The Hennepin County Attorney's Office (HCAO) is circumventing legal requirements to seize personal property. As reported by the Minnesota Sun, HCAO's policy states that the personal cellphone of any law enforcement officer involved in a critical incident is potentially subject to search and seizure, including phones not in the officer's possession during the incident. Appallingly, the HCAO Media Coordinator is quoted as saying, "There are no privacy rights in a criminal investigation," a position that turns the Constitution on its head.
Unfortunately, this is only the latest example of elected officials depriving officers of their rights.
A double standard applies to officers when it comes to rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment as well. The Ramsey County Attorney's Office (RCAO) routinely declines criminal charges where the suspect refuses to provide self-incriminating statements on the grounds that, absent an incriminating statement, the prosecutor cannot ensure a conviction. Yet, when an officer invokes his or her right to remain silent, the implication is drawn that the officer is hiding the truth. County attorneys then engage in a fishing expedition to find an alternative means to gather what they hope will be incriminating information.
The pattern of vilifying law enforcement is troubling. In the highly publicized shooting death of Justine Damond, HCAO did not use a grand jury for its intended purpose, which is to review cases for criminal charges. Instead, a grand jury was used solely to compel officers to answer questions after a prosecutor accused investigators of not doing their job and the officer's partner of not providing enough information to bring charges.
Worse yet, the elected county attorney was recorded, while the investigation was still pending, implying that criminal charges against the officer would be a "big present ... under the Christmas tree."
RCAO has also set an alarming precedent for how it handles violent crime against law enforcement. When officers are victims of crime, RCAO deviates from its stated core values — to protect the rights of victims — and circumvents laws meant to prevent victims from being excluded from the prosecutorial process.
Officers do not receive the same empathy any other victim would. For example, RCAO recently allowed two individuals who threatened law enforcement with loaded firearms to retain their ability to possess firearms. These actions fail to recognize officers as victims of crime and, more broadly, enables the gun violence that threatens our communities and officers on a daily basis.
When officers are charged for lawfully defending their communities and themselves against that very threat, it reinforces a double standard and further hurts recruiting efforts.