Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

The Voorhis prosecution

Why wasn't a related case in Texas followed, too?

The Rocky

Published November 27, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Thirteen months after the "leakgate" scandal hit the Colorado governor's race, we're still waiting for someone to explain why the arrest records and aliases of illegal immigrants should be kept secret from public view.

We're still wondering what an agent with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement allegedly did that was so wrong.

Why shouldn't the public know that an immigrant arrested in Colorado for heroin possession and an immigrant arrested in California for sexual battery, under a different name, are the same man? Arrest records are public records. Aliases are public records. So what if the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) was accessed to determine that two apparently different criminals were in fact the same man?

And so what if the information was used in a political campaign - in this case, by that of Republican candidate for governor Bob Beauprez?

Ah, but the law must be enforced, even when its application is absurd. Even when a particular enforcement does nothing to protect legitimate privacy interests or the integrity of law enforcement investigations.

Why this tirade today? Because the leakgate scandal is back in the news. Lawyers for ICE agent Cory Voorhis, who has been charged with accessing NCIC and then supplying information to the Beauprez campaign, recently filed a motion in court alleging selective prosecution and insisting that the agent broke no laws. And they offer up a number of reasons, ranging from the fact that the information involved foreign nationals rather than U.S. citizens to Voorhis' "First Amendment right to petition a U.S. congressman."

We won't try to disentangle the value of these various claims - except to say that if they don't hold up and Voorhis did break the law, the prosecution won't be entirely pointless. You can't have federal agents selectively flouting a statute, even when its particular application makes no sense.

On its surface, though, the argument that Voorhis is being selectively prosecuted does seem to have meat. A private investigator from Texas apparently had a friend in the Harris County District Attorney's office access NCIC for information on the same illegal immigrant. Not only isn't that leaker being prosecuted, the incident wasn't seriously probed.

Voorhis' attorneys also suggest that the Denver district attorney's office improperly provided information to the Bill Ritter campaign - although the evidence for that is far less persuasive. But the underlying point is hard to dismiss: If you're going to prosecute someone for releasing information that should be generally available anyway, the least you should do in the interest of fairness is make sure that everyone else who did it gets charged as well.

Comments

  • November 27, 2007

    3:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Paulkarmi writes:

    To Gov. Ritter and the Denver DA's office: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when a first we practice to decieve." The only way to see if their deceptions rise to the level of criminal activity is through a federal grand jury investigation. What, please, is the delay?

  • November 27, 2007

    7:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    Why can't you say ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT?

    Most of these people charged were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS,not immigrants. There is a huge difference.

    Someone told the public what the then D.A. Ritter was doing.Instead of prosecuting ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS , he was charging them with trespassing and setting them free.

    There should be a Grand Jury deciding if the D.A.'s office was beaking the laws and if so ,Ritter and his staff should be charged accordingly.

  • November 27, 2007

    8:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Charles writes:

    Maybe the Rocky should make amends for its own herd behavior in 2006 by pursuing the question asked in this editorial-- why is this "information that should be generally available anyway" NOT available to the public or the media? Why is information on the criminal history and aliases and plea bargains of criminal aliens hidden under layers of bureaucracy and protocols? What public good is served by this secrecy? How many criminal aliens who qualified for deportation were allowed to walk free over the past ten years in Denver courts? How many serious crimes might have been prevented if those persons had been deported? This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, it is a matter of public safety, or ought to be.

  • November 27, 2007

    10:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BikerChick writes:

    ..
    The Biker Chick is astounded; WHY MAKE A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLE HILL ? Voorhis is to be honored and praised, not crucified.
    ..
    The public (i.e. taxpayers) have an innate right to know -- delivered by the public safety officials -- through an unbiased media corps. That means the obvious; when a foreign national seems to have committed a criminal act in the USA, nothing but the entire truth is IMMEDIATELY shared with the public. NO DETAILS CAN BE WITHHELD. NONE.
    ..
    Otherwise, discrimination creeps into the process. The NCIC-iAFIS system uses ten-digit fingerprints for ground-truth. That way, the fraudulent-ID and alias game is exposed.
    ..
    This biker-lady is delighted that a federal law-enforcement officer has the integrity and ethics to notice an incorrect political declaration -- and provide suitable and appropriate information from the unclassified portions of the NCIC-iAFIS files -- so the public can make a balanced-informed decision.
    ..
    The DRMN editorial is "right on."
    ..
    Bill Ritter is a nice guy. Whether or not he erred by taking action to hammer Voorhis in a rightous fit, he could easily pen a VERY short letter to the Chief Judge of the U.S. 10th Circuit in Denver, recommending that the persecution against Voorhis be dropped, for cause. Beauprez can do the same. Both will be admired should they take that high road.
    ..
    It seems that a few elephants and donkeys may have made mistakes in this mess. It seems that both sides have learned a lesson, and have already cleaned up their acts. There is no need nor purpose in crucifying a federal agent and his family at Christmas time. Voorhis and Ramos and Compean MUST BE SET FREE TODAY. In addition, We-the-People MUST pay the Voorhis legal costs.
    ..
    No more double-standards. Law-and-Order is a sacred concept, with no room for bending rules. Keeping the public in the dark, especially for political reasons, is malfeasance. There is no privacy sheild for aliens who screw up in the USA -- NONE. Likewise, flight-risk is built-in -- NO BAIL BONDS ALLOWED. No more red carpet molly-coddling. WE HAVE PROVED THAT PUSSY-FOOTING DOES not WORK WELL WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS.
    ..
    Merry Christmas, or whatever turns you on.
    ..

  • November 27, 2007

    8:34 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Frank25 writes:

    This editorial should have been written in 2006 before election, and could have avoided electing a 97% plea bargainer district attorney who needs on-the-job training as governor. I am unaffiliated, but his opponent for the job had a much more rounded experience level within state as a leader, banker, federal representative, and did not need OJT or the panels, commissions, or committees to tell him what to do. But the unions (with one exceptional veto) and needy recipients love him. Taxpayers and businesses are now learning what they elected.

  • November 27, 2007

    9:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Frank25 writes:

    Note to lcdrjjxant who posted at 9:57 AM. I suggested your comment be deleted. I challenge you to produce any "official documents" proving your statement. I also suspect you have posted many times under different screen names, but your writing style and wording are the same litnany. No matter subject, you trash President Bush, his cabinet officers, and this administration. I am unaffiliated voter, but those who post as you do, do not convince me you have more than an opinion to back your claim. I served 26 years 18 days, with Honorable Retirement, having worked in Personnel, Administration, Security, Supply, Avionics, and retiring out of Satellite Communications Systems where I was an enlisted detachment commander. So I had a lot of management experience. I also know that all training President Bush received in ANG was received at regular AF bases, with records retained at training centers, and summarize records-special orders transmitted to Air Training Command Headquarters at Scott AFB, Illinois. Only his officer record and flight logs would be retained in ANG command. And he did fly over 600 hours in 2 year period, so he could not have been AWOL. He also received Honorable Discharge, and any lost time would be annotated thereon. I completed too many over the years to be sucked in by "Dan Rather" made-up records. Same with trashing Alito and the others. If this is only screen name you have used, then you need to write from material you can reference, instead of opinion only.