The constitutional lawsuit against Larry Meyer and the police department he served in our small town was filed in May 2005. It was settled, and the case closed, in September 2008.

One might imagine that, during the pendency of the suit, investigator Meyer (now retired from the force), might have had a different profile. Not because one must assume that the allegations of the complaint to be meritorious, but because a community with a respect for the federal judicial process might wish to avoid disregarding a pending constitutional action.

Propriety expects more than right conduct, but even the appearance of conduct unbecoming. Now I know that our officials in the city do not like to be lectured this way. I will offer two replies.

First, one has a right to comment this way, and neither your office nor your delicate, tender sensibilities shall trump this right.

Second, if one wishes not to be lectured, then at least I would suggest that one stop lecturing. Inapt, pedantic quotations from Confucius, or on enlightenment, leave me unimpressed. This ersatz philosophizing is lawful, but almost a self-parody to my ears. It is enough to govern the city justly; the rest is best left to others. The city hires for a desk, and not a sham pulpit.

After the Fourth Amendment violations were alleged against Meyer in 2005, what else happened, that one can recall? Oh, now, you fine historians of the city, why this lacuna, this odd gap of events in 2006?

You know very well that Meyer acted in a significant, vital way in the Star Packaging raid, in which
I once wrote that “The Whitewater police tell us, repeatedly, that the Star Packaging raid, and their former requests of motorists for Social Security numbers, were efforts to prevent identity theft.”

Now, I have written before that I think the idea of significant identity theft in this matter was an excuse. (See, The Identity Theft Excuse.)

But who was a lead local investigator on the Star Packaging raid? You know very well that it was Meyer. Why Meyer, though? No one had the sense to see – no, the true professionalism to see — that someone else should play this role until the resolution of a federal lawsuit in which Meyer was named defendant?

Re-accreditation, fancy patrol car lights and decals, foot patrols — they are as light as tissue paper when compared to a mistake of this kind.

No laminated plaque will rehabilitate a departmental leadership so dense as this. Dense, and dense enough to think that it might be rehabilitated through trinkets. You have as much likelihood of rehabilitating with magic rocks and a chicken wishbone.

What was that raid, by the way?

Immigration attorney Erich Straub said the 10 employees he represents in their deportation battles are ones who were able to post bail and get out of jail. He thinks at least one other worker, represented by another attorney, remains in the country, fighting to stay here. Most of the other 14 employees, Straub thinks, were deported back to Mexico. “You can challenge (a deportation) order, but if you’re not able to post bond, you’re challenging it from jail,” Straub said. “The process is not fast. You could end up in jail from six to 24 months. A lot of people decide it’s not worth it and they decide it’s best to go home (to their native country)….”

The 10 people Straub represents are seven women and three men, most of whom are in their 20s and 30s, with a few in their 40s, Straub said. “As far as I’ve seen, I don’t think one of my clients has a criminal record,” Straub said. “They are mothers and fathers. They have children. They have families. They are hard working. They’re hard-working families that are trying to make a living here in the United States of America and they’re law abiding. But for the immigration allegations against them, they are not criminals. They’re not out there creating havoc and preying on society.”

Next: Our Silent Press

On May 24th, 2005, Whitewater resident Steve Cvicker filed a federal lawsuit against Whitewater Police Department investigator Larry Meyer, individually and as a member of that department, among other parties. The case closed on September 15, 2008, with a signed stipulation for dismissal, following settlement.

Four years is not a long time for litigation, although more so in the federal system than in many state cases. It is enough time, during the pendency of the action, for a municipality and its employees to consider carefully their actions, and conduct, regarding a citizen’s claims.

Here I refer not to a legal response, but to a broader reflection that may be conducted even during litigation. A case like this will have many docket entries, stretching over years; the Meyer case, 05-cv-00576, is no exception (with over 100 entries).

If there is anyone, in the City of Whitewater, who pompously tells you that reflection and reform during a case is impossible, you may be certain that he is either ignorant, stupid, or a self-interested liar.

(We have all three groups in Whitewater, as every town does; there is much lay certainty in Whitewater among those who are unknowing. It’s as credible as if you heard someone at a bus stop who causally mentioned his latest effort to perfect a working fusion reactor using a ‘Brussard,’ design. Possible, but highly unlikely.)

I will offer three posts on the Meyer case: this brief overview, intervening events, how the press has managed to cover the case, and a collection of questions arising from it.

First, a recap as I have previously posted, with newer developments added. These are principal, but not all, developments in this constitutional lawsuit.

May 25, 2005, Whitewater resident Steve Cvicker filed a lawsuit in federal court against Whitewater investigator Larry Meyer, among others, alleging constitutional and civil rights violations. The case was assigned to federal Magistrate Judge William Callahan. Defendants subsequently answered, later amending their answer, to Cvicker’s complaint.

June 29, 2006, Defendant, Larry Meyer filed a motion for Summary Judgment (that is, that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law).

March 20, 2007, Judge Callahan denied Defendant, Larry Meyer’s motion for summary judgment regarding alleged constitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment. Cvicker’s lawsuit on those weighty grounds would continue; only his statutory claims were set aside.

May 14, 2007, Plaintiff, Cvicker submitted reports from his expert witnesses. Those expert reports included a well-experienced expert’s assessment of (1) the evasive, incomplete answers that Meyer gave under sworn deposition regarding his ‘investigation’ of Cvicker, and (2) Meyer’s unprofessional conduct and conduct in significant excess of his search warrant, involving seizure of personal items that led to the basis of Cvicker’s constitutional Fourth Amendment claim against Cvicker.

November 15, 2007, Defendant, Meyer submitted a motion to enforce a supposed settlement agreement between the parties and to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.

December 20, 2007, Plaintiff, Cvicker filed his brief in opposition to Meyer’s motion to dismiss.

January 22, 2008, Magistrate Judge William E Callahan Jr denied Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement.

September 15, 2008, Magistrate Judge William E Callahan, Jr signs stipulation and dismissal on 9/15/08.

These suits are rare, especially so for a city so small as Whitewater, Wisconsin. One might expect that it might be met with some self-reflection.

Of course not — the failure that leads to this a lawsuit like this shuns introspection and self-reflection. There is nothing more predictable and commonplace than saying nothing, changing nothing.

You may save slogans, quotations, and an insistence on politeness as though it were a virtue from God Himself — it is enough to govern well.

Next: The Intervening Event.

Here is Part 2 of my post on the 8/20 PFC meeting.

Freedom of Expression Resolution. In the spring, the Common Council, on a 5-2 vote, passed a resolution re-affirming rights of free expression.

The resolution was reviewed, but not adopted at the August PFC meeting. The reception – but not adoption – offers insight into authority of the Council, PFC, and leadership of the police department.

It is true that the PFC, and neither Council nor City Manager, oversees the Whitewater Police Department. If you ever read on a city website or elsewhere that the City Manager oversees the police department, that’s misleading and incomplete. Authority does not run from the City Manager, around the PFC, on major matters of promotions, etc. Approval authority runs from the PFC to the department.

(Quick question: when the City Manager recently celebrated a promotion within the department, did the PFC approve it first? If it did not, then why did it do so in other cases? If the PFC has approved validly in some cases but not others, then why not explain – in the City Manager’s Weekly Report, the distinction? That would be good and common policy elsewhere, but it’s ignored here. To defer to others is to fail the city.)

I’ll ask another question: What does it mean when a member of the PFC, when asked to adopt the resolution, remarks that a member of Council said it (freedom of speech, presumably) was “already stated in the Constitution.” One can re-affirm what appears already.

More to the point, what value is a member of the PFC who cannot read the Constitution for himself, rather than rely on the opinion of someone on Council? There must be more than one copy of the Constitution in the city, and as it is already clear, the PFC has independent authority to consider the matter.

A man, presumably literate, having talked, preached, and chatted up residents of the city for years, might have the occasion to read and decide for himself. No need to look elsewhere: one who can open a great Book can read a slender Constitution. A member of a commission like this should be able to exercise his own research and review, of a document that, after all, should be familiar to him in his voluntarily assumed role.

If I applied to a board on geometry, one might expect that I knew a bit of Euclid. Relying on other residents, politicians, CliffsNotes, etc. just lacks respectable diligence.

It hardly matters how one receives a resolution, or often if one adopts it at all; it is enough to see that receiving with ‘appreciation,’ without independent reflection, is part laughable, part shame.

Next PFC meeting, according to the notes: November 19th. How many even know?

I will finish the week (my posting week ending on Saturday), with a series on the constitutional lawsuit against Meyer and the City of Whitewater.

No one who has followed this suit would be surprised that we have a PFC that’s ineffectual. If we had better oversight, we would have fewer embarrassments. Instead, we have more embarrassments than we can handle, and if the city could sell them to other communities, we would have a fine side business in these troubled times.