Senator urges protection for troopersWhistleblowers fear retaliation, Knotts says By Yvonne Wenger (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Friday, April 4, 2008
Sen. Jake Knotts What's nextGov. Mark Sanford is considering whom to nominate to lead the state Department of Public Safety. After his nominee is announced, the Senate must begin confirmation hearings, which should be complete before the Legislature's summer adjournment. Several other state and federal investigations continue. On the WebCOLUMBIA — Finding and protecting troopers courageous enough to speak up is the key to resolving problems within the state Highway Patrol because troubles have festered for years under the threat of demotions, a glass ceiling or transfers to South Carolina back roads, a state senator said Thursday. Sen. Jake Knotts, a 30-year law enforcement veteran, relayed his message to colleagues as the senators opened their investigation into the patrol and its parent agency, the Department of Public Safety. "The people who know best are the people who have had to live it," said Knotts, R-West Columbia. "We need to make sure they have assurance there will be no repercussions." Troopers have come forward privately over the years and more frequently recently, Knotts said. The fear of retribution, though, has stopped many from voicing their concerns publicly, he said. Their concerns have been highlighted in the past month as a handful of videos, recorded by troopers' dashboard cameras, surfaced showing troopers mistreating motorists during traffic stops. Among the wrongdoings caught on tape are troopers hitting fleeing suspects with their cruisers and using excessive force on suspects, some of whom were not charged with committing crimes. Knotts described "good ol' boy politics" at play within the patrol. To protect certain troopers, he said, investigations into public complaints were also halted. "There was a select few at the Highway Patrol that were allowed to run rampant," Knotts said. Michael Kohn, general counsel for the National Whistleblower Center, said that during 20 years of representing clients, he has learned that one sure way of silencing discussion of problems at an organization is through its internal investigations staff. "That is how it happens on a daily basis," Kohn said. Knotts told his fellow subcommittee members that he wanted to review transfers of staff within the Office of Professional Responsibility, the agency's investigatory arm, as part of the investigation. The goal of the Senate's investigation, one of several under way by state and federal authorities, is to help the senators gather evidence they can use to structure the confirmation hearing for a new Public Safety director. Gov. Mark Sanford is expected to announce a nominee soon to replace James K. Schweitzer, who became agency head in 2004 and stepped down after the first round of videos surfaced. Sanford originally had hoped to find a nominee by the end of this week but will need more time, according to his staff. Sid Gaulden, director of the Public Safety Office of Executive Affairs, said he could not comment on the allegations Knotts raised Thursday. He did say, though, that he is confident a review of the patrol won't yield evidence of widespread problems. "We welcome the Senate investigation," Gaulden said. If the allegations have merit, there are steps the senators can take to ensure the troopers don't face retribution. One way would be to line up another state law enforcement agency that would be willing to offer work to troopers who come forward, Kohn said. Tom Devine, legal director at the Government Accountability Project, a 30-year-old nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., said some of the most classic cases of whistleblowers and their paramount importance come from within law enforcement ranks. The nonprofit advocates accountability through free speech and the defense of whistleblowers. "The rule of law loses its legitimacy if those enforcing it are above legal norms," Devine said. "The code of silence is a deeply embedded culture within law enforcement agencies. That, combined with the fact that they are without any legal rights within South Carolina, is really a one-two knock out punch." The state does not have a statute that protects government employees from speaking up, and a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling stifled First Amendment rights for government employees, Devine said. "Government employees in South Carolina don't have any free speech rights beyond being 'yes' people," he said. Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-799-9051 or ywenger@ postandcourier.com. |
Article tools
| |||
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 11 comment(s)
Posted by Commonman on April 4, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It appears that the use of whistleblowers will be necessary for this investigation to accomplish its goals. That will be a hard sell. If one were to come forward with information, they can not be assured of their anonymity or that their identity will be protected. If not revealed by name, then a personal description of the person and duties that leaves no doubt as to the identity of the whistleblower may be provided. Transferring agencies sounds like a good idea, until one realizes that transferring from a job you have done for years to a new one encompasses a whole lot more than paperwork. Unfortunately, South Carolina has no real central authority or office to protect whistleblowers (or innocent victims of whistleblowers) and until that weakness is addressed, there is no incentive to come forth and do the right thing. It may feel good and be the right thing to purge one's self before a legislative panel, but at the end of the day, the employee still has to provide for his family and their future and trust his future career path has not been damaged.
Posted by ChrisPia on April 4, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If These lawmaker Politicians did their job and protected the rights of whistleblowers than We wouldn't have a problem would we?....Now these same zeros want Good officers to come forward and Jeopardize their careers?
I see many Problems with Politicians investigating the Police...We need someone whom will be fair for both sides and whom would protect the identities of the whistleblower.
Posted by RTC on April 4, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Government employees in South Carolina don't have any free speech rights beyond being 'yes' people," he said.
This holds forth in many private businesses as well.
Posted by ChrisPia on April 4, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RTC -and Heaven Forbid If You Put an Opponents Campaign sticker on Your Car. Or complain about safety issues.
Posted by mstaterhed on April 4, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have been a military brat my entire life, and served in the US Army myself. We are all taught 'disable, not kill' as far as violence. OK, in the military, it's 'shoot to maim, not to kill; all are prisoners to be questioned.' I also see the other side; risking your life every day to keep the community safe. Racial epithets shouldn't be used, although as a 'mutt' myself, almost all of them apply to me, and I'm amused when someone uses one and I can answer, "yes, on my paternal grandmother's side, twice removed." I have friends who are officers, one of whom was saved only because he was wearing his bullet-proof vest; but the brusing to his ribs was painful to look at. Where do we draw the line? If an officer is in pursuit, and the suspect might be armed, isn't stopping the suspect without killing them ASAP the point? Do we wait for them to duck into an apartment and take hostages? Do we wait for them to shoot the officer, steal the car, and set it on fire somewhere else? This is a difficult debate, let's look at both sides before we point fingers anywhere. As far as abuse after a traffic stop, usually after a high speed pursuit, adrenaline is pumping, and yes, officers need to be trained NOT to let the adrenaline take over. However, if someone shot at me while I was in pursuit, I might not be able to take a deep breath and count to 10 before I reacted. Just think about it....
Posted by ChrisPia on April 4, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mstaterhed....I try not to comment on these incidents without knowing all the facts..Each instance is different and some officers were already punished in administrative hearings..When you underfund the training facilities(Police Academy) and law enforcement State and County wide you should expect problems.These Officers are underpaid,understaffed, and Frustrated with a system Of Justice that is broken..This was brought about by the same politicians that are looking to investigate them. We Need an impartial person that can be fair based on ALL the circumstances of Each incident presented to them.(not 10 second news clips).
Posted by ChrisPia on April 4, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They have a right to due process.Get All the facts and base a decision on those facts not biases. Politicians are just as Guilty.
Posted by lillycollette on April 4, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"There was a select few at the Highway Patrol that were allowed to run rampant," Knotts said.
“I’m pleased that the legislature is looking into this. However, I would be -- flipping ecstatic -- if they looked at innocent people being jailed by reprehensible family court judges who have corruptly turned deputies into common thugs,” Lilly said.
Posted by lillycollette on April 4, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just emailed my comment directly to Jake Knotts at SIV@scsenate.org
If I have the wrong address, perhaps someone would let him know Ms. Lilly is NOT happy.
Posted by ChrisPia on April 5, 2008 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Apr 5, 5:49 PM EDT
Report: Trooper sought lawmakers' help with top patrol officers
Advertisement
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- At least one state trooper sought the help of lawmakers more than a year ago to deal with what the officers say was favoritism by the Highway Patrol's leadership.
A former sergeant filed a complaint alleging Patrol Commander Russell Roark retaliated against him for giving another trooper a bad grade on a performance evaluation.
Internal files obtained by The (Columbia) State newspaper show that J.R. Kerbs, who has since left the patrol, included an audio file in his complaint.
"I talked to ... two of the legislators here in Richland County as well as one of the senators over there in Lexington," Kerbs said in the audio file that he recorded. "The two are members of the Black Caucus, and they want Roark's head ... they can't stand him."
Kerbs told the newspaper Friday that he didn't think lawmakers used those exact words. "They wanted him replaced," Kerbs said. "Did they use the term they wanted his head? I doubt it."
Roark and his boss Public Safety Department Director James Schweitzer resigned earlier this year after video from a trooper's dashboard camera showed the trooper using a racial slur and threatening to kill a black suspect during a 2004 traffic stop. The trooper was reprimanded and suspended, but Gov. Mark Sanford said he should have been fired.
Roark has left the Patrol and Schweitzer said he will leave when the Senate confirms a replacement Sanford has yet to nominate.
In the audio file, Kerbs said state Sen. Jake Knotts, R-Lexington, planned to block Schweitzer's confirmation for his second term as Public Safety director. "He said it only takes one senator to hold up the confirmation," Kerbs said on the recording. "He said he's that senator ... he said (Schweitzer's) not going to make it through confirmation."
Knotts said he had discussed concerns about Roark with Schweitzer before Schweitzer was confirmed as department head the first time. But Schweitzer wouldn't "take charge of Roark" and make changes necessary to discipline the patrol, Knotts said.
"I told Schweitzer numerous times, 'Jim, you need to take charge of that department,' " Knotts said.
Knotts cited several videos of patrol stops that have surfaced recently showing out-of-control troopers hitting suspects with their patrol cars and physically assaulting drivers during traffic stops. One trooper kicks a driver several times after the driver is on the ground.
"That guy, kicking that guy in the head after he's stopped; have you seen that video?" Knotts said. "That's uncalled for."
The newspaper said Schweitzer declined comment through a spokesman and Roark could not be reached for comment.
---
Information from: The State, http://www.thestate.com
Posted by rudyfeagin on April 6, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Although I consider myself a "yellow dog democrat", I have always admired Jake Knotts' attidude of people first--not party first. However, that's not to say I always agree with Jake. But, even under threats from his own party to get with their program or else, he's still his own man. Take for example the "SC Club for Growth PAC" and their ad calling for Jake's ouster because he won't fall in line as their puppet. The truth is, we need more legislators like Jake on both sides of the aisle and in both legislative bodies. Also,it wouldn't hurt to have a governor who was tuned in to the people he is supposed to represent.
Keep it up Jake!! Don't bow to any of them. You'll sleep better at night while the're up trying to figure ou what to do with you.