As someone who has lived and worked in South Bend for the better part of my life, I feel like I have to speak out about a local's view of the police tapes scandal. I keep seeing the news misreporting information because they ARE NOT aware of the history. I also know that some of the local people who are pushing the misinformation have their own agendas for doing so.
MY BACKGROUND
In the interest of full disclosure, here are several statements of fact regarding my own background. I attended college in the South Bend area and graduated in 2001. I lived and/or worked in the South Bend-Mishawaka metropolis area after that. I am still in the “Michiana” area though I am now self-employed and live across the state line in Michigan.
I voted for Pete twice for Mayor of South Bend, and I think, overall, he did a good job. That doesn't mean I think he's the person we need for President, and, as many people know, I am a strong Sanders Sister.
I have had run ins with the person who is spreading what I would consider misinformation, a convicted rapist turned pastor. Someone has done some deep background digging on him over at Medium, and nothing they've found surprises me.
Wolves in Shepherd’s Clothing Part 1
Wolves in Shepherd’s Clothing Part 2
I was one of the (many) people he has sued over the years, though I prevailed because my lawyer was able to point out that my case fell under Indiana's SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes and was brought against me to chill my free speech. (Here’s the link to his appeal when he lost against me.) It's somewhat ironic that he's consistently arguing to violate right to privacy laws here.
That said, I am not a lawyer. I am not involved in the South Bend government. I do not and have not worked for the South Bend Police Department. My information is relatively limited and comes from years of reading the news stories about the tapes and (admittedly) isn't that deep of a dive because, overall, I just don't really care. There really are no winners in this case, and it’s painful to watch it play out. The courts are going to do what the courts are going to do, and they are going to do it at their own pace.
THE TAPES
As I understand it, the tape saga began long before Pete Buttigieg was even Mayor. There's some confusion about how it started even.
An old story says that it was an accident. An old line was recorded when it shouldn't have been. The new person in the office didn't know the line was recorded, and those conversations are what is on the tapes.
According to court documents, it started when the Chief, Darryl Boykins, wanted to record the line of an officer, Steve Richmond. The Communications officer, Karen DePaepe, recorded the old number of Richmond (not knowing it was out of date) which belonged, at that time, to Brian Young.
Many states have their own laws on who or what is allowed to legally record information on the phone, separate from the federal wiretap laws. Indiana is what is called a “One Party” state. That means that only one party has to know and consent to the recording being made. In the case of the police tapes, NO ONE knew they were being recorded on that line in particular.
The Communications officer, Karen DePaepe, discovered the wrong line was being recorded and then LISTENED to the tapes. She then PLAYED the tapes for Boykins. Remember, he had ordered the line of Richmond to be recorded, she recorded the old line that didn't belong to Richmond.
This is where the legal questions come in for both Federal and State.
Did Boykins have the right to record a line without a warrant? Since it was the wrong line, did he have the right to listen to those recordings?
The FBI was looking into the implications of it being an illegal wiretap. The officers, rightly, brought a suit against the city and the police chief for violating their rights.
There were also people in the city who wanted it to be a bigger thing for their own purposes. The fact is, though, Pete could not fire Boykins, and he didn't. Neither the Mayor nor the Police Chief have the power to fire any officer. That is up to the Board of Public Safety. Pete did ask Boykins to resign, ostensibly at the request of the FBI. Boykins agreed and then rescinded his resignation, so Pete demoted him instead. Karen DePaepe was not an officer, so she could be fired.
Pete says he didn't listen to the tapes, and I believe him. Listening to those tapes, especially if they were in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, would be illegal, just like disseminating the information would be illegal.
The FBI has neither confirmed nor denied that they were looking at Boykins or told Pete to get rid of him and Ms. DePaepe. And, as most people know, settlements don't necessarily mean vindication. If the City's legal council looked at a case and determined it was more cost effective to pay someone off than to fight a case in court, they will do so. Furthermore, the case still isn't settled. While the appeal regarding the Federal Wiretap case did vacate the initial decision, it was vacated because of a technicality. Now the court still has to decide if those recordings DID violate Federal law.
In the end, after hearing about some of these officers from multiple people, I believe they probably did say racist and unethical things. However, that doesn't negate the law or illegality of listening to and disseminating unlawfully obtained tapes.
Most of the stories I've seen are really only focusing on the immediate portion of the tapes; and no one has dug into the background. And, really, it's hard to blame them. You can't come up with an interesting story that will get a response based on murky legal details and vague understandings of an ongoing federal and state case. And no one can give a straight answer because, as I said, the cases are ongoing. Anyone speaking up about it doesn't know and can't know because of that.
I hope this helps explain why the tapes case isn't as cut and dried as being about racist officers or demoting a black police chief. There are so many parts in play, and it doesn't look like there are any real good guys in the case, at least none I’d cheer for. The Police Chief, by all accounts was paranoid and likely to use the recordings against anyone and everyone. The officers, by all accounts, are not shining examples themselves. And both sides seem interested in dragging this out as publicly as possible, really making South Bend look bad.
If you appreciate this analysis, consider buying me a coffee on Ko-fi.com. It helps me continue to write, homeschool, and run the political news aggregate page.