Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

ACLU files suit against Denver

Group seeking disclosure of police equipment purchases for DNC

By Daniel J. Chacon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published May 28, 2008 at 1:11 p.m.
Updated May 28, 2008 at 1:11 p.m.

Text size  

More Denver Democratic National Convention 2008

More stories »

The ACLU of Colorado filed a lawsuit against the city of Denver today to try to force the city to disclose what kind of police equipment it is buying in preparation for the Democratic National Convention this August.

Denver turned down the ACLU's request for the information about the purchase of police equipment earlier this year, saying that disclosure "could potentially disclose tactical security information of the Denver Police Department which would be contrary to the public interest."

In a statement, John Culver, who is handling the case as an ACLU cooperating attorney, said: "We believe the public interest is served by disclosing how the government is spending the public's money."

The ACLU's statement says Denver will spend $18 million of a $50 million federal grant the city received to pay for convention security costs on equipment.

However, Katherine Archuleta, a senior adviser to Mayor John Hickenlooper on policy and initiatives and his DNC liaison, said recently that the city is actually going to spend closer to half of the $50 million on equipment and the rest on personnel.

Denver's Department of Safety has revealed some of the DNC-related equipment purchases, such as a SWAT vehicle and a unified command unit, by bringing purchase agreements before the City Council for approval.

But the department has declined to share details, citing safety and security.

When the purchase of wireless cameras was discussed at the mayor/City Council meeting Tuesday and Councilwoman Jeanne Robb asked where they would be located, Deputy Mayor Bill Vidal, who was filling in for Hickenlooper, jokingly told her that they would have to kill her if they told her.

The ACLU had requested documents "related to the purchase of such items as 'less lethal' weapons, vehicles, personal body armor, restraint devices, and barricades, fencing or netting," according to the statement.

"I do not believe that the public records at issue here contain the kind of 'tactical security information' that Denver is reluctant to disclose," Mark Silverstein, the ACLU's legal director, said in the statement. "Even if the requested documents did contain such information, the Colorado legislature addressed this issue in a 2005 amendment to the open records laws. The statute states that 'specialized details of security arrangements' can be deleted, but the remainder of the documents — the portions that reveal how the government is spending our money — must be disclosed."

The mayor's office could not immediately be reached for comment.

The suit was filed in Denver District Court.

Comments

  • May 28, 2008

    1:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    nicktaste writes:

    "We believe the public interest is served by disclosing how the government is spending the public's money"

  • May 28, 2008

    1:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jasin writes:

    ED-209?

  • May 28, 2008

    1:49 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    sprinkles writes:

    Sure thing. Let's request info AFTER the convention so our safety officers aren't put at greater risk.

  • May 28, 2008

    2:05 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rickg19611 writes:

    ""could potentially disclose tactical security information of the Denver Police Department which would be contrary to the public interest"

    What are Denver Democrats hiding from voters? How much of the bloated $50 million is being paid to Democrat lobbyists for "consulting"? How large are the payoffs to companies run by Democrats for their "services"? Why does Denver claim it can't afford to do its job of removing snow from streets, but can spend 100 times more money on weapons that they refuse to reveal to citizens?

  • May 28, 2008

    2:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    sprinkles writes:

    I'm sure anyone planning unlawful and/or violent actions at the DNC is thrilled with the ACLU. Give them the info on what equipment and surveillance they need to get around, it'll be a great boost for their plans.

  • May 28, 2008

    2:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    CHunter writes:

    Rickg19611-it's 2 different sets of funds, so you're comparing apples to oranges..Denver couldn't spend any of the DNC funds (which they just got a portion of recently) to do any sort of work on Denver's infrastructure.

  • May 28, 2008

    2:45 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Citizen21 writes:

    I have no problems with no disclosure prior to the convention so long as the money is spent on equipment and NOT some "consultant". I do think full disclosure of the spending should be made public afterwards. They should be required to show fiscal responsibility with tax payers money.

  • May 28, 2008

    3:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mtb writes:

    Aren't these funds raised specifically for the the DNC? If so, wouldn't this mean that this is not public money and doesn't fall under this set of circumstances? I remember Hickenlooper saying they would not use taxpayer money to reach the $50 million requirement . . .

    anyone know?

  • May 28, 2008

    3:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Scott writes:

    Once again the American Communist LeagUe supporting the rights of domestic terrorists, err I mean ReCreate-68, etc.. Has the ACLU ever stood up for the good guys or do they only try to get the scum off?

    The ACLU prostitute Silverstein claims, "I do not believe that the public records at issue here contain the kind of 'tactical security information' that Denver is reluctant to disclose". Then lets put his backside on the line. This prostitute can suit up with law enforcement and subdue the urban terrorists that the DNC is going to attract. What say you prostitute Silverstein? Got the guts to help control our fellow democrats or do you just want to sit in your office selling your views to the highest bidder?

    Scott

  • May 28, 2008

    3:05 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    DahmersCookbook writes:

    Yea I want ED-209 as well, several of them!!!

  • May 28, 2008

    3:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HolierThanThou writes:

    The statute says, "must be disclosed". I don't see where it says "delay is OK" or "unless you can make up a good excuse".

    Got a problem with that? Take it up with the legislature.

    Law says they must disclose what they're spending the money on. They don't have to reveal any more than that to the public. Council members are entitled to see more detail because they're the elected representatives of the people. ACLU has a good case. Denver might just as well cough up the goods now and save themselves the expense of fighting this.

  • May 28, 2008

    8:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    timeandagain writes:

    I hope they used the cash to buy great big guns to blow away the Recreate 68 folks. That would finally be my tax money well spent!!

  • May 28, 2008

    8:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HOOK writes:

    ACLU, what the????? You’ll get to see the equipment first hand when it’s projected right upside your big heads. Why waist the money, just stand in the middle of the out of control, burn down the house idiots and you will not only get to see the equipment, you will experience it. Wow, this is going to be kool!

  • May 28, 2008

    9:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Chadley25 writes:

    Not sure why people are beating up the ACLU on this one... the verbiage in Colorado's own statute is pretty clear. They have to disclose how that money is being spent. I think people tend to just spout off the cuff whenever they see "ACLU" in the news, whether their actions are wrong or right. In this instance, they appear to have a fairly solid case.

  • May 29, 2008

    1:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    AurariaGuy writes:

    Maybe they should demonstrate the new weapons on the ACLU. That should be 1st hand enough.