ESPN sues Notre Dame over police records

[IrishSteelhead]

But what does Lebron think of this?

 

[IrishLax]

Opinion: Notre Dame police subject to records law - Washington Times

Not a bad article. Reiterates that it's been settled this way for 30+ years and the law hasn't changed. Disney isn't going to win unless they get a judge that's a crackpot like the Public Access Counselor guy.

Sure, it's "empowered" by the state... but it ONLY answers to the PRIVATE University and receives no public resources. It's takes some serious legal/mental gymnastics to get to the point ESPN and the Counselor guy are at.

I could see Disney winning if and only if it gets in front of the right judge. And I certainly don't see them winning through the course of appeals.

 

[Fbolt]

this isn't going to end well. at all

 

[Rhode Irish]

I gave you a link showing FSU telling ESPN to go to hell, but you don't want to acknowledge that one. Why didn't they sue them?

I don't really want to get involved with this discussion because I didn't go to ND and I'd rather let you guys have this one to yourselves.

But, the link you shared does not show an example of another school stiff-arming a FOIA request, it shows a police department giving an F-you to a reporter by releasing all of the information she requested publicly, therefore effectively scooping her and ruining the story she was working on. That is a much different scenario than what is being discussed with ND and ESPN.

 

[ND NYC]

isnt it obvious that they are cloaking their request around this poor dude's accident so that they can look into other things at ND?

its a Tywin Lannister move...or perhaps Littlefinger

 

[Irish#1]

Opinion: Notre Dame police subject to records law - Washington Times

Not a bad article. Reiterates that it's been settled this way for 30+ years and the law hasn't changed. Disney isn't going to win unless they get a judge that's a crackpot like the Public Access Counselor guy.

Sure, it's "empowered" by the state... but it ONLY answers to the PRIVATE University and receives no public resources. It's takes some serious legal/mental gymnastics to get to the point ESPN and the Counselor guy are at.

I could see Disney winning if and only if it gets in front of the right judge. And I certainly don't see them winning through the course of appeals.

Agree, even if the initial ruling goes against ND, ND will appeal and this won't get resolved for a year or two. By then the story will be old and people will wonder why ESPN is reporting on an old story no one else covered.

 

[NDdomer2]

isnt it obvious that they are cloaking their request around this poor dude's accident so that they can look into other things at ND?

its a Tywin Lannister move...or perhaps Littlefinger

And we have a winner

 

[Irish#1]

isnt it obvious that they are cloaking their request around this poor dude's accident so that they can look into other things at ND?

its a Tywin Lannister move...or perhaps Littlefinger

And we have a winner

A request would have to be made every time and I would imagine ND would fight it each time.

 

[NDdomer2]

A request would have to be made every time and I would imagine ND would fight it each time.

but once a case is won, the precedent is set. They would like win every request then after.

 

[dshans]

Britt ... said the Notre Dame police force “is clearly operating under the color of the law, enforcing Indiana criminal code and not mere campus policy or disciplinary procedures.”

So if the Kampus Kops only turn a blind eye to the "Law of the Land" they should then be "exempt?"

Sheesh.

 

[ARALOU]

I hate espn, did I mention that before? I really hate that my cell phone capitalizes espn automatically and I have to go back to make it lower case.
I try not to watch it, and I damn sure don't click on their crap.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Why is this an Athletic Department story? And if not, why would ESPN be interested unless they really DO just hate the University? And if that's true, why aren't they investigating whether Notre Dame is being cruel to animals in research labs, or buying goods from China, or publishing treasonable thoughts in academic papers? --- Oh, the horrors they might reveal!!!

That's my question. As long as it's not another overblown football or basketball "scandal", then I'll leave it up the the law. OMM makes a great point...why would ESPN be interested in this? UPS lost my Miami/ND tix when I shipped them to Marv & they gave me the middle finger. That's a bigger sports scandal than what ESPN is alleging. Their story is a snoozer.

 

[johnnycando]

Why is this an Athletic Department story? And if not, why would ESPN be interested unless they really DO just hate the University? And if that's true, why aren't they investigating whether Notre Dame is being cruel to animals in research labs, or buying goods from China, or publishing treasonable thoughts in academic papers? --- Oh, the horrors they might reveal!!!

Wizards: c'mon.

Your employer does not like ND.

They covet them. Cannot have them. And jealous hate ensues...

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

I would think that this debate would boil down to this:

1. There are Public Records Laws because the people pay for the organizations that serve them, through taxes. The University of Notre Dame is NOT a public organization, and therefore not bound by public records laws.

2. The State of Indiana may, or may not, have a clause requiring that any Law Enforcement Agency that it empowers must abide by all public records laws. If it doesn't, then refer back to point #1, and the lawsuit is dismissed. If it does, then the court could find that NDPD violated the terms of it's empowerment, and therefore is in breach of contract.

3. Because Notre Dame is not a public entity, I don't think that the courts will be able to compel them to turn over any records. The reports in question presumably cover a student's interaction(whoever fell down the steps) with an employee of the University(the cop), and will be covered under student privacy laws. I think, at best, the court will be able to find NDPD in breach, and declare their certification by the State to be null and void.

Notwithstanding the student privacy laws, there is a pretty strong argument that the campus police would be considered a public entity. There's a delegation of a public function here (a police force).

Below is the Access Counselor's original opinion. His opinion doesn't have binding effect; however, it will provide a strong argument in court for ESPN.

http://www.in.gov/pac/advisory/files/14-FC-239.pdf

 

[ARALOU]

They reporting any about the Vandy rape trial? There is some very disturbing testimony coming out of that. Hard to believe that kids attending Vanderbilt would lack so much common decency, socially. Unreal.

 

[IrishLax]

Notwithstanding the student privacy laws, there is a pretty strong argument that the campus police would be considered a public entity. There's a delegation of a public function here (a police force).

Below is the Access Counselor's original opinion. His opinion doesn't have binding effect; however, it will provide a strong argument in court for ESPN.

http://www.in.gov/pac/advisory/files/14-FC-239.pdf

Nah, I don't think so. His opinion isn't worth more than the 3 guys before him nor the 3 decades of precedent because there have been no changes to the law nor evolution of function. It'd be a completely different story if something in the status quo had changed, but it hasn't.

I do agree with you that their logic is pretty creative and they have a leg to stand on. But it's pretty well established that a private University with a security police force that answers only to that University with no public funds/support is not a public entity. The "delegation of public function" does seem to apply, but for years its been trumped by the fact that they're only empowered to operate on the private grounds of the private institution.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

Nah, I don't think so. His opinion isn't worth more than the 3 guys before him nor the 3 decades of precedent because there have been no changes to the law nor evolution of function. It'd be a completely different story if something in the status quo had changed, but it hasn't.

I do agree with you that their logic is pretty creative and they have a leg to stand on. But it's pretty well established that a private University with a security police force that answers only to that University with no public funds/support is not a public entity. The "delegation of public function" does seem to apply, but for years its been trumped by the fact that they're only empowered to operate on the private grounds of the private institution.

Right. I just wonder how the privacy laws fit in. I imagine the Indiana statute has exemptions, just like FOIA, where an entity required to disclose doesn't have to if it's investigatory in nature.

 

[Bishop2b5]

If NDPD is a state-authorized police force (and it appears they are) and not a private security firm, they may typically work only on ND's campus, but have state-wide authority depending on Indiana law. In many states every law enforcement officer has jurisdiction state-wide. It's SOP that he doesn't go into another department's territory and write tickets or conduct police work except in an emergency, exceptional circumstances, in the interest of public safety, or when requested to by the other department, but he's 100% authorized to.

At Bama, the campus police typically just work on campus or in the student neighborhoods and bar areas just off campus, but they often help out the city PD when needed or requested in situations not involving the university or its students. It's exactly like cops from neighboring towns helping each other out when necessary. If ND's police force is state sanctioned, I think ND's going to lose this case, ESPN's motivation for filing it aside.

 

[IrishLax]

If NDPD is a state-authorized police force (and it appears they are) and not a private security firm, they may typically work only on ND's campus, but have state-wide authority depending on Indiana law. In many states every law enforcement officer has jurisdiction state-wide. It's SOP that he doesn't go into another department's territory and write tickets or conduct police work except in an emergency, exceptional circumstances, in the interest of public safety, or when requested to by the other department, but he's 100% authorized to.

At Bama, the campus police typically just work on campus or in the student neighborhoods and bar areas just off campus, but they often help out the city PD when needed or requested in situations not involving the university or its students. It's exactly like cops from neighboring towns helping each other out when necessary. If ND's police force is state sanctioned, I think ND's going to lose this case, ESPN's motivation for filing it aside.

Nope. I follow your train of thought, but most of the assumptions you made don't apply here. NDSP literally does not operate off of campus... otherwise I'd totally agree with you if they were running around raiding bars or makign arrests out in the town or whatever. They're a security police force for the Notre Dame that answer to Notre Dame only and not the state or any public entity.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Nope. I follow your train of thought, but most of the assumptions you made don't apply here. NDSP literally does not operate off of campus... otherwise I'd totally agree with you if they were running around raiding bars or makign arrests out in the town or whatever. They're a security police force for the Notre Dame that answer to Notre Dame only and not the state or any public entity.

I don't have a dog in this fight and am not pulling for ESPN or ND. I don't even have an opinion one way or the other about whether ESPN should or shouldn't be investigating anything at ESPN. I just think that if ND's police department is a state sanctioned police force with the authority to arrest, investigate crimes, serve warrants, and all the other authorities typically given to police departments and not to private security firms, they're not going to be able to successfully claim they're a private security organization and exempt from the same laws any other police force is subject to.

 

[IrishLax]

I don't have a dog in this fight and am not pulling for ESPN or ND. I don't even have an opinion one way or the other about whether ESPN should or shouldn't be investigating anything at ESPN. I just think that if ND's police department is a state sanctioned police force with the authority to arrest, investigate crimes, serve warrants, and all the other authorities typically given to police departments and not to private security firms, they're not going to be able to successfully claim they're a private security organization and exempt from the same laws any other police force is subject to.

OK then why for 30+ years and multiple Public Access Counselors has it been consistently ruled that they are exempt from the Indiana public access laws? The law hasn't changed, NDSP hasn't changed, nothing has changed.

The truth is it's well established that a private police force -- regardless of whether they're sanctioned by the state to operate -- is exempt from public information laws as long as they:
1) Only answer to the private entity.
2) Only operate on the grounds of the private entity.
3) Are only compensated and employed by the private entity.

In that scenario, they're viewed as part of the private entity that employs them even though they're empowered to enforce laws for the security of the private entity. Maybe some judge will interpret the laws different as this new counselor guy did... but for decades and decades this is how it has worked and there's no reason to believe it'll be changed because nothing in the status quo has changed.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I don't have a dog in this fight and am not pulling for ESPN or ND. I don't even have an opinion one way or the other about whether ESPN should or shouldn't be investigating anything at ESPN. I just think that if ND's police department is a state sanctioned police force with the authority to arrest, investigate crimes, serve warrants, and all the other authorities typically given to police departments and not to private security firms, they're not going to be able to successfully claim they're a private security organization and exempt from the same laws any other police force is subject to.

Even if you're right, Notre Dame absolutely needs this to be settled in court. Fuck ESPN for asking for civil damages, but the NDPD is clearly at the intersection of two contradictory laws that didn't contemplate University police departments. It's good for all parties involved that a judge will get to issue guidance on what law governs.

 

[Bishop2b5]

OK then why for 30+ years and multiple Public Access Counselors has it been consistently ruled that they are exempt from the Indiana public access laws? The law hasn't changed, NDSP hasn't changed, nothing has changed.

The truth is it's well established that a private police force -- regardless of whether they're sanctioned by the state to operate -- is exempt from public information laws as long as they:
1) Only answer to the private entity.
2) Only operate on the grounds of the private entity.
3) Are only compensated and employed by the private entity.

In that scenario, they're viewed as part of the private entity that employs them even though they're empowered to enforce laws for the security of the private entity. Maybe some judge will interpret the laws different as this new counselor guy did... but for decades and decades this is how it has worked and there's no reason to believe it'll be changed because nothing in the status quo has changed.

I honestly don't know. How this is handled and covered by the law varies from state to state. I would imagine that in most states, a municipal police force that only answers to that town, only operates within that town, and is compensated and employed only by that town is still subject to all laws governing police in that state since their authority to operate as a police force ultimately comes from the state. Not sure ND's police force is any different. I genuinely don't know what the law in Indiana is or how the courts will rule (and precedent may be followed or deemed wrong and overturned). My personal opinion is that if they're state-sanctioned to act as a police force and act with the state-authorized power to arrest, serve warrants, investigate crimes, etc., then they're a police force, not a private security firm.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Even if you're right, Notre Dame absolutely needs this to be settled in court. Fuck ESPN for asking for civil damages, but the NDPD is clearly at the intersection of two contradictory laws that didn't contemplate University police departments. It's good for all parties involved that a judge will get to issue guidance on what law governs.

Absolutely agree. This is a muddled gray area with some conflicting laws that needs clarification from the courts.

 

[IrishLax]

I honestly don't know. How this is handled and covered by the law varies from state to state. I would imagine that in most states, a municipal police force that only answers to that town, only operates within that town, and is compensated and employed only by that town is still subject to all laws governing police in that state since their authority to operate as a police force ultimately comes from the state.

But towns are public entities, and it's funded by tax dollars from the citizens of the state. That's the main difference here.

Not sure ND's police force is any different. I genuinely don't know what the law in Indiana is or how the courts will rule (and precedent may be followed or deemed wrong and overturned). My personal opinion is that if they're state-sanctioned to act as a police force and act with the state-authorized power to arrest, serve warrants, investigate crimes, etc., then they're a police force, not a private security firm.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out but the bottom line is that it's an awfully weird situation that you have a privately funded and employed police force that basically acts in "public interest."

 

[Legacy]

Once - a few years ago - I was at ESPN briefly in sort of a cub journalist exchange with NBC. The idea was the a short internship for each of the other's new reporters would help in their growth. Unfortunately, someone their made a few remarks I did not take kindly to. Words were exchanged about unbringing and mothers and such. Security arrived - moonlighting local policement. I was shoved down stairs, handcuffed probably with the policeman's cuffs. I could have filed a complaint, but decided not to after hearing that Security's report would be professional slanted. I walked.

My employer was livid. The provocation was all theirs. The violent act was caused by their employee. Good will had been violated. This was a publicly traded company employing security who drew public money in their primary job, though they had no arresting powers at ESPN. NBC sought Security's report through the freeedom of information act. That four letter network refused, citing no obligation to disclose private in-house documents. The FOI act did not cover those situations.

Even then they had deep pockets from cable money and attorneys at their beck and call. The depositions could have been drawn out until I retired. NBC and I dropped it knowing only that we stood on the moral high ground.

Yet I can still hear, as I was falling down their stairs after being pushed, "He could go all the way."
Whatever.

 

[BGIF]

Notre Dame violated law if it didn't release police records, opinion says - South Bend Tribune: Education

Posted: Friday, January 9, 2015 3:00 pm | Updated: 3:45 pm, Fri Jan 9, 2015.
By Margaret Fosmoe South Bend Tribune

In a written statement to The Tribune last month, Notre Dame officials said Britt's opinion was not consistent with "settled interpretation" of state law and that the issue has been "well-settled for more than a decade."

==========================================================================

I would have liked to see a more detailed quote of ND's written statement.

 

[wizards8507]

This was a publicly traded company employing security who drew public money in their primary job, though they had no arresting powers at ESPN.

"Publicly traded" is not the same thing as "public" in this context. Yes, NYSEIS is a publicly traded company, but they're still part of the "private sector," i.e. "not government." The public information laws we're talking about have nothing to do with where an entity's stock is traded or not traded, but whether the entity (NDSP) is an arm of the University (private) or an arm of the State of Indiana (public).

 

[Irish#1]

Once - a few years ago - I was at ESPN briefly in sort of a cub journalist exchange with NBC. The idea was the a short internship for each of the other's new reporters would help in their growth. Unfortunately, someone their made a few remarks I did not take kindly to. Words were exchanged about unbringing and mothers and such. Security arrived - moonlighting local policement. I was shoved down stairs, handcuffed probably with the policeman's cuffs. I could have filed a complaint, but decided not to after hearing that Security's report would be professional slanted. I walked.

My employer was livid. The provocation was all theirs. The violent act was caused by their employee. Good will had been violated. This was a publicly traded company employing security who drew public money in their primary job, though they had no arresting powers at ESPN. NBC sought Security's report through the freeedom of information act. That four letter network refused, citing no obligation to disclose private in-house documents. The FOI act did not cover those situations.

Even then they had deep pockets from cable money and attorneys at their beck and call. The depositions could have been drawn out until I retired. NBC and I dropped it knowing only that we stood on the moral high ground.

Yet I can still hear, as I was falling down their stairs after being pushed, "He could go all the way."
Whatever.

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[nlroma1o]

isnt it obvious that they are cloaking their request around this poor dude's accident so that they can look into other things at ND?

its a Tywin Lannister move...or perhaps Littlefinger

I didnt start reading this thread until Thursday morning, but this is what I was thinking as i read through the entire first page. ESPN and the garbage ass South Bend Tribune is clearly trying to find a way to infiltrate NDs police records to find dirt on our sports programs. Hell, maybe they still havent given up on some controversial cases from a few years back... Fuk these guys...