Is Police Witness Affidavit Limiting Free Speech?

RE: Police Witness Affidavit Limiting Free Speech    December 9, 2013 1:46 P
From:  “Ted Noftall” <Ted@TedNoftall.com>
To:  “Gerald Monahan” <geraldm@port-orange.org> “Matthew Jones” <mjones@port-orange.org>
Thank you Gerry,
Let me say at the outset that on balance I have been very pleased with your leadership of POPD.
When I consider the near half billion dollars worth of  military hardware the Federal government  has bestowed on police forces across our nation, along with the predictable increase in police violence such militarization caused,   against the very citizenry police forces were established to serve,   I am more than a little pleased that you have wanted to have nothing to do with that wholesale trampling of fundamental rights guaranteed  under the  Constitution.  Indeed when the time comes to select your successor you can bet I will make numerous  reference to your fine example of respecting our fundamental rights through the discipline you have instilled in your officers.
That being said the current admonishment  “  You must not discuss this identification procedure or its results with other eyewitnesses involved in this case and make no contact with the media because this is an open investigation “  needs to be removed from any and all  forms that are sanctioned by the City of Port Orange  without further  debate or delay – as such admonishment  is a clear abridgement of the 1^stamendment.
That the admonishment  was crafted with the best of intentions, whether one  or a hundred and one so concurred,  matters not a whit.  In this country the police do not enforce good intentions ….. no matter who they are sanctioned by,  UNLESS THOSE INTENTIONS are crafted into bills  that pass both House and Senate,  are signed by a Governor or President, and pass constitutional review if challenged.
The framers of the 1^st amendment understood well the struggle their English ancestors fought in the previous century to preclude the executive branch of government  from deciding the limits of free speech.  Those pitfalls  are exactly what the 1^st amendment seeks to avoid.
In recent years the legislative branches of our governments from Port Orange all the way through to Washington  have been failing miserably in exercising the role required of them in establishing the laws, regulations and policies by which we govern ourselves.  That must change and I can’t think of a better place to start than  in Council chambers tomorrow evening.  I hope to see you there.
Ted Noftall

 
—–Original Message—–
From: Monahan, Gerald [mailto:geraldm@port-orange.org]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 9:05 AM
To: Ted Noftall; Fenwick, Robin
Cc: Roberts, Margaret; Jones, Matthew; Ted Noftall; Kisela, Greg
Subject: RE: Police Witness Affidavit Limiting Free Speech
 
Ted, I  sent you the criteria in my first response. I have attached our policy and the roster of the Innocense Commission. You will note that there were two Senators and two Representatves involved in the process. The third attachment is the documentation of our submission to the State Attorney. We are in the process of procuring model forms from the State Attorney for review and possible adjustment.

Back to you Robin,
In correspondence below Chief Monahan spoke of:   agreements, criteria  and policies,  and submitting same to the States Attorney to ensure compliance.
Can you please supply me with all such agreements, criteria, policies  and correspondence regarding   Admonishment # 5 on the POPD witness Identification Affidavit  which reads :  “  You must not discuss this identification procedure or its results with other eyewitnesses involved in this case and make no contact with the media because this is an open investigation “
 
Ted Noftall
 

Mr.  States Attorney Larizza
The Witness Identification Affidavit  used by the Port Orange police department contains several admonishments for Witnesses  including:
“  You must not discuss this identification procedure or its results with other eyewitnesses involved in this case and make no contact with the media because this is an open investigation “
In my e-mail conversation with Chief Monahan  (reproduced below)  he spoke of    “  agreements are made to direct all law enforcement to incorporate agreed upon criteria in polices and submit them to the State’s Attorneys to ensure compliance.”       
I am fascinated with what at first blush appears to be an end run around both the legislature and the 1^st  Amendment.
Can you detail your offices involvement in this policy including your statutory authority to  enforce this prohibition on a witness contacting the media.
Thank you
Ted Noftall
Port Orange resident
(386)566-1424

Thanks Gerry,
I will inquire further of  S A Larizza
Ted

 
—–Original Message—–
From: Monahan, Gerald [mailto:geraldm@port-orange.org]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 10:42 AM
To: Ted Noftall; Monahan, Gerald; Kisela, Greg
Subject: RE: Police Witness Affidavit Limiting Free Speech
I would refer you to the Innocence Task Force info on line. As far as the State Attorney’s process is concerned I would refer you to their office.
 
Gerald M. Monahan, Jr.
Chief of Police
Port Orange Police Department
4545 Clyde Morris Blvd.
Port Orange, FL 32119
3865065870
3867565311 (Fax)
gmonahan@port-orange.org<mailto:gmonahan@port-orange.org>

Again thank you Gerry,
While I do not want to pull you away from your other duties I feel it is important that all instances of where the legislative branch is deferring to the executive on matters of policy be examined and openly discussed.   Any information you can provide when you have the time  will serve to enhance both our understanding and discussion of this matter on Tuesday night.
Accordingly I would like to more clearly understand,   the nature of, and with whom those “agreements” were made,   AND  the methodology employed by the States Attorney in presumably reviewing, approving and agreeing to enforce ( presumably with penalties ? )  those policies in at least as far as POPD in involved.
Ted