To the Editor:
The point of a press release is to spark press coverage and media inquiries. If Village Manager Healy does not want press inquiries about a matter, then he should tell his subordinates to not put out press releases.
On June 5, Croton issued a press release stating that the police cited three businesses for selling alcohol or tobacco in violation of state law. It said that a total of 15 businesses were targeted by the sting operation. Croton has refused to release the names of the three businesses cited. It has released the names of the 12 businesses which were not cited (The Gazette, week of June 11-17).
I am not aware of how Croton conducts such sting operations, but I have some experience with similar operations in NYC. All of the stings which I know of had a common pattern: someone 19 or 20 years old who looked older would enter a store at a busy time and move quickly to make a purchase. In the case of alcohol, it was common to grab beer and throw the money down on the counter while proceeding out the door. A police officer would then come into the store and issue a citation. Cigarette purchases were usually less successful because the cigarettes were normally in an area behind the counter.
The undercover purchaser was usually someone seeking a career in law enforcement, and a successful sting was helpful in gaining admission to the police academy. Given the age and education (or military service) requirements, such persons were not minors.
At age 18, a person can vote, join the military, and enter into a contract. It strikes me as absurd that you can get killed in Afghanistan before you can buy a beer, but that is the law in all of the US states. The US has the highest legal alcohol purchase age in the world (age 21), and is one of the few nations with that minimum. The most common age worldwide is 18, which was also true in the US until 1986.
When you read press releases about sting operations, they say that an “underage” operative was used. I have never before seen an alcohol or tobacco sting that used someone not of the age of majority. That is what stood out to me when I read the Croton PD press release of June 5: our police department used “a minor working in an undercover capacity.” Use of a minor in any law enforcement capacity is problematic for a number of reasons, and there appears to be no reason why the Croton PD used a minor rather that an underage undercover. What parent would approve of their child participating in such an operation?
Croton continues to refuse to disclose the names of the three persons/entities cited. According to the Croton Chronicle (June 24), two of the cases have been adjudicated and the court records sealed. The Gazette managed to get the names of the 12 businesses not cited.
In refusing the Chronicle FOIL request, Village Clerk Pauline DiSanto relied on five reasons.
Firstly, the village said that the records were still part of an active investigation. Given that the village issued a press release announcing the details and the issuance of citations, it is difficult to see what was still being investigated by the police—by that point, it was a judicial matter. If indeed there was an ongoing investigation, why did the village issue a press release?
Secondly, the village said that releasing the records would interfere with judicial proceedings. I don’t see how releasing the names of those cited would interfere with judicial proceedings. Court dockets are public record, and court proceedings are almost always required to be public proceedings. And again: why issue a press release if answering press inquiries would interfere with judicial proceedings?
Thirdly, the village claims that disclosure would deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication. This is actually a good point. In some countries, it is not permitted to disclose the name of someone who has been charged but not convicted.
Such information can be disclosed in the US, although it does raise fairness issues. Yet the Croton PD had no hesitation about naming Pablo Castillo in their April 15 press release. The Croton PD also named Alisha Maxey just a few days ago in a press release, as well as when she was arrested in June. Why is there a two-tiered hierarchy where some defendants are named and shamed but those who have clout are not named?
I am opposed to theatrics such as perp walks and press releases before trial. But if the Croton PD is going to name names, then it should do so without fear or favor. And the police sting defendants were going in front of the Village Court. Does Ms. DiSanto believe that naming those cited is going to deprive them of a fair trial or impartial adjudication before Justice Watkins? It may surprise Ms. DiSanto to know that the names of the cited defendants are disclosed to Justice Watkins at the very first court appearance.
The fourth ground for denial was that it would identify a confidential source or confidential information.
I don’t see what confidential information would be disclosed, but the identity of the source is a different question. The fact that Croton PD states that they used a minor rather than an underage person makes identifying the undercover a legitimate concern. But that has no bearing on identification of the three defendants. And while disclosure of the specific name of the undercover may be a concern, it is reasonable to disclose such information as may bear on the bias of the undercover, and there is a significant question as to why the village is using undercover civilians who have not reached the age of majority.
The last ground for denial was that it would reveal investigation techniques or procedures. This is absurd. We are not talking about taking down Pablo Escobar. An undercover went into a store during business hours (likely being recorded by store video), and a Croton police officer (likely in uniform and also on video) issued a notice to appear in court. These types of police sting operations are cookie-cutter affairs; the only distinction was Croton’s use of a minor instead of an underage person.
The Board of Trustees should ask why the police are using minors, and what is being done to assure that their participation is knowing and voluntary—any police operation entails risk. The trustees should also establish a policy for press releases, including specific procedures for announcing names of persons or companies who have not had their day in court.
It should go without saying that if Croton does issue a press release, it cannot then refuse to answer press inquiries on specious and arbitrarily applied grounds.
--Paul Steinberg, Croton-on-Hudson