Massachusetts SWAT teams...

CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior MemberPosts: 4,737 Senior Member
...claim they’re private corporations, immune from open records laws.
As it turns out, a number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board, which is usually made up of police chiefs from member police departments. In 2012, for example, the Tewksbury Police Department paid about $4,600 in annual membership dues to the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, or NEMLEC. (See page 36 of linked PDF.) That LEC has about 50 member agencies. In addition to operating a regional SWAT team, the LECs also facilitate technology and information sharing and oversee other specialized units, such as crime scene investigators and computer crime specialists.

Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it’s here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they’re private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they’re immune from open records requests. Let’s be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they’ve incorporated, they’re immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state’s residents aren’t permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they’re used for, what sort of training they get or who they’re primarily used against.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws
The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

Ayn Rand

Replies

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    Since they claim to be private corporations and not police officers, would it then be O.K. to terminate them with extreme prejudice when they show up at your door? Being not LE, but private corporate employees, they would then be nothing more than expert home invaders with no immunity from being preemptively repelled with whatever force is necessary.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 10,945 Senior Member
    I wonder how a person would go about forming a NEMLEC type entity, that kind of total freedom from oversight and access to $ seems like a gold mine. I can't believe it took some lawyers this long to sue them.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • Farm Boy DeuceFarm Boy Deuce Senior Member Posts: 6,083 Senior Member
    Hmmm why am I not surprised. ing jack booted thugs. I agree with tennmike.
    I am afraid we forget sometime that the basic and simple things brings us the most pleasure.
    Dad 5-31-13
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    Looks like some police departments have something to hide.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,464 Senior Member
    .
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.