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