Originally Posted by Braddelauter
I have to question the validity and existence of this study.
If this was an internal study (by the department or agency) this is public information and is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, since this is a governement agency that was studied. Since this would have been payed by public funds, we would have a right to know the results, methods and evidence. If this was an internal investigation, which appears to be quite extensive, funding would have had to be in addition to the operating budget and approved through a budget commission or the like. This is not likely to produce a cover up and would be impossible to accomplish. I would have to say, Agency X suspects, finds evidence and then takes no action, why spend the money. Why not save the money, since we won't do anything with the information anyway, and then we don't find ourselves covering up anything.
If this was an external study, by an outside source, what would be the use. "We suspect wrongdoing, we are going to investigate it, but we won't let anyone know when we find wrongdoing".
I would find it highly unlikely that this study is not being published for the "embarrassment" reason or any other reason.
Question all you want, but you are clearly not always right given the above. After all, the FOIA is not always applicable, nor are appropriate, proper requests always made under FOIA (as applicable).
If you correctly read what I posted previously, it might be helpful.
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
I was speaking with my colleagues who remembered a television report in the northeast of a limited number of incidents, several years ago, that you described. This report did not present that dihonesty is systemic of law enforcement and was very limited in its scope and focused on only one area of one law enforcement agency.
To what are you referring? What "limited number of incidents" are you claiming that I described? [I didn't refer to the "northeast" or even a TV report.]