No one is above the law, including the law
A Northampton County grand jury has come to the same conclusion as we did: The Pennsylvania State Police should not be investigating shooting incidents in which their troopers are involved.
The grand jury handed up its monthslong investigation criticizing the state police for having a “somewhat arrogant opinion of their own superiority over any other law enforcement agency which has contributed to their recalcitrant position of not relinquishing an investigation to an outside agency.”
County District Attorney John Morganelli, under most circumstances an ardent supporter of the state police, has maintained the same position as we have taken, saying that they are “not above the law.” He also said that the state police are not immune from public scrutiny and accountability.
The grand jury earlier had cleared the two troopers involved in a fatal shooting in Lower Mount Bethel Township, just north of Easton, last May, which involved an obviously suicidal 47-year-old township man who threatened to blow himself up with an incendiary device wrapped around his neck.
The grand jury report also criticized the confusion among state police officials themselves and for preferential treatment given the two troopers that would not have been accorded to others in a similar situation. The troopers were not interviewed until 30 days after the shooting, and they were allowed to watch dashcam footage of the unfolding incident before they were questioned, the jury report said.
As part of its list of recommendations, the grand jury also noted the need for troopers to wear body cameras.
Morganelli wanted a county detective from his office to be the lead investigator in the case. At first, one state police official agreed, but he was overruled by the commanding officer of the Bethlehem barracks, who, the grand jury report said, indicated that state police policy does not allow a district attorney’s office investigation in such instances.
That testimony was contradicted by a state police major. It was so confused at this point that the grand jury summoned the head of the state police for clarification. Col. Tyree Blocker said the major’s interpretation was not correct, that in jurisdictions where the state police provide exclusive law enforcement coverage, it investigates such matters.
Morganelli said the grand jury report will be sent to legislators, Gov. Tom Wolf and the state attorney general’s office with a recommendation that the state police reconsider its policy and have an outside agency investigate such cases.
Morganelli also noted that the state District Attorneys Association developed best practices guidelines as to how police-involved shootings should be handled. In it, the recommendation is for an independent agency to conduct these types of inquiries. In a statement released by the governor’s office, he renewed his support for the state police but said the recommendations will be studied.
It is as plain as can be: Even if the state police were scrupulously fair, balanced and impartial, the public would still view the results of the internal investigation of two of its own with suspicion, especially in the current highly charged climate where police have been criticized for killing suspects, sometimes without just cause.
What makes this case all the more odious is when the state police went before Northampton County Court Judge Stephen Baratta in November to ask him to suppress the then-incomplete grand jury report from being released to the public.
This immediately gave the impression that the state police had something to hide. To Baratta’s credit, he summarily rejected the state police motion and allowed the grand jury to continue its investigation and research. In the process, Baratta criticized the state police attorney who had the gall to say that state police are “entirely transparent about their conduct and their investigations.”
We said it before, but it bears repeating: The appearance of a conflict of interest can be just as damaging as a conflict itself. It raises needless questions of a cover-up, improper behavior and controversy.
By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com
Comments
How does the title of this article, “No One is Above the Law Including the Law”, relate to the issue of “investigating their own?” When did public perception direct any major investigation and attempt at the same time to create investigative policy. Investigations are guided by facts of law and the needs and demands learned from previous prosecutions and thorough defenses against said prosecutions. PSP investigations of their own are more than not, more critical of a Troopers actions then any other law enforcement agency. I have a bridge for sale of anyone’s choosing if you think that “out sourcing an investigation” to another agency commands a better and less of a conflict of interest investigation. The only conflict to be found will be by a person who wants to find one. In every county of our commonwealth Troopers and County Agencies guided by an “elected” county District Attorney work side by side, many times outside of the political wars between elected officials, and get the job accomplished.
Garrity Warnings or Weingarten. Has the author of this article ever heard of these protections to include Miranda? Had the author did his investigatory homework he would have learned these entitlements can dramatically impede the process of an interview of a law enforcement officer involved in a use of force action. A use of force action is a criminal investigation until such time the use of force is approved. An officer is entitled to the benefits under Miranda. Until the final decision is made which agency will conduct the investigation, as in this case, an officer should not talk until given his Garrity or Weingarten protections from his “employing agency.” A District Attorney office IS NOT required to offer the latter two protections since they do not employ the officers. These issues are difficult to explain and so I offered a brief explanation to time delays of interviews of law enforcement officers. Obviously, civilians are not subjected to these issues, so why then would this author suggest preferential treatment of the troopers in a delayed interview.? Ignorance of the subject matter!
It is not a secret in the law enforcement arena that District Attorneys of every county in our state are very territorial of their domain. It is not unusual for District Attorney offices around the state to conflict with other agencies. The public does not hear of these little squabbles. I am not shocked the Grand Jury came out against the State Police and suggested the agency had an air of arrogance. Every Law Enforcement Agency within our commonwealth should demand this attitude of their members of how they view their Departments ability, ambitions and successes, but of course never accept externalizing an arrogant attitude during any contact with the public. A Grand Jury is made up of selected voter registrants, whom as a group, are an investigative body. Key word – Investigative Body! Expect some attitude when listening to the people summoned before the group to testify for their cause.
The Grand Jury also reported on the confusion surrounding District Attorney Morganelli wanting his county detective to be the “lead” investigator of the shooting investigation. The State Police official who granted the demand never had the authority to make such a decision to allow a County Investigator to be the lead in a PSP use of force. Whether a shooting or physical use of force it is all Use of Force. Morganelli, as District Attorney, has a personal relationship -or should- with the heads of law enforcement agencies in the county and should have made the call directly to the Troop Commander. This quagmire could have been avoided early on with a simple telephone call allowing both heads of their agencies within the county to attempt a compromise. I do not read anywhere where the author suggests this simple business-like action should had been the first step taken by Morganelli. Instead the author suggests, “the public would still view the results of the internal investigation of two of its own with suspicion, especially in the current highly charged climate where police have been criticized for killing suspects, {sometimes without just cause}. CHEERS for the author’s efforts in helping to keep the attitude of a minimal amount of people HIGHLY CHARGED.