Here is a news story I picked up from another websit. PM me for the site, if interested.
Des Moines, November 16, 2005 - Mediacom is responding to a story Channel 13 uncovered last week about police getting information from area businesses on possible drug dealers in the metro. However, Mediacom's response is not what you might expect. A fter our story aired, Mediacom representatives asked to meet with Channel 13.
First, Mediacom wanted to apologize for not responding to our requests for a comment before the story aired. They also denied having a policy of reporting to police and went on to say that the information presented in an affidavit is inaccurate. Our investigation showed some of the tactics law enforcement use to collect information on drug deals in the metro. F rom hotel clerks faxing their guest's names and license plate numbers to authorities, t o training seminars with area businesses, t o police dressing up as delivery drivers to make a bust. Noone - not even Des Moines police - denied using those tactics to track illicit drugs, b ut, Mediacom did take issue with the Des Moines police department's portrayal of its relationship with the company.
A day after our story aired, Mediacom's senior executive vice president Charles King met with us and watched the story in its entirety. "W hat concerns me is a lack of candor about a relationship that doesn't exist." According to an affidavit obtained by Channel 13, the releationship does exist. It was used to obtain a warrant to search this home on West street - the home of a suspected drug dealer last February. In it a Des Moines police officer says - under oath - that according to a cable installer 'it is "mediacom's policy to call police when they see drugs."' N ot so, says King,
"W e do not, do not, have a policy, have not had a policy in the past, not today and have no plans of having a policy in the future." According to King, that's not the only discrepency in the affidavit. T he affidavit says vice and narcotics received a complaint from a Mediacom service worker who reported seeing "12 marijuana plants." Kings says the complaint to police was actually made by the worker's supervisor, who never stepped foot in the home.
That now former supervisor oversaw about a hundred workers and according to King had ties to police. "W e have an employee, a former employee, who had relatives who were members of the Des Moines police department." The affidavit goes on to say the service worker provided police with the customer's account information. "I t had to do with some employee who chose to do something outside in fact of the company's policy about customer privacy.
So what exactly does Mediacom's policy say? The current employee manual - in use for the last three years - says "Protecting the confidentiatlity of our customers is your responsibility and disclosure of such information is prohibited by law and will subject you to termination."King won't say if the supervisor who made the report was fired or quit, but he did tell us his employment ended a few months ago. "I fully intend to meet with reprsentatives of police department and correct any misunderstandings." Three days later, King met with Des Moines Police Chief William McCarthy. King says McCarthy told him the county attorney's office inadvertantly placed Mediacom's name on the application for the search warrant. We tried to meet with McCarthy too, in hopes of clearing up the apparent discrepancies in the affidavit, but he did not return our phone calls. Major Judy Bradshaw returned one phone call. She was critical of our story, but refused to do an interview. The department did allow Sgt. Gregg Westemeyer to talk to us. He wasn't in on the meeting with Mediacom and had little background on the case.
John Wellman, a public defender for more than 30-years, could not speak directly about this case, but he says in general there are a range of explanations for such discrepancies. "A nywhere from the police making a false statement in the search warrant application to an attempt to disguise a confidential informant."
We asked for a joint meeting with Mediacom and the police. Mediacom agreed, but police have not directly responded to our request. Sgt. Westemeyer told us he doubts that will happen.
Who is watching you?
Member #: 38055
Registered: 5/12/2005
Posted:
875
Name:
Small Business Owner
Company:
Premium Installs LLC
Occupation:
Satellite, Home Theatre, Telephony, Security, etc.
Location:
Sheffield, Al
There is 1 reply to this message
