadblocks set up for him and nothing for national tv to follow. He knew the pursuing officers would not break down his door like they would for an ordinary citizen. He knew he could get away with waiting three hours held up in his house, unlike an ordinary citizen. He knew he would get special treatment that you and I could never dream of.

[Clipper]

No roadblock would have worked. There is only one trooper car assigned to the area at night in the Barneveld area. One in Remsen, and one in Poland. Sullivan lives less than a quarter mile from the Prospect off ramp from route 12. I am sure it was only about 5 minutes until he was at home and in the house. the next nearest troopers are in Marcy, Lowville or Lee Center. There is also one sheriffs car in that area at night, and no telling where the deputy might have been at the time. He also covers a lot of ground at night.

I simply don't see anyone breaking down any doors to apprehend a drunk that has gone home and went into the house. The danger to the officer and the public was over when Sullivan turned off the ignition, parked the car and went into the house. From there on it could have been easily handled by the State Police internally, and a pissing contest involving two troopers would not have made headlines. THAT would have been special treatment.

I think everyone is way too indignant, and that this whole damn thing has gotten way overblown. People today watch too much TV and the Cops and such shows. He drove 3 or 4 miles up route 12, and pulled into his driveway. He didn't cut through anyones back yard at 100 mph or run anyone off the road, he drove home that last couple of straight miles on a four lane highway and parked his car.

I guess if the troopers had pulled out assault rifles, knocked down the door and shot him dead in his living room everyone would be much happier and satisfied. That would have been a much more entertaining scenario for the blood thirsty public. Arrest in the area are all supposed to involve automatic weapons, tear gas, and bullhorns, right?

We aren't going to agree on the subject at any point in the future, but I have to ask if you all would feel the same if it was someone that you knew or if it were yourself involved. Easy to criticize when you are not involved. Hell no I can't defend his actions. Nobody disputes that fact. I just laugh when I see people crying for blood and wanting to pop some corn and watch the video.

It is easy to hold someone to a high standard or to be highly principled here on line, but how many actually ARE that principled and could live up to the standards that we expect from others. We are all humans and we all screw up. Not all of us end up being the subject of public disdain because of our job.