|
Coach says he was told library cameras weren't working
RICHLAND, Nov 06, 2009 (Tri-City Herald - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) --
Video from the Richland Public Library's surveillance system helped clear up a "he said, she said" dispute about an alleged assault on an autistic boy, but some have questioned why it took so long to find the visual evidence.
The definitive answer, however, may be hard to come by.
Frank Teverbaugh, a retired Hall of Fame coach, was accused of hitting a 7-year-old Richland boy in the face and causing his nose to bleed during an Aug. 14 visit to the library.
Matthew Tolick's caregiver, Heidi Schultz, made the allegations, saying it happened as she was struggling to get the boy out of the library. The boy's mother, Dana Tolick, reported it to police.
Teverbaugh, 76, adamantly denied striking Matthew in the face, but did admit to trying to swat his bottom on impulse after the boy hit him first.
About two weeks later, on Aug. 26, police cited Teverbaugh for a misdemeanor assault charge.
On Tuesday, Michael Rio, Richland city prosecutor, dismissed the charge against Teverbaugh.
He made the decision after watching the video, but no one -- including police or the prosecutor -- thought to check the library's security video until Teverbaugh's attorney, John Jensen, filed a public records request for it with the city of Richland.
"We became aware of it when Mr. Jensen requested a videotape of it," said Tami Bunker, legal assistant in the city attorney's office. "We didn't know there was something for us to ask for. It was only when Mr. Jensen put in a request for it that it started the ball rolling from that point forward."
The library is in a newly renovated building and most city buildings don't have security cameras, officials said. The cameras also weren't working initially when the library was reopened about a month earlier, said Richland police Capt. Mike Cobb.
Jensen said Teverbaugh and his wife had asked the investigating officer about the video cameras, but they were told the cameras weren't working.
There's no mention of cameras in the police officer's report or any conversation about cameras, Cobb said, so he can't confirm or deny whether that occurred.
"I would be surprised (for the officer) to say it was not working without asking someone," Cobb said.
The officer collected eyewitness statements about the incident and forwarded them to the prosecutor for review on the day the incident occurred, Cobb said. On Aug. 18, the city prosecutor sent it back to the officer, telling him to issue a citation, which was completed and mailed Aug. 26.
Cobb said officers don't ask in every case if there is video, but that may become part of an officer's repertoire as the technology becomes more pervasive.
"We still don't live in the perfect CSI world where Big Brother catches everything on tape," Cobb said. "In this case there was a video log present. ... There are a lot of things that come to light later (in an investigation). If he had known that, I'm assuming he would have asked.
"Every member of the organization is now aware that such technology exists in that specific facility, so in future incidents, it will be part of the process," Cobb added.
Although the Teverbaughs were told there was no video, Jensen said he decided to ask the library just in case some cameras may have been working.
He said it took more than a week to find out who to talk to at the library. Then he was told he would have to file his request through the city attorney. He submitted his public records request about Oct. 5.
Bunker said that's when city officials started asking questions about the security video. She learned there was indeed video from that day, but that under state law, library records that could be used to disclose the identity of a library user are exempt from disclosure under the public records act.
Bunker said she also checked with King County because she knew it has security cameras at its libraries and determined that security videos are included in the disclosure exemption.
But Rio then obtained a court order, which gave library officials until Nov. 14 to turn over the video, she said.
"It's not that (library officials) wouldn't turn it over. By law they're not supposed to unless there's an actual order in hand," Bunker said. "The library is a place where people are supposed to go and not worry about Big Brother watching your every move.
"As soon as I saw that surveillance tapes are considered library records, we didn't even go back to the library to say, 'Hey, can you turn it over to us?' " Bunker added. "We went to file paperwork with the court."
It took just a matter of days for the video to be turned over once the court order was issued, she said.
The surveillance videos are digital and stored on a server in the city's information systems division, but there's no policy on how long the videos have to be kept before being deleted, Bunker said. Files can't be held indefinitely because there is only so much space available, she added.
Officials are considering setting a retention period of either 60 or 90 days and are working on writing a policy for the library board to review, Bunker said.
-- Paula Horton: 582-1556; phorton@tricityherald.com
To see more of the Tri-City Herald, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to
http://www.tri-cityherald.com. Copyright (c) 2009, Tri-City Herald, Kennewick,
Wash. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email
tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax
to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave.,
Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
[ Back To it.tmcnet.com's Homepage ]
|