Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

[cdaigle430]

Actually it does. It is required for law enforcement to notify the military when a service member either commits a crime or is known to associate with someone who commits a crime. Two of my military friends have gotten into trouble when their wives received a DWI even though it was off base and in a private car.

Exactly...

 

[cdaigle430]

The military could have been notified of an association without disclosing her sexual orientation.

It is wrong, wrong, wrong.

No, because had it been a marriage that the military acknowledges then the case could have been transferred to UCMJ instead. Clearly this is something that could not have been hidden, technically a military memeber and his/her spouse fall under UCMJ by default.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Woa, someone get a bad nights sleep? I know more about this than you do and I know how the Air Force thinks-I retired two years ago and with a Top Secret Clearance. And to the military it is in fact a security risk-but hey, what do I know.

I am not the one with a light trigger hair.

 

[jillio]

Should you really disclose the fact that you had a top secret clearance here on a public forum?

No more relevent than someone's sexual orientation is.:roll:

 

[jillio]

No, because had it been a marriage that the military acknowledges then the case could have been transferred to UCMJ instead. Clearly this is something that could not have been hidden, technically a military memeber and his/her spouse fall under UCMJ by default.

Had it been? It wasn't. And I still maintain that disclosing someone's sexual orientation is wrong, wrong, wrong, and leaves the discloser open to all kinds of discrimination lawsuits. Sexual orientation had no bearing on the case at all. It was information that did not need to be disclosed. Evidently, it remained hidden, or undisclosed until the police made it their business to disclose that which they had no right, nor any legal reason, to disclose.

Again, wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[TXgolfer]

Had it been? It wasn't. And I still maintain that disclosing someone's sexual orientation is wrong, wrong, wrong, and leaves the discloser open to all kinds of discrimination lawsuits. Sexual orientation had no bearing on the case at all. It was information that did not need to be disclosed. Evidently, it remained hidden, or undisclosed until the police made it their business to disclose that which they had no right, nor any legal reason, to disclose.

Again, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Actually roughly 20% of all DADT discharges come from 3rd party notifiers....

From the article above it appears the Marriage license was in the police report and the Military is privileged to that report.....It doesn't appear to be an attempted outing

 

[jillio]

Actually roughly 20% of all DADT discharges come from 3rd party notifiers....

From the article above it appears the Marriage license was in the police report and the Military is privileged to that report.....It doesn't appear to be an attempted outing

Twenty percent is hardly a majority, which tells me that this is not usual practice.

I guess we see this from two different perspectives. There was no reason for the marriage license to be in the police report. I doubt that it would have been included if this had been a heterosexual couple.

 

[TXgolfer]

Twenty percent is hardly a majority, which tells me that this is not usual practice.

I guess we see this from two different perspectives. There was no reason for the marriage license to be in the police report. I doubt that it would have been included if this had been a heterosexual couple.[/QUOTE]

Actually,it is very important evidence. Police are often told..."so n so doesn't live here" "I don't know this person." The marriage license established residency and knowledge of the offender.

 

[TXgolfer]

As well as adding a potential additional suspect

 

[jillio]

Twenty percent is hardly a majority, which tells me that this is not usual practice.

I guess we see this from two different perspectives. There was no reason for the marriage license to be in the police report. I doubt that it would have been included if this had been a heterosexual couple.[/QUOTE]

Actually,it is very important evidence. Police are often told..."so n so doesn't live here" "I don't know this person." The marriage license established residency and knowledge of the offender.

So would have a phone bill, or a credit card bill, or a bank statement.

A marriage license doesn't necessarily establish residency. There are many many people who are still married on paper that live in separate houses.

 

[TXgolfer]

So would have a phone bill, or a credit card bill, or a bank statement.

A marriage license doesn't necessarily establish residency. There are many many people who are still married on paper that live in separate houses.

But....according to the report the License was in plain view. There may not have been any bills in plain view. That was probably used to obtain a search warrant since the homeowner was not cooperating, although the article doesn't say this. A request for a search warrant would be in the police report as would the basis for that request.

 

[jillio]

But....according to the report the License was in plain view. There may not have been any bills in plain view. That was probably used to obtain a search warrant since the homeowner was not cooperating, although the article doesn't say this. A request for a search warrant would be in the police report as would the basis for that request.

It being in plain view is still not justification for turning it over. They don't need a marraige license to get a search warrant. A phone call to a judge stating that they have suspicions that the accused was living there was all it would take.

 

[Reba]

Update:

Police owe apology to outed airman, ACLU says

By Timberly Ross - The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Mar 18, 2010 19:20:17 EDT

The American Civil Liberties Union has launched a public campaign to force the Rapid City police department to apologize for the outing of a lesbian Air Force staff sergeant.

Robert Doody, executive director of ACLU South Dakota, said he’s not satisfied with the police department’s response to a complaint filed last month on behalf of Jene Newsome. So, the ALCU is asking people to send letters to Rapid City officials seeking an apology from the department and other corrective measures.

“We know that a lawsuit isn’t just enough here,” Doody said Thursday. “We want to change hearts and minds.”

Newsome’s honorable discharge under “don’t ask, don’t tell” came after police officers saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told officials at Ellsworth Air Force Base. The ACLU complaint claims the officers violated Newsome’s privacy when they informed the military about her sexual orientation.

Doody said the police department has not issued a formal response to the complaint, but has indicated no action would be taken.

Police chief Steve Allender has told AP his officers acted appropriately and have not been placed on administrative leave. He said Thursday he didn’t have further comment.

The ACLU has started a Facebook group called “Justice for Jene!” in support of the 28-year-old Newsome. It provides a form letter addressed to the Rapid City mayor and City Council members calling for the department to apologize to Newsome, reprimand the officers involved in her outing, adopt a policy stating it will no longer seek to out military members and compensate Newsome for the loss of her military career.

As of Thursday afternoon, the Facebook group had more than 2,250 members.

A message left Thursday for Rapid City Mayor Alan Hanks was not immediately returned. A secretary said city council members also were not in their offices Thursday afternoon.

The Rapid City Police Department has said Newsome, an aircraft armament system craftsman who spent nine years in the Air Force, was not cooperative when officers showed up at her home in November with an arrest warrant for her wife, who was wanted on theft charges in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Police officers spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome’s home and alerted the base, Allender has told AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.

He said his department does not seek to expose gay military personnel or investigate the sexuality of Rapid City residents.

Doody also said Thursday that Newsome and the ACLU were considering suing the department.

Newsome’s discharge has highlighted concerns over the ability of third parties to out service members, especially as the Pentagon has started reviewing “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Newsome has since moved to the Fairbanks, Alaska, area.

Police owe apology to outed airman, ACLU says - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times

 

[jillio]

Thanks for the update, Reba.

 

[TXgolfer]

It being in plain view is still not justification for turning it over. They don't need a marraige license to get a search warrant. A phone call to a judge stating that they have suspicions that the accused was living there was all it would take.

You must have a basis for those suspicions. You can't just ask

 

[jillio]

[/B]


You must have a basis for those suspicions. You can't just ask

They must have had a basis or they wouldn't have been at the residence to begin with.

 

[TXgolfer]

Newsome has since moved to the Fairbanks, Alaska, area.

where the thefts she has no knowledge of occurred

 

[jillio]

where the thefts she has no knowledge of occurred

Her moving back is no indication at all that she had prior knowledge. All that can be determined is that she moved back. Perhaps she finds the area more tolerant.

 

[TXgolfer]

They must have had a basis or they wouldn't have been at the residence to begin with.

Obviously what they had wasn't enough for a search warrant or they would have shown up with that as well.

Prehaps she should have cooperated in the first place. Then there would have been no need to look for her. She could have come home.....let the police ask their questions and been done with it.

This is still just her version of events. We have her story as told by the ACLU and a couple of quotes from the Air Forces Times articles Reba and I cited.

“It’s an emotional issue and it’s unfortunate that Newsome lost her job, but I disagree with the notion that our department might be expected to ignore the license, or not document the license, or withhold it from the Air Force once we did know about it,” Allender said Saturday. “It was a part of the case, part of the report and the Air Force was privileged to the information

 

[TXgolfer]

Her moving back is no indication at all that she had prior knowledge. All that can be determined is that she moved back. Perhaps she finds the area more tolerant.

That is why I said and not "AHHA!".