Thishas me puzzled:
Can cops really expect you to come home from work to help them in an investigation? Are you under any obligation to say where someone wanted on theft charges might be? Does it matter if they are convicted or not? If they are legally married do you still have to say? And finally, if they saw the marriage license through a window does that violate the expectation of privacy, or is the fact that they had cause to look at the house for the suspect make it moot?
Per the article the ACLU has filed a compliant against the police so we’ll see what becomes of that. The DADT policy is pretty asinine, but for better or worse it’s the current policy, and if you are in a job where being outed could terminate your career it’s pretty risky (and borderline stupid) to codify that relationship with a marriage license if you care about keeping that job.
I have no doubt the police got a kick out of twisting the knife in that scenario, especially if they thought she was giving them “attitude”, but irrespective of their pettiness they did have, if they were searching for her partner, a plausible reason to tell the Air Force that the two were in a committed relationship as way of establishing their right to question the service member.
The police may have been somewhat malicious, but the expelled women kind of set herself up (to a degree) to be outed with her marriage.
They certainly expect so
No, unless your failure to give information reasonably creates accomplice liability (probably doesn’t in this case) (or you actually obstruct the investigation by lying about their whereabouts)
No
No
Yes, unless they were able to see the license from a publicly-accessible area (i.e. not the curtilage of your house) (which, fwiw, is extremely suspect that you could be in an area of someone’s property with no reasonable expectation of privacy and be able to read something off of a kitchen table, but then again it’s not like marriage records aren’t publicly available anyway [edit: this may or not be true, don’t really care to check up on that])
And no, unless they’re in hot pursuit of the suspect (or they have an arrest warrant which throws other crap into the mix, namely whether their belief that the subject of the warrant is in the house, which gives them cause to enter) it matters not.
is this some feature of being a servicemember? that you are suddenly obliged to be questioned by law enforcement? because it sure isn’t the case for a non-servicemember
I was under the impression that if the civilian police wished to force a service member to be delivered up or otherwise be made available for questioning while under military authority they had to present some sort of compelling argument to the relevant military authority to effect this. Is this not the case?
yeah, like i said - i dont know
Generally speaking, the military doesn’t have to make any of its personnel available for civilian questioning, especially if the service member isn’t the one under investigation. (They’ve been known to do their own questioning, however.)
My take on this is that the police are claiming that they saw the marriage license in plain sight because they were looking for blackmail material, then when Sgt. Newsome wouldn’t play ball, used it. Whether it’s legal or not, and whether it was done out of homophobia or not, it’s still morally and ethically reprehensible.
I’m glad the ACLU has taken this on, but I can’t see this getting that far. This just isn’t the case to test third-party disclosure.
What I don’t get is why her commanders discharged her. What, do trained technicians with nine years of experience just grow on trees? Where are they going to find a replacement?
Military administrators *hate *losing qualified personnel. Getting rid or a perfectly functional soldier makes no sense.
You can refuse to answer the police, and that’s legal; if you lie to deliberately mislead them (“She’s not here” when she is), that can be obstruction.
Ever watch Law & Order? Harrassing a suspect, like making an arrest when most calculated to embarass or get them fired, seems to be standard procedure -even when the cops are wrong nothing happens to them.
Not sure what a soldier’s rights are when interrogated by military police or superiors. IIRC with civilian police they have the same rights as anyone else.
I suspect a lot of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell enforcement falls to discretion of the local command and what sort of action they tolerate or think they can get away with?
Don’t ask, don’t tell has gotten rid of a lot of really trained people. Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, for instance, had 18 years of experience as a fighter pilot.
Lt. Col. Lissa Young, who had been in the army for 16 years, and had just been picked to teach at West Point, was discharged.
Petty officer Rhonda Davis, who was first a Radioman and then a navy journalist, was discharged.
Air Force Staff Sargeant David Hall, who was a weapon loader, and had won several competitions for weapons loading, was discharged.
Numerous translators, including at least one Hebrew translator and a number of Arabic translators, some of whom served in Iraq, were discharged.
Putting aside any moral objections to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, it’s gotten rid of a lot of qualified and experienced soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
The US military has a history of using DADT to drum out gay soldiers even when it seems pretty clear that its to their disadvantage. During the Iraq War, when the military was scrambling to get more troops, they cut down on using discharges in every category except under DADT. So if you were caught committing a crime, or were sick or whatever, the military was willing to stretch the rules to keep you in the ranks, but not so much if you were gay.
The military’s policy was originally “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue.” It’s telling that the last part is not well known, because apparently it’s not paid much mind.
I realize this doesn’t address the OP’s questions but I’m having trouble believing the marriage certificate was just sitting there on the kitchen table. The couple got married about six months ago, and they just have their marriage certificate sitting there on the kitchen table such that you can read it through a window?
That the cops are claiming that the license was visible through the window isn’t sitting well with me. It’s easy to dig through the couple’s personal possessions and lie about it. And, as I said upthread, I’m willing to bet money that the police wanted the license as insurance that Newsome would cooperate because they knew that going to her unit and ratting her out under DADT would have far greater consequences to her than just going to her unit asking for their assistance in getting her to cooperate.
Eh - it might not be so, but it’s been a few months since I got sworn into the Maryland bar, and my certificate is still sitting on in an envelope on my bookshelf. People are lazy.
Yeah, but a kitchen table? A place that is used for eating every day? And if they don’t eat there, just pile it up with mail or whatnot, how is a six month old marriage certificate not buried under other shit?
The cops’ story just pegs my bullshit meter.
Being able to read the license on the kitchen table through a window does seem fishy to me.
It’s not completely impossible, it’s just too convenient for me to swallow given everything else happening in this case. Not only did the lesbian in the military leave her marriage the certificate laying around, she left it someplace they could get food on it, and the police happened to leave it someplace the cops could see it from outside the house so nobody can accuse them of violating her privacy? Let’s say I’m dubious.
I’m confused on the debate in this thread.
The cops may have been assholes. Who cares. I don’t expect them to be nice guys. If they did something illegal to acquire knowledge of the marriage I can see debate on their ethics.
If anyone this happened to anyone in the civilian world it wouldn’t be as serious an issue. If my partner committed a crime and the police called my work it would be embarrassing but not likely to be a reason for termination.
The military has a stupid policy and their employees are unfairly terminated for it. The problem is DADT not the police.
Why can’t it be both?
Disagree. This smells too much like deliberate spitework. The cops just ruined a career of someone who was not a suspect, and they did not have to. They could have gotten search warrants, arrest warrants, etc. They could have “picked up for questioning” as she left the base. This looks too much like petty, punitive spite work. It may be legal, but it’s still a lousy thing to do. All they’ve really accomplished, is to ensure they get even less information than they might have gotten, and a possible lawsuit.