St. Paul Cops V. KMSP's Tom Lyden

I don't see this one ending well for St. Paul's finest.

The AP story in this morning's Star Tribune (and here on WCCO's website) laid out the basics. Tom Lyden, Fox 9's dogged-to-relentless reporter (I've always enjoyed how the guy works), smells something funky in the weird road rage story from last summer, the one where an undercover cop is shot up in Coon Rapids. Lyden heads over to St. Paul to get a look at public documents regarding a witnesses arrest record. The witness was no strolling bystander; she was in the car with the shooter who had to lean across her to fire. (The whole episode is weird.)

To Lyden's amazement, he is denied access to the full, detailed account of the woman's arrest in a 2000 incident also involving road rage. He points out to the functionaries in the paperwork department that these are public documents, as in routinely, freely available to reporters. The functionaries make some hurried calls but come back with a firm, "No way."

The story then begins taking its "What were they thinking?" twist. Lyden—who has been at this game for fourteen years in the Twin Cities—gets a St. Paul Police source to get him the public records he requested. (You're following the "public" and "fully entitled" part, right?) But the next thing he knows, he gets a tip that the St. Paul Police, under orders from whom isn't exactly clear . . . yet . . ., has come up with something called an "administrative subpoena," a legal device requiring no judge's involvement, and they have collected Lyden's personal cellphone records. Not the records from his KMSP business phone. His personal phone. They are hunting for his source in the department.

If this isn't a classic example of East German heavy-handedness, I don't know what is. The records are public. Lyden has a right to them. So they deny him access and then compound that blunder by doing a Stasi number on his private phone. Oh yeah, that'll play out well in the light of day.

KMSP turned the story over to Trish Van Pilsum Tuesday night. Today, Wednesday, Lyden was trying to keep a low(er) profile while executives, lawyers, and cops began tangling full time.

"I had never heard of an 'administrative subpoena' before this," he says, (which makes me feel a little less stupid because I hadn't either.) But I checked with Verizon, and apparently it's in all of our contracts that they have to respond to these things. But there is no judicial oversight here. There is nothing public and direct about it. Nothing. Zero. I asked them, "How many of these 'administrative subpoenas' do you see in a year?" And they said they didn't know, but they could give me a 'rough number.' A rough number.

(There's fodder for a "Good Question" segment.)

Lyden insists his first issue is getting his private phone records back. He points out that anyone who wanted to rifle through his records could come up with a pretty good idea of who he talked to in reporting any story he's worked on. The game isn't supposed to be played that way. At least not in the United States. Although . . . we've all read and heard plenty about NSA data mining and surveillance supposedly so sensitive that the current administration couldn't even bother getting approval from a super-secret oversight court.

Lyden's attitude is that if the St. Paul cops really wanted to brawl, he was up for it. "Go get a real subpoena, present it to my bosses and our lawyers, and let's see what happens. But do it out in public.  This was all done behind closed doors. I wouldn't have known anything about it if I hadn't been tipped. I have a problem with that."

Nobody likes sneaks.

He adds, "Even with the Valerie Plame case," where the government went after reporters' sources, "at least they were out front about it. Then you can have a fair and straightforward fight."

This is a problem St. Paul police chief John Harrington and his shop never needed to have. And it will only get worse for them if—and I say if—it turns out that the woman Lyden was looking into was
being protected by the cops for whatever reason. The public may be pretty indifferent to the cops stiffing a reporter on some paperwork. (The numbers of Americans who express no concern at all over the NSA or anyone sifting through their phone records is always pretty amazing.) But John and Jane Sixpack may think a bit differently if it gets pointed out—via an escalated media controversy—that the local cops can do this to anyone for any reason.

By the way, the public, detailed arrest record Lyden was looking for—and finally given by his police department source—includes some great, hard-boiled dialogue out of the woman in question.

To the officer who pulled her over in the 2000 incident—after she apparently drove so erratically she forced him into oncoming traffic—"I'm an NAO [an police officer not on active duty]. Why the f**k are you stopping me?" And more and more f-bombs. (You kiss your mother with that mouth, lady?)

Another thing the St. Paul cops don't need is the appearance that they are retaliating against Lyden for his reporting on the alcohol level of murdered St. Paul cop Gerald Vick.

"This isn't good," Lyden says, and I'm inclined to agree. "The Republican National Convention is coming in here in a few months, and I think there are lot of people coming to town to demonstrate or whatever who might be concerned if the local police are looking up their phone records."

Finally, Lyden says, "I've been doing this fourteen years, and I've never really worried about my personal safety." (He mentions interviewing the head of the Crips street gang). "But this past week, I have. Sometimes bad cops do bad things. I have had a couple meltdowns in the past week, and that's new for me." 

Comments

[stevemarsh]

Sickening.

[David Brauer]

Great analysis, Brian - I'm glad Tom called you back since he stiffed me!

I take a different tack on MinnPost, noting the gaping shield-law hole the St. Paul cops exploited, but the best part is an epic Bob Fletcher blast at John Harrington. The Fletcher doc is at:

http://www.minnpost.com/client_files/pdfs/Fletcher_Letter.pdf

Enjoy the food fight!

LAMBERT: Thanks, David. I just happen to catch Lyden ... on his KMSP office phone. (Maybe the NSA will have a record of that one.) I'm not all that well plugged into the St. Paul Police culture, but I'm gathering this is a very small and tight circle of characters. My sense is that Fletcher understands the PR disaster far better than Harrington.

[108]

Stasi? Yea, thats an apt comparison. The police are a para military organization. If a conflict of interest exists between protecting themselves and the public, more often than we care to admit they protect themselves. Theyre not your friend.

And reporters should know this, but the coverage of this story has suffered since day one in deference to the police. AND because they lazily wanted to follow the standard ideological narrative that the civilian permit holder was a typical gun not whack job. Ya know, maybe he is - but whats fairly easy to observe at this point is that Landen Beard is a knucklehead as well. Idiots find each other.

But there was no legal reason for the press to hide Beard's indentity for months on end when they in fact knew all along. The press lazily cow towed to the Robbinsdale, Coon Rapids, and Anoka county police departments in keeping the identity of this officer a secret until recently.

And subsequently, theres no reason for you not to say out loud in print this woman with past road rage you media types keep mentioning is Rebecca Treptow if thats the case. Whats the deal with the constant oblique references? Lyden got the archived report, did he not?

Lyden's work on this whole affair has not been very good regardless. The irony is, he attempts to dig into this womans past and the cops turn on him.

BTW, the shooter was not another cop, as your lead states.

In any event, I agree - administrative subpeonas sound like utter BS in this manner. I can see them being used in missing person cases.

LAMBERT: This story will get worked over from a lot of angles. I happen to be amazed by the cluelessness of whoever tried to pull this on a reporter ... with every legal right to the information he was seeking. Did they really think he wouldn't find out? Come on! Try using adult intelligence.

The big downside is ... increased public suspicion/distrust of police authority. None of us need that, least of all the cops themselves, and in this case they brought it on themselves. Lyden himself is quick to compliment the cops who provided him with the information, and separate them from those who either closed ranks against him for his Vick coverage, some personal issues they may have with him, or a misplaced sense of duty to the woman involved.

I'm being coy with her name simply because I am not entirely certain of what is going on here -- other than that Lyden was entitled to the records and the "administrative" subpoena bit is bad mojo.

And you're right on the shooter. I'm correcting that.

[Frogman of Grant]

Excellent post Mr. Lambert. One quibble: Why the distinction between Lyden's "KMSP business phone" and his "personal phone?" Clearly he does business with sources from both. The cops should have no right--especially via a phony, extra-legal subpoena--to records from either.

LAMBERT: Obviously the cops knew where to go trolling for data. But my fascination here is with the ham-fisted indifference to blowback. The snakey, ultra-clandestine move to someone (even a reporter's) personal phone records is the element that I see playing very badly once out in the light of day.

[Dave]

True story. My company had a serious death threat about six months ago. We contacted the police with information pointing to the Internet provider used. While the police worked hard, it took a few days to get a subpoena followed by a couple more days to get the account we had traced. In the meantime we had an armed officer at our main desk.

The trusty St. Paul police meanwhile learn of a legal document being handed out and can grab phone records without even visiting a judge? Even GW himself would be impressed by that.

A few heads need to roll in St. Paul and Mr. Lyden deserves kudos.

Excellent post Brian.

LAMBERT: This morning's Strib (Anthony Lonetree) has a line suggesting that the subpoena in question was more authoritative than this funky "administrative" business. I think somebod(ies) need to get their story straight ASAP.

[DI]

I always thought NAO was a "Neighborhood Assistance Officer" (a civilian police dept. employee). That's seems to be confirmed on p. 7 of this SPPD Annual Report (www.stpaul.gov/depts/police/reports/98annual_1.pdf):

"The Saint Paul Police Neighborhood Assistance Officers’ (NAO) primary function is to act as liaison between the police department and the citizens of Saint Paul. NAOs actively patrol the community, support police officers by taking low priority/non-enforcement calls. They also assist with sex offender notifications, disaster areas, bicycle safety rodeos and major crime scenes."

LAMBERT: You are correct. My mangled definition suggested something with far more formalized training. But the issue here again, for the St. Paul Police is that we will all soon learn a lot more about the woman in question -- and her relationship to the department -- than we ever would have, even if Lyden filed a full report on Fox9.

[Tom Lyden]

To the anonymous poster #108. I did in fact obtain the record. And I did do a story on her prior "road rage" incident/history. Sorry you missed the story.

[108]

Tom, thats great - you know, all fine and dandy. There's no reason not to expose whatever there is to be exposed about the Treptows. But there's also no reason not to have created and aired a journalistic examination of Mr. Beard. There seems to be fodder for examination there. Yet his identity has been omitted until very recently because journalists have been cowed by the various policie agencies. You folks at KMSP had an inside track to this information, what with Mr. Beard being engaged to a KMSP employee.

The public examination of the Treptows vs the lack of one into Beard suggests a lack of reasonable journalistic curiousity caused by undue deference to the police and a lazy wilingess to follow the ingrained narrative about permit holders.

[peter]

I'm assuming you heard the chief's press conference -- does it make any sense that they thought the case from 2000 was still open? Was there a court disposition to the matter? Also, is there anything in the report that ties the woman (arrested individual) as a victim of domestic a dispute? I can't make sense of this . . . !