
Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they’re private corporations - Shivetya
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/
======
pdonis
If they're private corporations, shouldn't they be open to competition from
other private corporations? I.e., shouldn't any organization that wants to be
able to incorporate as a 501(c)(3) and have the same law enforcement
privileges they do?

If their answer to that is "well, we have this special contract from the
government...", then they are agents of the government and can't hide behind
the "private corporation" shield for activities they undertake as such agents.
Certainly that's how it works for Federal government contractors: if the GAO
audits a Federal program, the contractors who implement it can't hide their
records from the auditors with the excuse "oh, we're private corporations".

~~~
justizin
I think this is more like if you and your software engineering buddies
incorporate some kind of organization to own your kayaks, and then someone
asks for the log of the kayaks' usage, and you're like:

"we may have paid for those kayaks, but we gave them to this other
organization that is basically us, but it is not the organization that owes
you transparency, so fuck off."

------
Zigurd
This is why cops and prosecutors should be bonded. Bonding would track and
price individuals' risk. It would pay for settlements up front, and not rape
the taxpayer for cops' misdeeds, and it would enable liability to function as
it should.

~~~
jqm
That's a great idea.

Far too many bad actors blend back into the group and repeat their misdeeds
over and over again.

------
Calcite
Washington Post has a very bad mobile experience. How am I supposed to read
this? [http://imgur.com/DyePAYJ](http://imgur.com/DyePAYJ)

------
gohrt
One expects that judges will sort this mess out. In the meantime, what is the
governer's statement on this? The only acceptable response to a 5-minute
inquiry is "Massachusetts Police Departments are hereby ordered to publish
their LEC records or withdraw from LECs immediately"

~~~
betterunix
"One expects that judges will sort this mess out"

Who expects that? Judges failed to stem the growth of militarized police
forces for _decades_.

~~~
maxerickson
I think things could be a lot worse if we didn't have judges involved.

The real cynical view is not that judges are feckless, it is that people in
general don't care about things that don't much affect them.

------
fleitz
YES! This is brilliant, fuck the records requests, file conspiracy to murder
charges.

~~~
justizin
I like the way you think, but too many judges are inclined to see things
through the eyes of law enforcement.

A friend of mine had his feet put to the fire during sentencing by a federal
judge over whether he thought it was 'funny' to bring a 'department of
injustice' sign to a protest where he was later arrested for assaulting a
marshall, who in fact kind of stumbled into him and then created a melee.

The judge seemed quite clearly to believe that he was a part of the
'department of justice', though the DoJ was the plaintiff in the case before
him.

Even when you get a precedent set about the role and behavior of law
enforcement, it's very difficult to get judges to apply it sanely.

"Well, you see, in this prior case the defendent had yellow shoes, so..."

That said, something has to be done.

~~~
fleitz
Yeah, you're supposed to take it seriously so no one finds out what a joke it
really is.

Only a judge could see that building corporate headquarters is a public use,
or that growing a plant in your basement is interstate commerce.

    
    
      "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
        "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
        "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

------
opendais
It seems Massachusetts currently employs Omni Consumer Products tactics and a
private police force. Wow.

Maybe I should work on founding the OCP today...

------
trhway
private prisons, private torturers and army (without any limits by any law) in
foreign lands, now private army inside the country...

I'd think that FOIA wasn't the main law they were setup to dodge, it is just a
side benefit. My bet would be about some finance related limits/laws.

------
JackFr
Seems foolish, on the part of the LEC's. IANAL, but I assume they that if they
are non-governmental organizations, it dramatically changes their profile
regarding lawsuits, that is no personal immunity, etc.

Anyone who is a lawyer know?

~~~
dragonwriter
IANAL, but I think I can address that somewhat. While the organization
_itself_ may not have governmental immunity as a private corporation -- which
it probably doesn't, having incorporated as a 501(c)(3) -- the individual
police officers are still government employees and still have the immunity
they would have in that role.

~~~
ghayes
So the answer is to fire them from their governmental role.

~~~
justizin
unfortunately police officers are _almost_ _never_ _fired_ _for_ _any_
_reason_ _whatsoever_.

------
charonn0
If they're private organizations, then they have no lawful authority to use
force.

------
ryanobjc
When you file with the IRS with a LLC, and you are the sole member, the IRS
doesn't consider that a 'real' corporation, and you have to take that earnings
on your 1040.

Likewise, just because these police organizations are using 501(c)3 to provide
a corporate shield, a reasonable judge should say that the shield is unlawful.

I kind of get a feeling that national security will eventually be trotted out
here.

~~~
k2enemy
An LLC (limited liability _company_ ) is not a corporation. So no, it does not
have the tax treatment of a corporation.

~~~
nitrogen
Last time I checked, an LLC could elect to be seen in various different ways
by the IRS (e.g. corporation, disregarded entity, etc.). Unfortunately
italicizing one of the words in the expansion of an initialism doesn't really
tell us anything about its meaning.

------
Fuxy
So wait private corporation are allowed to have SWAT teams now?

That sounds safe...

------
zipwitch
Kill them. Kill them with fire. While we still can. If we still can.

------
bsder
If they're private corporations, they don't have governmental exemptions and
everybody should get prosecuted accordingly.

That will stop this cold.

~~~
deciplex
You're operating under the assumption that there are rules in place here that
are the same for everyone, and that everyone has to follow the rules.

The sooner Americans stop fooling themselves into believing that nonsense, the
sooner they can start to fix their broken country. Until then (and it will
probably be a long time), try to avoid cops, because they can shoot you for
free.

~~~
tedks
It's hilarious this is being downvoted.

It reminds me of a time one of my liberal co-workers tried to mock
libertarians by saying "But laws are for the weak, right?" I don't think they
realized how utterly true they were.

------
r0h1n
We already knew America's police was getting militarized at a rapid rate. Now
they're getting corporatized too. Its prisons are already corporatized. The
full circle is almost there.

Living in a developing country like India, I'm sometimes half-thankful that
our police is inept, woefully ill-equipped with weapons and government-
controlled.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Living in a developing country like India, I 'm sometimes half-thankful that
our police is inept..._

Isn't it great to be a man?

[edit: I realize this flippant remark probably makes little sense for those
who don't live in India. Ineffective policing is a _very serious problem_
here, primarily for women. If I stay out late with a girl, it's almost
automatic that I will escort her home regardless of the inconvenience to me.
Black women often wear a keffiyeh at night to avoid racially motivated
attacks. Physical security is a significant electoral issue.]

~~~
Ntrails
If anyone is unaware of the state of violence against women in India I can
only assume they don't read a newspaper. There have been several front page
stories in the last year or so.

I think you make an important (if biting) point for putting the parent in some
context.

------
esbranson
Its actually part of a larger problem.

The government regularly gives public property to private entities and claims
they no longer have possession. Then they make a contract so they can have
access. (Obviously, you don't get access without paying the price.) They do
this with The Law (tm)(c) for example. California (the Office of
Administrative Law) doesn't even have possession of the codified regulations
they make (the California Code of Regulations). Which is why you have to be
wealthy to have bulk access to California law (regulations are a form of
secondary or delegated legislation) or otherwise have to agree to a license
for the "free" (as in beer not as in freedom) Internet version where you give
up your rights to your first unborn child etc. (Though the website is
practically unusable for any layman who hasn't already read most of it. Of
course to encourage you to buy the CD-ROM.)

Which of course leads to a breakdown in law and order.

~~~
parley
Pardon a foreigner. I'd like to understand this.

Are you saying that there's law in California (i.e. something you can violate
that the justice system has the authority to punish you over) that is not
freely (as in freedom) available to any citizen (for whatever purpose,
reading, distributing, etc)?

~~~
esbranson
As a practical matter, no, its not freely available. There is a reason why no
one knows the law, and its not because no one tries, but because their efforts
to know the law that binds them are actively thwarted by its publishers.

It is available online, but its unusable for the layman due to ridiculously
bad design. You must agree to a contract to use it ("terms of use", "license")
and promise never to repeat what you read. Purposely bad design in my opinion.
Its 30,000 sections of regulations we're talking about here (there's a further
150,000 sections of California law, 50,000 sections of federal law, and 30,000
sections of federal regulations), and you only know it doesn't apply _after_
you read it. Its javascript-based and uses session cookies, so if you take
longer than 5 minutes to read a 30 page section with a bad layout that uses
intensely complex verbiage, the next click will "close the book" in your face,
and if you have no idea where you were, well, tough luck, there's always
prison. If you try and open multiple windows, say, to read another section
which is referred to, each window will interfere with each other. (Even trying
will likely close the book in your face.) Each click is unbearably slow to
load. (29,999 bottles of beer on the wall, 29,999 bottles of beer, take one
down, can't pass it around, 30,001 bottles of beer on the wall.) There is no
way to give a permalink to your grandma or on your blog, because there are no
permalinks. Grandma will have to try and navigate the horrible website
herself, and when she likely fails, well, tough luck, there's always prison.

It is available as bulk data on CD-ROM (in California) for a significant
price, on the order of $3000 per edition. Did I mention it changes almost
constantly? Obviously, no permalinks for your blog.

California is better than most in that the government was sued and forced to
release the statutory law on the web.[1] Other states are not so lucky.

[1] [http://maplight.org/pr_lawsuit](http://maplight.org/pr_lawsuit)

~~~
_acme
Can you point out a state that does not provide their laws and regulations
available online? I have never experienced a situation where the laws of a
state are not available online for free, and I've researched laws in all 50
states. As for regulations, I've not researched those in each state, but the
states that I have looked at regulations in all have them available online, so
I think a citation is needed that there are state or federal laws or
regulations that are not available freely online.

~~~
esbranson
And what contracts have you entered into for this "free" access? What have you
agreed to, what rights have you given up? And when will your obligations end?
Do you even know, or did you just blindly click "I agree"?

I know this sounds lame, but freedom isn't free, and you shouldn't have to
give up _any_ rights to access the laws that bind you. Period. No exceptions.
No compromise.

(I should note the biggest problem with this seems to be codified regulations,
not so much the codified laws or gazettes, although some states do require a
contract to view the "free" versions of the statutes, such as Georgia and
Colorado. And I should note the online version of the Code of Massachusetts
Regulations from the Secretary of the Commonwealth costs $110 per year and
requires a credit card...)

------
andywood
Don't let reporters mystify you with all these things people "claim" and say.
It's just one PR department relaying a message from another PR dept.

It's all the US. It's all the current system. Yes, the constitution has been
drastically weakened by money interests. Yes.

I went to Austin, TX a couple weeks back to be my Brother's best man. I didn't
realize he was marrying a cop's daughter in a rural area outside the city
limits, because all he told me about the guy was he's a skydiver. I fly
paragliders, so I figured we had a lot in common.

There's a really good reason all the souveneirs in the area say "Austin City
Limits"! It's because if you're a beta male, you really shouldn't stray too
far outside into the Red State. You really, really shouldn't.

Within an hour of getting to the house, I got in a minor verbal spat with my
own sister. My ridiculous mother decided to call the police department to
ingratiate herself with my brother's new family. Well, I'm 150 lbs (but still
pretty tough) and a 270 lb gorilla showed up to learn me some manners about
how to act when in Rome.

He practiced some Krav Maga on me, probably something he just learned and was
aching to demonstrate. He twisted my carpal tunnels around, bend my injured
knees around a bit, damaged nerves in my left hip and left wrist. Stood on my
scoliosis, stretched a tendon in my left shoulder....

And then the police department itself put me in a hospital! I could have
walked it off in a couple hours, but the cops run this hospital. They have the
doctors and orderlies continue to be very abusive so as to keep you in shock
for days (5 for me) and then they try to have a doctor threaten you with
institutionalization because you had a delusion about police persecution!

That's their system, and apparently the Red Staters really truly like it that
way. Keeps the outsiders and Mexicans out! Or so these fools think. They think
they can keep the Mexicans out! They'll be in for quite the shock themselves
when they find out Rupert Murdoch has been lying.

And that it's them that have to learn spanish after all. Glad I speak it,
that's for sure.

~~~
afandian
What's Rupert Murdoch been saying in the US?

~~~
anaptdemise
Rupert Murdoch -> News Corp. -> Fox News "RNC mouthpiece"

/sarcasm?

[clarification] Is /sarcasm on on either misunderstanding replier as such or
my "RNC mouthpiece"?

~~~
afandian
No, genuine question. Not everyone's in the US!

In the UK the Murdoch press certainly has a long history of taking political
positions and meddling with society. But I don't know what they're saying over
the duck pond, especially about Mexico.

------
frostmatthew
If they consider themselves private corporations wouldn't that mean their
"employees" are breaking laws by a) using the weapons they have access to b)
breaking into people's homes and c) arresting people...

~~~
Paul_Dessert
That's what I was thinking too. How could an arrest hold up in court? This
could go both ways.

~~~
justizin
it seems that they are employees of the particular law enforcement agencies,
but the equipment and activities related to SWAT are managed within these
corporations.

~~~
hamiltonkibbe
Breaking into someones house and discharging 70+ rounds of ammunition is an
'activity related to SWAT' and would land any employee of $DEV_SHOP, Inc. in
jail, why are these corporations any different?

~~~
ewoodrich
Because, as justizin and dragonwriter [1] explained above, the actual SWAT
team members are employees of the police.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951933](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951933)

~~~
hamiltonkibbe
So these are government employees, acting in the context of their duties ...as
government employees, but records pertaining to their actions, expenditures,
etc. are not required because the 501(c)3 owns... what exactly? Either you're
kicking in the door and killing an elderly man in a poorly executed search for
0.2g of marijuana and a man in the backyard as a law enforcement officer, in
which case you should be bound by the same requirements every tax-funded
police department is, or you're doing it as an employee of a tax-exempt
corporation, in which case you should go to jail for B&E, Homicide, possession
of an automatic weapon, possession of marijuana, etc.

~~~
jmccree
I believe their argument is the LECs are private non-profit corporations that
merely provide coordination and equipment to law enforcement agencies. The
police officers are never working for the LEC, and I'm sure any police-only
equipment is only ever 'in possession' by member departments. The LEC is
basically a more formalized mutual aid agreement among multiple agencies.

I would assume you could query each individual agency as to how often their
officers participate in swat operations, but without knowing how often the LEC
was called, I don't see how you could get an accurate count of the total
raids. Perhaps each jurisdiction would have to report how often they called
the LEC into their jurisdiction.

They may be actually be legally right due to basically a technicality. Perfect
for time for the state legislature to reign in the LECs and make open records
apply to mutual aid agencies/agreements. I'm sure their representatives are
jumping on that right now...

------
daniel-levin
The Massachusetts police have privatised part of their operations. And the
'general counsel for the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association' has said
that they're immune to information requests because they're private
corporations. The article positions the purpose of the privatisation as
secrecy. This seems like a very Bad Thing, so it's not surprising that the
ACLU have stepped in.

But I'm going to play devil's advocate, because I want to know the truth:

I wonder if there are other, possibly more important reasons for forming these
private corporations. Maybe the existing police system doesn't function
optimally, and provisioning resources (such as trained officers with
appropriate equipment for drug busts) is a process that's too slow, or
inadequate. Maybe this is a way of detouring the bureaucracy and systemic
bullshit that encumbers civil servants whose job is ultimately to keep people
safe.

The article says that Tewksbury, MA paid $4600 for membership to NEMLEC. That
town has a population of around 28 000. It doesn't make sense for a small town
like that to have a police force with a dedicated SWAT team, computer crimes
unit and schools incident response team. It also doesn't make sense for a
larger jurisdiction to serve the smaller community when it [the smaller
community] needs it, and get nothing in return. It seems as though it's a way
for police departments to share resources. I'd imagine that if a small town's
police department found themselves unable to deal with a time-critical
scenario, like a shooter in a school, they'd call in backup pretty damned
quickly. Perhaps the quality of response a small town could get through NEMLEC
would be better than going through traditional police channels?

To me it seems like the primary purpose of forming these private NPCs is not
secrecy. As the article says, government police agencies already do that -
"police agencies have broadly interpreted open records laws to allow them to
turn down just about every request."

So, if it is actually easy for police agencies to turn down requests in the
first place, why go to all the effort to form, finance, and manage a 3200
member [1] corporation?

[1] [http://www.nemlec.com/who.htm](http://www.nemlec.com/who.htm)

edit: clarified a sentence by adding 'through NEMLEC'

~~~
groby_b
That's why, in a sane world, there'd be a state-level organization that does
the things that are too big for small towns, not a private corporation. The
excuse is that the state authorities are too backed up - essentially, that
they're underfunded. How transferring tax money to a private LEC helps with
that is not entirely clear to me.

The most important question here is, who exactly authorizes the use of force
by NEMLEC? This, as is, allows undisclosed use of force whenever the powers
that be (I believe police chiefs) feel like it, without the need for
disclosure.

This is essentially an unregulated regional army. Paid for with taxes, but not
actually beholden to the tax payer.

Why would somebody form that? That depends on how paranoid you want to think.

~~~
jmccree
You do realize that all the officers that are on the LEC SWAT team are
employed by local police agencies, none work for NEMLEC. Mutual aid emergency
services teams comprised of members of multiple agencies are common all over
the country. "Northwest Regional SWAT" just sounds less scary than NEMLEC. All
the individual police agencies that are members of nemlec would still fall
under whatever open records laws apply in that state. You can see which dept
chiefs lead which units here:
[http://nemlec.com/units.htm](http://nemlec.com/units.htm)

~~~
kefka
> "Northwest Regional SWAT" just sounds less scary than NEMLEC.

Wrong. It all sounds like a militarized police force with little to no
responsibility. For example, the SWAT launched a flash bang grenade in the
crib of a 2 year old. But you know, the SWAT response was a botchet attempt at
finding a non-violent drug crime.

The kid still has a hole in his body that hasn't healed. And they are unsure
of brain damage. It's likely though.

[http://www.salon.com/2014/06/24/a_swat_team_blew_a_hole_in_m...](http://www.salon.com/2014/06/24/a_swat_team_blew_a_hole_in_my_2_year_old_son/)

~~~
grkvlt
I'm getting really tired of the repetition of the 'SWAT team throws grenade at
infant' line used as though this is now routine policy in these teams, babies
are getting blown up left right and centre across the US, and so on. That was
a terrible mistake, not a fucking policy decision.

~~~
Goronmon
_That was a terrible mistake, not a fucking policy decision._

Using heavily armed SWAT teams to conduct raids on family homes for small-time
drug offenses seems like a policy decision to me...

------
bjelkeman-again
The developments in the US around surveillance, domestic use of force and the
way the politicians allow this to happen reads more and more like the
introduction chapter to a dystopian science fiction novel.

~~~
jacquesm
By a spectacularly bad writer, after all, who would ever believe all this
nonsense.

~~~
wmf
Maybe we could get a more interesting future by electing science fiction
writers. Stross-Doctorow vs. Gibson-Sterling would make for some fun
campaigning.

~~~
totalforge
The election is here, it's just not evenly distributed.

~~~
DrewRWx
I can't find the most recent stats, but you are right[1]... at least for the
House of Representatives.

[1] [http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/people-
representative#tab...](http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/people-
representative#table-tab)

------
hamiltonkibbe
Either the automatic weapons used by the SWAT teams belong to the police --in
which case the SWAT teams are certainly government entities,-- or they belong
to the 501(c)3, in which case we should lock everyone up for just as long as
we would lock up a gangbanger who's killed multiple people and gets caught
with a fully automatic weapon.

~~~
67726e
I obviously do not know how these LECs are setup legally speaking, but it is
possible to own and operate fully automatic weapons legally as a civilian or
business. You can get a tax stamp from the ATF for a few hundred dollars. As
an example, my local commercial gun range offers rentals for fully automatic
assault rifles and submachine guns at their ranges.

That said, this LEC charade is sickening and they should be punished as
severely as the law allows. Of course it's America and the police can and do
get away with murder so that'll never happen.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License)

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)

~~~
hamiltonkibbe
Not if that civilian/business has committed a felony...

~~~
mey
Can a business commit a felony?

Edit: Legally I mean. Typically the felony falls on the chain of command in my
limited legal understanding.

Edit2: In the US

~~~
hamiltonkibbe
Well no, but people acting as agents of a business can

~~~
anaptdemise
So just to start, I hope you watch the SyFy series Continuum[1]. The basic
synopsis is that in the future, governments and economies collapse and the
"Corporations" bail everyone out. I mean, you trust your personal information
to FB way faster than you do with the GVT.

Anyways...

So, my very limited understanding of civil/city/state governments is that they
are already special forms of "Non-Profit Corporate Entities" in most states,
"Municipal Corporations"[2]. All other "private law enforcement entities"
derive from some variation/bastardization of these laws depending on the
state. So yes, most private citizens/corporations, what ever definition of the
term[3], can obtain any of the weapons described in the article, with
limits/exceptions. For instance, the SWAT team of Dallas, TX is part of the
Dallas Police Department (Dallas being a Municipal Corporation). I chose this
as an example because, when you google Dallas SWAT, you either get a reality
TV show or a Facebook Page. In most smaller counties, it is part of the county
Sherifs Department. In most states, the only person that can arrest a Sherif
is the Governor or Agent of The Federal Government. Stay with me. This is all
an argument of semantics from the beginning.

US entities operating outside the US borders obtain literally what ever
equipment they, or their clients, can afford. Further, they are either bound
by US Military rules of conduct (rules of engagement), beholden to local law,
or either/neither seemingly as the parties see fit [see current US military
advisor rules in Iraq vs. Blackwater authorization in Op. Iraqi Freedom].

My reading of this article is the scenario last referenced on US soil. A claim
that a local SWAT team is both and neither. The power of a government law
enforcement agency with the "loosely defined rights" of a private corporation
(individual.) It is "risk management" in the corporate sense. You structure
yourself for greatest legal/financial protection/benefit.

Grey area -- rant. Expand this to the Federal Government... The FBI is the
only organization that is authorized to investigate wrong doing within
itself[4]. In addition, the federal government can chose whether or not you
are aloud to sue them in federal court (all courts by proxy.)[5]

[1]
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1954347/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1954347/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)
[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation)
[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission)
[4] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in-150-shootings-the-
fb...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in-150-shootings-the-fbi-deemed-
agents-faultless.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) [5]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States)

