#ShowMeYourID

2016, The Associated Press uncovered 325 cases of police officers across the U.S. abusing confidential databases to secure information about romantic partners, neighbors, journalists, and other citizens for their own personal benefit. Such records include addresses, social security numbers, information regarding social media accounts, and other forms of personal information provided to local departments by state and federal agencies. Despite the recorded abuse, and inherent potential for abuse, police are still permitted to use such services for the sake of public safety and crime prevention.

In 22 states, however, certain people who engage in acts of violence, discrimination, and negligence are exempt from releasing such information about past criminal activity. These people are not only exempt from releasing such self-incriminating information, but are specifically protected by state laws that prevent such information from even being released publicly in their employers’ annual reports. And unlike most background checks regarding individuals with a history of violence, these offenses are usually unavailable upon request.

In 22 states, when these criminals go to court for offences committed independently from their past assaults, batteries, and other criminal activities, records of their past wrongdoings are usually either inadmissible as evidence, or extremely difficult to access. In a way, their crimes do not exist in the eyes of the law.

In 22 states, police departments are not required to disclose any past offences, complaints, or evidence of their officer’s alleged or proven crimes. If you were pulled over by Officer James Peters in Scottsdale, Arizona, he would not be required to disclose to you that he has killed 7 people, or even the fact that he had been previously disciplined for pointing a gun at his own face. One officer in New York had received eight disciplinary cases of excessive force, four of which had been proven, before he choked Eric Garner to death in 2016. None of these cases were publicly known prior to being leaked by a staffer (who later resigned). In Texas, law enforcement is allowed to withhold body-camera video until long after a use-of-force incident has become known, and internal investigations may be withheld from the public indefinitely or forever.

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw has “pledged” to make such reports of citizen complaints against officers publicly available, but with names, witnesses, and most details redacted. City Manager Brian Abernathy said, “We still recognize that officers are employees,” when justifying the department’s lack of transparency and officers’ right to privacy. 

Following the repeal of New York Civil Rights Law 50-a, a police privacy law, New York is currently the only state to have taken action toward repealing these laws. They shouldn’t be the only ones. Police Departments across the nation are purposefully mishandling the Fourth Amendment for their own benefits.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly serves to protect citizens from unnecessary state and federal oversight and invasion. There is no clause that addresses the state’s right to privacy from its citizens, and the amendment explicitly excludes any circumstance not detailed within itself from protections under the “right to privacy.” When a police officer unjustly uses force against a citizen, they are no longer operating under state or federal, rather they are individuals committing a crime while at work. In cases like these, officers ought to be fired immediately, arrested, and have their offence submitted into public criminal databases. However, more often than not, police departments rule the force as “justified,” “lawful,” or “not sustained.” This is to say that the officer was not guilty of inflicting harm themselves, but justly acted as the state’s hand in inflicting state-sanctioned violence in order to enforce state-issued law. In these cases, the officers ought to be considered extensions of the state’s law enforcement efforts and are government entities by nature. This would mean that they are not truly entitled to the protections provided by the fourth amendment, as they are the individual equivalent to “the state” in such cases.

Essentially, there is no circumstance concerning citizen’s complaints, use of force reports, or disciplinary records under which police officers are entitled to privacy under our Constitution. This petition is to raise awareness for both the citizens and legislators of their respective states of the unconstitutional protections that state governments have given to their armed law enforcers. Any and all laws that deny or obstruct a citizen’s right to information regarding the man with a gun who’s pulling them over late at night is an abuse of power by the state, if not an incentive to abuse power by police officers.

A restaurant worker may be an “employee” entitled to privacy, but there is no restaurant in America that routinely kills 1,000+ Americans every year. The Fourth Amendment would be exempt in such a case without question, so why not in policing?

Repeal and Replace all laws regarding Policing’s rights to privacy.

Show us your ID, officers.

#ShowMeYourID