Well, I guess it's out now.
Bob Lonsberry put in his
column the stuff I don't have directly confirmed about what led to the investigation of Sgt. Carlos Garcia.
Let me back up.
The rumors began a few weeks ago. They were widespread in the Rochester Police Department. They were consistent.
Going by my rule, “If you heard it, someone else heard it,” I jumped right on it. I made the usual calls and realized no one was going to tell me anything on the record. No one I talked to had direct knowledge of the situation. We don’t put rumors on the news.
Furthermore, some of my colleagues were a bit queasy about the whole thing. Frankly, I was also hesitant. We’ve all known Carlos for years, interviewed him countless times, talked to him on the phone more times than we can remember. This wasn't going to be an easy story.
Last Monday, I hand-delivered a Freedom of Information Law request to Gary Walker, the mayor’s spokesman. I asked for Sgt. Garcia’s gas purchases, internal fuel usage, and Thruway tolls. Two days later, he sent me a reply in the mail. My request was denied because that information is part of a “law enforcement investigation.”
The city didn’t have to do that. Walker could have sat on my FOIL for months, as do many other government agencies (Yes, W. Broad St., that means you.). Most news organizations don’t have the time or resources to fight FOILs in court. We are really at the mercy of those who control this information.
In denying my request, the city gave me exactly what I wanted: confirmation of an investigation.
Here's my
story about this situation.
The city’s swift response and the mayor’s willingness to take my questions shows the city was prepared to face the music. This can’t be easy for the mayor, as a friend of Carlos. But going before the camera was also politically smart, as he is demonstrating the city has nothing to hide.
What now?I want to know what system exists to monitor car and fuel usage of workers who take home cars. Is anyone else under investigation? Should anyone else be under investigation?
Are these take-home cars justified? A 2006 D&C story said one of four cop cars is a take-home car. That's seems like a lot. I've since heard about officers who live out of county, even two counties away, for whom taxpayers subsidize commutes.
As soon as the RPD and the mayor characterized the investigation as “internal,” I became skeptical we would ever see the findings. The RPD can’t release the findings of internal probes because of civil service law. Criminal investigations also are not released, unless there are charges.
The current system of investigating police officer misconduct does not serve the public interest. I’m not saying it was set up to keep investigations from seeing the light of day. But that’s certainly a byproduct of this system.
