ACLU: Police Should Apologize for Doing Their Job
The dismissal of a female homosexual Air Force sergeant at Ellsworth Air Force Base has made headlines recently. Rapid City Police made contact with Sergeant Jene Newsome in pursuit of an arrest warrant on a woman named Cheryl Hutson. Hutson was wanted for theft in Alaska and police had information that Newsome might know Hutson’s whereabouts. During the course of the investigation, Rapid City Police met with resistance from Newsome and eventually discovered a marriage license issued in Iowa which stated the two were “married.”
In the course of the incident, as is normal practice for military and civilian law enforcement authorities, these findings were passed along from the Rapid City Police Department to officials at Ellsworth AFB. Subsequently, because Newsom’s homosexual behavior came to light, she was discharged from the military because homosexual behavior is incompatible with military service.
I won’t go into a fresh explanation of why homosexual behavior is disruptive in a military environment and why it is incompatible with military service. I have already done so too frequently and with too much time invested recently, but for anyone interested in learning about that, you can read this and this and this and this and this and this and this–and don’t forget to read the comments because elaboration follows in the comments of some of these articles.
But this article is primarily about the actions of the Rapid City Police Department, and what has followed.
Since her honorable discharge, the anti-American Communists & Liberals Union (aka American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU) has launched a campaign to legally extort $800,000 from the Rapid City Police Department for following long-established procedures for dealing with military personnel.
From the Rapid City Journal:
In a letter emailed Friday, to Mayor Alan Hanks and members of the city council, ACLU executive Robert Doody proposes a settlement it says will “assure that the right of privacy, due process and equal protection are complied with by the Rapid City Police Department and that Jene Newsome receives compensation for the conduct of the Rapid City Police Department.”
This is simply nothing more than the same old legal extortion the ACLU is famous for–and the kind of bullying, harassment and intimidation homosexual activists have become known for, and good people in Rapid City should stand up and speak out against this corrosive legal intimidation.
Now that the Rapid City Police Department report has been completed and made public by Chief Allender, let us examine some of the facts of this case.
As the report from Police Chief Steve Allender indicates, the Alaska State Patrol requested assistance from the Rapid City PD in tracking down Hutson to serve a felony arrest warrant because Hutson was believed to be living with Newsome in the Rapid City area. RCPD came to Newsome’s civilian quarters at about noon but no one answered the door. They then called Newsome at work at the base, requesting her assistance in locating Hutson. Since Newsome was a non commissioned officer at the base (a rank of some responsibility), they expected her to want to help them. However, Newsome told them she didn’t know how to reach Hutson and said she needed to inform her chain of command.
While waiting to hear back from Newsome, the police officer’s supervisor contacted the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) to brief them on the situation and inform them that they were not being helped by Newsome.
This is what happened next:
More than four hours after the initial effort to make contact with Ms. Hutson at the house, the officer responded back to Sgt. Newsom’s home after receiving confirmation from the Alaska Authorities that cell phone communications from Ms. Hutson to a third party in Alaska indicated she was inside the house when the officer was there the first time. Once the officer arrived back at the residence, he made contact with witnesses who saw Ms. Hutson look outside briefly just a few minutes before, then go back inside. The officer called for a second officer to respond. When the second officer arrived, he walked around the side of the house to check for a possible means of escape. While there, he noted the dryer vent was exhausting hot air. He looked through a ground level kitchen window of the home in an attempt to see anyone in the house. A table was directly under the window and a document was lying face-up on the table approximately two and a half feet from the officer’s face. The document was a marriage certificate and he could read both names – Cheryl Hutson and Jene Newsome.
Next, Chief Allender explains why this “marriage” certificate was relevant to the investigation:
The unexpected discovery of the marriage license was an important moment in the investigation. The license certainly confirmed they were at the right house, but more importantly it shed light on the relationship between Ms. Hutson and Sgt. Newsome. Earlier when the first officer spoke to Sgt. Newsome on the phone, he believed he was merely speaking to a roommate. When Sgt. Newsome stated she was unaware of Ms. Hutson’s whereabouts, unaware of how to contact her and that she (Ms. Hutson) didn’t have a phone, these statements could be better understood given the relationship of mere roommates. The marriage license, whether recognized in South Dakota or not, spoke to the depth of the relationship between Sgt. Newsome and Ms. Hutson and shed a new light on Sgt. Newsome’s earlier statements. At this point in time, Sgt. Newsome had become the subject of a criminal investigation for “Accessories to Crime” under South Dakota Codified Law.
Contact was later made with both Newsome and Hutson over the phone. Newsome was returning home after work and arrived there shortly after Hutson agreed to come outside the home where she was arrested. There was some discussion of charging Newsome with being an accessory, but that decision was not made at that time (I’m starting to sound like I’m writing a police report like I did so often several years ago.)
Allender’s report states that it has been longstanding practice for civilian and military authorities to share information that involves police contact with military personnel.
There is a long-standing practice (more than 25 years) of sharing information obtained through RCPD contact with Air Force members who are arrested or otherwise have committed a crime. The RCPD keeps an after-hours roster of first sergeants to respond to the field to address problems such as fighting, drunkenness etc. The communication may go from the RCPD to an Air Force sergeant, or to the OSI depending on the offense. It is done, fairly informally depending on the circumstances on a case by case basis.
The detective in this case would be in charge of initiating any further investigation in the Newsome case. He decided to forward the report to the Air Force to learn what if anything they might do to resolve this. This practice is also utilized regularly but more often after an arrest has been made. The two agencies decide informally or sometimes formally who will exercise jurisdiction over the matter at hand.
As to the inclusion of the information concerning the “marriage” license? It’s relevance has already been established above. Chief Allender further clarifies why the investigating officer included the information in the report:
He did not consider redacting the information as this practice is never done when releasing a report to a government agency.
In other words, including such relevant information was a simple matter of policy and practice.
I spent 10 years in the Air Force and worked as a military cop in a variety of the areas available in the service: patrolman, Desk Sergeant (the rough equivalent of a dispatcher in the civilian world), supervisor and as a detective. Through the course of all those duties at multiple locations around the United States and overseas, I had occasion to work with civilian police officials and law enforcement officials of other agencies (including some with foreign governments), and regardless of the location or agency, law enforcement officials of all flavors usually work together quite well in helping one another in their duties. I spent several years at Ellsworth Air Force Base in Rapid City and worked with the Rapid City Police Department, the Box Elder Police Department, the Pennington County Sheriff’s Department, the Meade County Sheriff’s Department, Meade County constables, local DEA officials, and others. Frequently we helped facilitate their efforts in the pursuit of their duties, and frequently they extended the same courtesy to us in the pursuit of law enforcement matters regarding military members.
In short, the level and type of cooperation seen in this incident is typical of all my law enforcement experience, even though I have been out of the service for 15 years now.
Newsome made several bad choices. Her first was to engage in homosexual behavior–something which is immoral and unhealthy, in addition to being contrary to accepted behavior for military personnel.
She also made a bad choice to counterfeit marriage. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Only a man and a woman possess the combination of physical and sex characteristics to form the physical and emotional bond required for marriage. It doesn’t matter that one particular government agency was derelict in its duty to uphold basic societal standards and participated with her in counterfeiting marriage; the marriage was nevertheless not an actual marriage and was only a counterfeit facsimile of one.
Newsome also made a bad choice to get involved with a felon. She displayed poor judgment in becoming involved with a felonious thief who was a fugitive from justice, and this poor judgement could also have bearing on her judgment in other areas, including her military duties. Military members have incredible responsibilities, working around dangerous, multi-million-dollar equipment, and their actions have the potential to affect countless lives. Many military members are also entrusted with classified information that is important to national security (and thus, lives are on the line); poor judgment and classified information is a very dangerous combination.
This sergeant also made a bad choice to lie to law enforcement authorities who were in pursuit of a felon and hindered their ability to bring her to justice.
It is unfortunate that Newsome’s nine years in the Air Force came to an end so abruptly and unexpectedly. However, that end came through a series of bad choices she made; no one forced her to make these decisions. Each of us have made bad decisions over the course of our lives, and I am no exception. I have made many terrible decisions and have displayed very poor judgment in a number of situations. But we must all eventually deal with the consequences of those choices, as must Newsome.
The Rapid City Police Department should not be penalized for doing the right thing, nor the United States Air Force. This lawsuit from the ACLU is the typical, amoral rot that this despicable organization has always pushed. I hope the Rapid City Police Department and the Rapid City government will not capitulate to their threats and attempts at legal extortion as many others have in the past.
We, the people of Rapid City and citizens of America, must stand with those in military and police uniform who work hard to enforce our laws, maintain order, and keep us safe. If we cut their legs from under them, fail to back them and fail to enable them to do their jobs well, how can we possibly be able to count on them when we need them most?
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.
