Metro Nashville Police Chief Steve AndersonLate Monday afternoon, Metro Nashville Police Chief Steve Anderson released a remarkable memo on the department's website excoriating a spokesman in the prosecutor's office — and suggesting he should be fired — for, as the subject line put it, the "indiscriminate release of [a] sexual assault report."
Addressed to The Nashville Public, Anderson went on at length about the release of information related to an alleged rape at Bridgestone Arena last week.
Here is a relevant portion:
Later that morning, just as the investigation was beginning and a search was being made for the fleeing perpetrator, an employee of the Office of the District Attorney, Ken Whitehouse, electronically accessed the investigative report from the Police Department electronic data base. For reasons that have not been explained, Whitehouse then immediately turned this report over to WSMV, Channel 4 News.
The report was delivered to Channel 4 News in its entirety. The Channel 4 reporter prominently displayed the report and stated “this is the police report we got this morning.” Indeed, it was the very police report containing the name, address and other personal information of this victim, the details of the attack and the identity of the perpetrator. The report was NOT released by the Police Department.
The purpose of this correspondence is to ensure the public that this report was NOT released by the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department nor any employee of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department. This report was released by Ken Whitehouse, an employee of the Office of the District Attorney.
It is my understanding that the sole reason Whitehouse accessed this report was to turn it over to Channel 4 News. Certainly Whitehouse had no business purpose in making this report public. In fact, Whitehouse had no business purpose in accessing the report for any reason. Any attempt to explain the motivation of Whitehouse would only be speculation. However, viewed in its best possible light, the actions of Whitehouse were irresponsible, unconscionable, a violation of the trust this victim placed in the criminal justice system and a violation of the public trust.
With due respect, the chief is wrong. Viewed in its best possible light, Whitehouse's actions were less cautious than the department would like — he mistakenly did not redact the alleged victim's information from the report before giving it to a reporter — but otherwise fairly unremarkable. He released information that would have been available to a news outlet as soon as the alleged rapist's warrant was made public.
WSMV news director Jim Gilchriest put it well in a statement earlier posted to the station's site yesterday:
I find it curious that you would say there was “no business purpose” for the DA spokesman to release the police report. It is a public record and a matter of public concern. Had we not obtained the police report, the public would have been unaware of a reported attack in a downtown public facility following a public event, and that the alleged perpetrator of that attack was at large. Indeed, the police department did not inform the public of the situation until after a suspect had been arrested.In this specific case, a public official released a public document that the public has a right to know. Our news organization reported it accurately, fairly, and responsibly. That’s how it should work.
Most outlets, including the Scene, do not identify the alleged victims of sexual crimes and one assumes that WSMV would have done the same. Except, as Gilchriest explains, in this case the alleged victim agreed to an on-air interview. To be clear: Her identity and the details of her alleged rape were, or were about to be, public information; there is no reason to believe that WSMV would have handled that information unethically; and, in the end, she decided to go public anyway.
In his memo, Anderson explains more generally the importance of handling alleged cases of sexual assault responsibly so as not to discourage future victims from reporting or cooperating with law enforcement. That is a good goal. He also goes on to raise the specter of the media harassing sexual assault victims, writing that "no victim of sexual assault should have to fear that their personal information will be immediately released to the public and that a reporter will show up at their doorstep within a few hours."
Again, importantly, that didn't happen in this case — the victim in the alleged rape gave WSMV permission to use her name and invited their cameras into her home. But as a general matter, it's important to note that Anderson's concerns about possible media behavior do not ultimately change the fact that the information obtained by WSMV was public information.
From this vantage point, it looks as if Anderson and his communications department were miffed over the fact that that information was released through avenue other than their office. That combined with Nashville District Attorney Glenn Funk's apparent refusal to fire Whitehouse over the release of that information appear to have prompted the unusual public scolding from the police chief.
The Metro police department is very keen on controlling the tone, timing, phrasing and framing of information it gives to the media (a fact that simply makes it like all other government agencies). It is also, no doubt sincerely, concerned about the treatment of alleged sexual assault victims. But, in this instance, Whitehouse's sin seems to have been against the former principle, not the latter.
