As promised, the Peoria Police Department has a new section on its website called the Drug Nuisance Property section. If you click on the months in the left-column menu, you can see mug shots of those “individuals [who] were arrested for various offenses at the listed addresses.” The police go on to say, “It is hoped that the photos of the arrested individuals will serve as a deterrent to others.”
In addition, the Journal Star reports:
Ten properties also are listed on the Web site, marked as “sightings” of the department’s Armadillo nuisance vehicle. The vehicle, an old Brinks truck outfitted with a bulletproof exterior and armed with surveillance equipment, was created to annoy residents disturbing the peace of their neighbors.
I dunno, maybe I am wrong but I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t a single piece of surveillance gear in that thing. Its like those stupid fake cameras at the department store with the blinking LED, if it looks even remotely close to being real it deters most illegal activity. Maybe the should park one of these babies out by Bradley to keep away drunk council members who wanna stir up trouble.
I took at gander at those photos. Does anyone else notice anything? Most of those arrests are for weed. What? That’s the big drug problem in Peoria county? What a waste of resources. And the vast majority of those pictured are black? Sorry, not buying it. Peoria Police Department: “Doing our best to reinforce racial stereotypes”
Rixblix – I also mentally noted those same two issues. If marijuana is our biggest problem – then there should be some discussion of that publicly. But I think that the bigger problem relates to other illegal drugs – unfortunately; they apparently aren’t as successful in arresting individuals in involved with those drugs. Could it be that cocaine/crack users are smarter than marijuana users?
And unreported by the lovely PJStar was that a young man arrested for drug possession was found NOT GUILTY by a jury yesterday. This lad was arrested before the January postings, so I’d say it’s a darn good thing his pic was not posted. It’s just a matter of time before someone’s picture is posted and is found not guilty. Will the County taxpayers be ready to hand over some $$ for the civil lawsuit that is waiting to happen? Even if it gets dismissed, it will still cost the taxpayers to answer and defend it.
I seriously doubt that crack/cocaine users are ‘smarter’ than pot possessors. But Rix is right…seems a lot of wasted (no pun intended) resources for something as innocuous as weed.
Actually, I’m thinking the weed people get caught because if you’ve ever been stoned, you know that running is the last thing on your mind. However, as a guy who used to work at a Dairy Queen for two years, I know that meth heads and crack heads can be quite spry when needs be.
My picture is not there.
Linda — Arrests with mug shots published in local media also include:
Mike Godar
Nicolas Sheley
Monterius Hinkle
Do you think the press should suppress all of these arrests, too, unless/until they’re found guilty? Or is it okay for the media to publish this stuff, but not the police? Is the media getting lots of lawsuits for reporting on the facts of their arrests?
I see Jar Jar Binks got arrested in May.
CJ, the media publishes pictures of arrestees as a function of the freedom of the press. It’s their job to inform. The police have a stake in the outcome. They are not unbiased, as the media is suppose to be. So when someone sees these people on a police department’s website, the assumption is that they are already guilty.
CJ, now I am actually bewildered that you are equating the media with the police. The police are payed for by tax dollars and are a function of the government. They are usually the chief witnesses called by the state to testify. ???
Linda — Where do you think the press gets their information on who was arrested? Where do you think they get the mug shots? All the police are doing is publishing public information that the press (and the public, if they’re interested) already has access to. They (the police) are not commenting on it. In fact, there’s a disclaimer right on the page that states “The following individuals have been arrested and are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.”
I don’t see what’s wrong with that. In fact, I’d be more worried if they tried to keep that information a secret.
Am I being punked here?
Of course the media gets their info from the police, and no they should not keep it from the public via the media or FOIA. But I cannot even see how this seems right to anyone. The police are now the media? And equating them with such places them in an entirely different role. Disclaimer or not, they should wait until the disposition of the case to publish. The police get more and more power and the average Joe loses more and more rights. If that is just and right to you, that’s your opinion, obviously. Some of us have other opinions, right or wrong. So if someone is not even charged by the State due to lack of evidence AFTER arrest and picture published, or is acquitted, the police need to publish that as well then.
Oh, and CJ, those 3 references you included were not drug arrests. Apples and oranges. Also, no where did I say the media should not publish these. And no, the media does not get sued because they are publishing what info the police give them and have a 1st Amendment right due to freedom of the press. Again, you are equating the police to the free press?
My point is, it’s public information. What difference does it make if the police make that public information available through the press or publish it on their website? It’s the same information. “Person A was arrested for Charge B.” No one’s civil rights are being violated because the police publish the fact of an arrest.
I’m with Linda – yes, it’s the same information, but when it is published on a newspaper or media website, or heck someone’s blog for that matter – it carries a lesser amount of weight.
When the Official Police Dept website publishes the information on someone, that carries a great deal more threat to a person and their life or livelihood or whatever you want to call it.
It’s a bit like saying that an article you wrote ran in the Weekly World News vs. and article you wrote ran in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Most people take media sources with a grain of salt. Most people look upon official government websites with seriousness and authority. Someone can say in a paper that you might be guilty of something, but the police saying you might be guilty of something, by the mere fact of publishing your picture, is entirely more weighty and serious.