Lesbian Sgt. Discharged....

[nbboy1123]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lesbian_sergeant_discharged

[TwylaTwobits]

Okay I read that article and something is really bothering me. This phrase"Newsome was at work at the base at the time and refused to immediately come home and assist the officers in finding her partner, whom she married in Iowa — where gay marriage is legal — in October.

Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome's home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said."

Why was it on a kitchen table? Were they getting ready to frame it? Not that I'm proud at the moment of my marriage license but I never left it on a table.

It seems as though the officers searched the home when the partner wasn't readily found and that's why they needed the Sgt to come home so they could have permission. I hope she nails their asses to the wall, both for the search and for the outing to the Air Force. That smacks of "you pissed us off we'll fuck you over"

[Donkey_burger]

Isn't "Don't ask, don't tell", and therefore shouldn't the police be unable to tell the military?

I guess it makes too much sense.

DB :bipride:

[dman82]

As a former military member myself it pisses me the fuck off because I know some gay, lesbian, and bi people that would make better soldiers then those who are straight.

[comtn_guy]

I am presently associated with the military and I really don't understand the current posture on "Don't ask, don't tell". It seems to be manipulated in the service's favor more often than not. I am glad to see the program under review. As mentioned previously, I'm certain there are many gay, lesbian, & bi folks that would be happy to serve in the military and do it honorably. I hope that someday they stop making such a big deal about sexual identity/preference. As stated so eloquently by Horton the Elephant "Come on guys, we're all mammals!" :)

[*jeannie*]

"don't ask, don't tell" should be called "don't ask, don't tell and we won't know to discriminate against you".

the only thing the air force should have considered is her performance record. apparently she did her job and did it well, so she should still be in the air force and still be a sergeant.

those same military morons who kick homosexual and bisexual people out of the military would be overjoyed to have your gay, lez or bi ass in the foxhole with them shooting back at the enemy tho.

[FalconAngel]

The real problem is revenge on the part of the police department.

She has no lawful obligation to go home to look for her partner. The police didn't see it that way. They also had no moral or legal reason to notify the Air Force of her relationship to the woman that they were looking for.

Now, had the warrant been for her, then the police may have had every right to notify the Air Force, if her sexuality played into the crime, but in this case, it had no bearing on what they were doing since the person that they were looking for was not her, but her partner.

Knowing that fact, there was no reason but revenge for not doing as the police asked, which they had no real reason or right to do.

They are going to be paying her a lot of compensation for many years to come, over this one. Fact is that if she were planning on staying till retirement, they could owe her a lot more than even they imagine. Let's see the officers responsible can explain to their superiors why they cost the department what could end up being millions of dollars over a simple theft case.

[*jeannie*]

all law enforcement agencies notify the military (whichever branch you are a member of) of any and all criminal matters pertaining to its personnel and their dependents. this is a standing agreement between the military and all law enforcement agencies. one reason for this is so that military law enforcement can assist (mutually aid) in investigations, locating suspects, etc.

all military personnel in the usa are informed of that fact at, or shortly after, enlistment. it is common knowledge among our military personnel.

the rapid city police department was acting in accordance with that agreement and when informing the air force of the matter would have had to state that it was newsome's spouse they were seeking as well as her name, sex and physical description. air force law enforcement would then have gotten involved in the matter to try to locate newsome's wife.

thus, the rapid city police department did not do it out of revenge for newsome's lack of cooperation.

-

the real issue here is that "don't ask, don't tell" violates the civil rights of GLBT people in the military as once the military knows you are not "normal", they discriminate against you.

[Long Duck Dong]

correct me if I am wrong on this please

in NZ the law surrounding search warrants and access to private property states that any evidence or information uncovered, collected or found that is not covered under the quidelines of a search warrant or permission to access private property, is legally off limits and inadmissible in court

if the same rule applies in the us... that would legally mean that any info, document etc that is inside the house, is off limits without a search warrant or permission from a person with the power to permit entry to a property....

that would mean ( if it applies to the US ) that the usage of any info from the marriage license is totally off limits as it is covered under the ruling of access to private property....

now I tend to agree with jeanie, as in NZ the armed forces, the legal agencies ( military and civilian police ) justice dept, immigration, customs and tax dept all have the legal power and right to exchange information on personnel that are under their jurisdiction

when I served in the NZ armed forces, I did sign a declaration as part of my service, that allowed for the exchange of info ( medical and otherwise ) in the event of legal or health issues.....

so when I look at this case, I can see that there is a criminal element and a issue of same sex marriage....
while the case is strong that yes the female was dismissed for her sexuality, there also appears to be the issue that she is intimately aligned with a person of criminal nature, and that may be a breach of contract of military service and / or a employment privacy and safety risk....

while I agree that under NZ law the cops are out of line, I am not sure how the US law works in regards to private property and the sharing of info gathered outside of the parameters of legal access....

[*jeannie*]

correct me if I am wrong on this please

in NZ the law surrounding search warrants and access to private property states that any evidence or information uncovered, collected or found that is not covered under the quidelines of a search warrant or permission to access private property, is legally off limits and inadmissible in court

if the same rule applies in the us... that would legally mean that any info, document etc that is inside the house, is off limits without a search warrant or permission from a person with the power to permit entry to a property....

that would mean ( if it applies to the US ) that the usage of any info from the marriage license is totally off limits as it is covered under the ruling of access to private property....

as i have said before...

"the rapid city police department was acting in accordance with that agreement and when informing the air force of the matter would have had to state that it was newsome's spouse they were seeking as well as her name, sex and physical description."

the air force, of course, would want verification they were spouses and the rapid city police would then have had to bring up the marriage license or the air force would have had no choice but to not take them (the rapid city police department) seriously. the air force would need to know that because that would make the spouse a dependent of newsome's and that would mean the spouse is under their jurisdiction also.

[FalconAngel]

all law enforcement agencies notify the military (whichever branch you are a member of) of any and all criminal matters pertaining to its personnel and their dependents. this is a standing agreement between the military and all law enforcement agencies. one reason for this is so that military law enforcement can assist (mutually aid) in investigations, locating suspects, etc.

all military personnel in the usa are informed of that fact at, or shortly after, enlistment. it is common knowledge among our military personnel.

the rapid city police department was acting in accordance with that agreement and when informing the air force of the matter would have had to state that it was newsome's spouse they were seeking as well as her name, sex and physical description. air force law enforcement would then have gotten involved in the matter to try to locate newsome's wife.

thus, the rapid city police department did not do it out of revenge for newsome's lack of cooperation.

-

the real issue here is that "don't ask, don't tell" violates the civil rights of GLBT people in the military as once the military knows you are not "normal", they discriminate against you.

Actually, had the Sgt been the person that they had the warrant for, then they would have been right to do what they did.

HOWEVER, and this is critical to remember, the person they were looking for was not the Sgt in question, but her partner. She had no obligation to leave work to help them find her partner. The fact that they were legally married in another state, protects her even further.

The police have no obligation to notify the military of any actions or lifestyle of ANY service member as long as the service member has not violated civilian or military law. There was no violation of the law by the service member, so no reason for the local police to report her to the military.

She was in compliance with DADT and was, according to all reports, an honorably serving soldier with 9 years of service, and could have become a career NCO.

This action on the part of the police is nothing but a malicious attack on the NCO for not leaving work to help them look for her girlfriend; something that she had no legal obligation to do.
They could have entered the house legally, breaking down the door, if they were serving a warrant on the girlfriend.
But instead they supposedly looked in the kitchen window and saw their marriage certificate on the kitchen table.
On the kitchen table? Really?
I say maybe; maybe not.
That part is questionable and the only ones that can say whether the police are lying are the Sgt and her girlfriend. Until then, that part may or may not be true. But it does seem an odd place to keep such an important document.

Here in the US no one has any legal obligation to leave work or other functions to help the police look for the person that they are serving a warrant on. If the person is not there, then they are supposed to investigate the whereabouts of the person in question, but that is as far as it goes, as far as involving friends and family in an investigation or service of a warrant.
And they may not penalize, directly or indirectly, any friends or family that are not suspected of aiding and abetting the perpetrator in question.

That is how it is done in American law enforcement.

[FalconAngel]

correct me if I am wrong on this please

in NZ the law surrounding search warrants and access to private property states that any evidence or information uncovered, collected or found that is not covered under the quidelines of a search warrant or permission to access private property, is legally off limits and inadmissible in court

if the same rule applies in the us... that would legally mean that any info, document etc that is inside the house, is off limits without a search warrant or permission from a person with the power to permit entry to a property....

that would mean ( if it applies to the US ) that the usage of any info from the marriage license is totally off limits as it is covered under the ruling of access to private property....

Basically, you are right, as long as the warrant is specific, such as an arrest warrant where a search for stolen goods is involved. However, in the case of DADT, the Sgt had no obligation to notify the military of her sexuality, so their marriage certificate would have been off limits, as the police were concerned. It is not illegal to be married in a state that allows it


now I tend to agree with jeanie, as in NZ the armed forces, the legal agencies ( military and civilian police ) justice dept, immigration, customs and tax dept all have the legal power and right to exchange information on personnel that are under their jurisdiction

when I served in the NZ armed forces, I did sign a declaration as part of my service, that allowed for the exchange of info ( medical and otherwise ) in the event of legal or health issues.....

To a degree, it is similar here, but they do not tend to talk to each other about things that do not directly relate to the service members. DADT is one of those things that they have no obligation to let the military know about. It is an "off limits" subject, for all intents and purposes, since it is not illegal to be gay anywhere in this country. In the military, it is only illegal if you admit it.



so when I look at this case, I can see that there is a criminal element and a issue of same sex marriage....
while the case is strong that yes the female was dismissed for her sexuality, there also appears to be the issue that she is intimately aligned with a person of criminal nature, and that may be a breach of contract of military service and / or a employment privacy and safety risk....

The problem is that, here in the US, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, unless one is caught in the act, of course; and we don't know if the warrant was on suspicion or if she missed her court date. The news reports have not said anything about that, so the actual nature of the person that she was with is just conjecture at this time.



while I agree that under NZ law the cops are out of line, I am not sure how the US law works in regards to private property and the sharing of info gathered outside of the parameters of legal access....

As far as US law, and according to a lawyer that I know, what they did is skirting the letter and intent of the law.
Since the woman's sexuality is not a crime, it had no basis on the actions of her girlfriend's actions and was not pertinent to the accusation or arrest of the girlfriend. Even with DADT, it is not the responsibility or the right of the police to notify the military of the Sgt's sexuality, since it is not pertinent to their case against the girlfriend.

It is only the responsibility of the police to notify them if the Sgt was a suspect in the crime, and even then, they have no right or obligation to bring up sexuality unless it is a fundamental part of the case.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

My question is WHY was a law enforcement officer looking in a damn window in the first place?? Talk about infringements of someone's rights and invasion of property, and 2nd, somebody must have had awfully sharp eyes to have seen a marriage certificate laying out on a kitchen table.
I hope she obtains a Lawyer and says "Can you say Lawsuit, Boys and Girls?" Grrrrrrr
Cat

[*jeannie*]

Actually, had the Sgt been the person that they had the warrant for, then they would have been right to do what they did.

being a dependent of a member of the air force, the rapid city police was right to inform the air force that a suspect with ties to one of their personnel could well have been hidng out on air force property (where non-military law enforcement has no jurisdiction) tho. that is probably what happened in this case.


She had no obligation to leave work to help them find her partner.

i agree... newsome did not have to leave work to help the rapid city police locate her spouse.


The fact that they were legally married in another state, protects her even further.

protects her from what? not having to leave work to help the local police find her spouse? that seems what you are implying with that statment.


The police have no obligation to notify the military of any actions or lifestyle of ANY service member as long as the service member has not violated civilian or military law.

i agree. however, all non-military law enforcement agencies have the obligation to inform the military of any criminal, or suspected criminal, activities of military personnel and their dependents.


There was no violation of the law by the service member, so no reason for the local police to report her to the military.

they did not report newsome to the military tho. they reported newsome's dependent who was a fugitive from justice and could well have been hiding out on the air base.


This action on the part of the police is nothing but a malicious attack on the NCO for not leaving work to help them look for her girlfriend; something that she had no legal obligation to do.

as far as is known, the police only notified air force law enforcement that a fugitive with ties to one of their personnel may be hiding out on their base so that they (air force police) could investigate on base and keep an eye out for the suspect. the air force would want to know how the suspect was a dependent of newsome's. thus, the marriage license was brought into the matter. it is just unfortunate that newsome happened to be homosexual.

as a result of being homosexual, the air force discharged her. i absolutely do not support that in any way.


Here in the US no one has any legal obligation to leave work or other functions to help the police look for the person that they are serving a warrant on.

i agree.


If the person is not there, then they are supposed to investigate the whereabouts of the person in question, but that is as far as it goes, as far as involving friends and family in an investigation or service of a warrant.

non-military law enforcement IS obligated to contact military law enforcement when a service member or dependent of one has committed a criminal act. especially since the fugitive could have been hiding out on military property where non-military law enforcement has no jurisdiction.


And they may not penalize, directly or indirectly, any friends or family that are not suspected of aiding and abetting the perpetrator in question.

i have not seen anywhere that the rapid city police department contacted the air force with the purpose of exacting revenge on newsome for not coming right home.


That is how it is done in American law enforcement.

i am 42 years old. i have been around american law enforcement my entire life. i am friends with american law enforcement officials all the way up to, and including, the us marshal's service (which, by the way, is the law enforcement division of the us attorney general's office). i know how it is done in american law enforcement.

-

the only real wrong that has been committed is the air force discharging newsome for being homosexual. i absolutely do not support the discharging of military personnel for being GLBT.

[*jeannie*]

My question is WHY was a law enforcement officer looking in a damn window in the first place?? Talk about infringements of someone's rights and invasion of property,

when serving a warrant, law enforcement officers have every right to look in windows. they have that right so as to locate a suspect within a house, notice if the suspect is arming himself/herself, hiding drugs/stolen property, etc.


and 2nd, somebody must have had awfully sharp eyes to have seen a marriage certificate laying out on a kitchen table.

if the table was some distance from the window i would agree. however, some people have their kitchen tables right next to a window and if the curtains were open anyone could have easily seen a document lying on the table. that may be how it was in this case.


I hope she obtains a Lawyer and says "Can you say Lawsuit, Boys and Girls?" Grrrrrrr

law enforcement cannot be sued for looking in a window during the serving of a warrant.

[YottaByte8472]

Isn't "Don't ask, don't tell", and therefore shouldn't the police be unable to tell the military?

Strictly speaking civil law enforcement isn't bound by that policy. That having been said. She can take them to the cleaners in a civil action.

Financial Damages
Emotional Distress
Invasion of Privacy
just to name a few liabilities

[Long Duck Dong]

unfortunately, I disagree there... as jeannie has pointed out, the nature of the relationship could have legally come up in a inquiry to the base by the police

they may have felt that newsome was withholding information about the whereabouts of the person they sought and seen it as a attempt to protect her spouse.....

now newsome would have to prove in court that the police acted improperly while pursing a investigation and that they provided information that was outside of the boundaries of good police work

saying to a person that the police have concerns that newsome may know the whereabouts of her spouse and may be withholding the location of her spouse, is a legit statement,.... based around the actions of newsome refusing to leave the base to assist the police, could give them just cause to assume that newsome was aiding and abetting her spouse....


however, I would say that any court case would revolve around the issue of did the police force provide information to the base that was detrimental to newsomes employment without good cause....

honestly, I would have to support the police as they have a strong case for their actions and its gonna be a case of arguing on merits....and may well come down to the judges personal viewpoint of the matter....

legally its a grey area, proving that the sharing of the info was vindictive is going to be hard to prove...

[*jeannie*]

you are right about all that, LDD. :)

the rapid city police department had to give a reason why the air force should get involved.

it may have gone somethng like this...

air force:
why do you believe we should get involved?

rapid city police:
because the suspect may be hiding out on your air base and your sergeant newsome may be aiding and abetting the suspect.

air force:
why would that be?

rapid city police:
because the suspect is sergeant newsome's spouse.

air force:
can you prove that statement?

rapid city police:
yes, we can. there is a legal document, a marriage license.

[MarieDelta]

you are right about all that, LDD. :)

the rapid city police department had to give a reason why the air force should get involved.

it may have gone somethng like this...

air force:
why do you believe we should get involved?

rapid city police:
because the suspect may be hiding out on your air base and your sergeant newsome may be aiding and abetting the suspect.

air force:
why would that be?

rapid city police:
because the suspect is sergeant newsome's spouse.

air force:
can you prove that statement?

rapid city police:
yes, we can. there is a legal document, a marriage license.

Not that it matters. The USAF wanted her gone, the local police gave them the excuse they needed. The "logic" will follow in any case.

If those in power want you removed, it will happen. No where is this more evident than in the US military, in my opinion.

[*jeannie*]

Not that it matters. The USAF wanted her gone, the local police gave them the excuse they needed. The "logic" will follow in any case.

i agree. they wanted her gone because she is a lesbian. i'm sure they had figured that out long ago but just needed proof of some sort.

[TwylaTwobits]

Found this and thought it interesting. The Rapid City Police's response to the ACLU complaint. As laid out by them, Sgt Newsome was at one point considered as being charged with a crime, therefore making the sharing of the information to the Air Force essential..


http://temp.rcgov.org/police/ACLU_Complaint_Response.pdf

[Long Duck Dong]

based around what I read in that report, newsome knew her partner was home and inside the house, she had lied to the police....
in nz we call that obstruction of justice...

she would have faced a civilian court if charged with that, but she definitely would have been called up in front of a military court for it cos they do not take kindly to it.....

now something that is nagging at me, is the declaration of marital status and personal information as required for next of kin and legal signing rights, under nz law, ( again not sure if it applies to the us armed forces )....
newsome would have not declared her marriage to the military ( for obvious reasons ), but if she was receiving any benefit due to her status as a single person, when in fact married, she would be committing fraud

this is a grey area for me, as a legal marriage in one state, that is not legal in another, creates a issue as newsome would be legally married in one state and legally single in another ( due to the marriage not being legally recognized )
so what law applies, the state law or the military law ???

[CWalt]

"don't ask, don't tell" should be called "don't ask, don't tell and we won't know to discriminate against you".

the only thing the air force should have considered is her performance record. apparently she did her job and did it well, so she should still be in the air force and still be a sergeant.

those same military morons who kick homosexual and bisexual people out of the military would be overjoyed to have your gay, lez or bi ass in the foxhole with them shooting back at the enemy tho.

I'm Bi myself also prior military the only thing I can think of is what higher Noncom or Officer did she say (NO) too. And now paying the price for doing her job.

[rissababynta]

I think it sucks how this happened but I understand where the police department was coming from and why they made the decision to do what they did.

[MarieDelta]

based around what I read in that report, newsome knew her partner was home and inside the house, she had lied to the police....
in nz we call that obstruction of justice...

she would have faced a civilian court if charged with that, but she definitely would have been called up in front of a military court for it cos they do not take kindly to it.....

now something that is nagging at me, is the declaration of marital status and personal information as required for next of kin and legal signing rights, under nz law, ( again not sure if it applies to the us armed forces )....
newsome would have not declared her marriage to the military ( for obvious reasons ), but if she was receiving any benefit due to her status as a single person, when in fact married, she would be committing fraud

this is a grey area for me, as a legal marriage in one state, that is not legal in another, creates a issue as newsome would be legally married in one state and legally single in another ( due to the marriage not being legally recognized )
so what law applies, the state law or the military law ???

Their marriage would only be proof of a same sex relationship, as the federal government does not recognize same sex marriages, therefore any marriage benefits granted by the military would not apply, since she isn't married according to the federal government (See DOMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act).)

[12voltman59]

What does get me about this situation---I had thought the military was putting in a sort of suspension of kicking people out under DADT while the policy is under review. Hopefully----they take their time to kick this person out and by the time they get to it----it has been decided DADT is going away and her getting booted becomes a moot point.

I think at the very least that even if they don't drop DADT----the military should not act upon booting the gay service member when the outing comes from a civilian, third party that has no close relationship with the "gay" service member.

Like I said---it is really something with the services-----they seem to be pretty accepting of having active gang bangers in the service with some of those service members apparently involved in committing criminal acts while they boot outed "gays" for no other reason than they have found a person is "gay."

[FalconAngel]

all law enforcement agencies notify the military (whichever branch you are a member of) of any and all criminal matters pertaining to its personnel and their dependents. this is a standing agreement between the military and all law enforcement agencies. one reason for this is so that military law enforcement can assist (mutually aid) in investigations, locating suspects, etc.

Actually, Jeannie, the military in the United States is prohibited, by federal law, from getting involved in civilian police matters under the "Posse Comatatus" act. That laws prevents military involvement in civilian law enforcement outside of their own personnel on base. Exception being a declaration of martial law in the country.

They are allowed to assist only in investigations where military personnel are a suspect, but not where a civilian significant other is the suspect that the civilian police are looking for, and they are obligated to turn over any military personnel that are being sought for a civilian crime off base, but nothing more.

For those folks in other countries, remember that your laws are different from ours and in this case, just like the prom issue on that thread, no other country has laws that apply here in the US. Only US laws apply in these cases; law that puts limits on what law enforcement can and cannot legally do.

When they obtain information about someone who is not a suspect, that information is confidential and they are obligated to keep it confidential.
This does not apply when the confidential information involves said person in a crime. Her sexuality and relationship are not crimes. Not even to the military, under DADT (as long as she tells the military nothing about her relationship).



all military personnel in the usa are informed of that fact at, or shortly after, enlistment. it is common knowledge among our military personnel.

Actually, no, they are not.
Our military personnel know the basics of right and wrong and are told the portions of the UCMJ that are important to their mission and military responsibilities.
Anything beyond that is just common sense or replicates civilian laws that they should, already know.
The UCMJ is as large as any book of laws in any state in this country. Most of the regulations in the UCMJ are identical to civilian laws that everyone has to follow anyway, but there are also quite a few that deal directly and exclusively with the military.

all of the laws that cover military personnel, in the US are covered under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)


the rapid city police department was acting in accordance with that agreement and when informing the air force of the matter would have had to state that it was newsome's spouse they were seeking as well as her name, sex and physical description. air force law enforcement would then have gotten involved in the matter to try to locate newsome's wife.

Actually, they were not acting in accordance with that agreement. Here is why, which I have explained in a previous post:

1. The Sgt was not a suspect, in any way.

2. The Sgt was not in violation of either DADT or civilian law, nor was she a suspect in the case against her partner.
Contrary to Television cop shows. In the US, no person has a lawful obligation to help the police look (in any manner) for another. It is the job of the police to do so; it is what they get paid to do.

3. Without regard to DADT, she had no lawful obligation to testify, or in any other way assist the police to find her lawful (in at least one state) spouse. It does not mean that she can't, but she has the choice to either help or not.

4. As stated before, she is not and was not a suspect in the case against her partner, therefore, she was not in violation of the law and the police had no legal obligation to act on the information that they had.



thus, the rapid city police department did not do it out of revenge for newsome's lack of cooperation.

Rapid City PD wanted cooperation and they did not get what they wanted.
Perhaps the Sgt did not know and said so, which they chose to not believe.
Perhaps she just simply refused.
All that the news reports say is that she wouldn't leave her federal obligation to her military duties, in order to help them look for her partner, who she had no lawful obligation to help the police find.

There is no other logical reason for them to report her sexuality to the military, since her sexuality is not any of their business and is not against either civilian law or, under DADT, against military law, as long as she does not tell them and she is not outed by other military personnel.

Civilian agencies have not had an obligation to notify military authorities of a person's sexuality since DADT was begun.



the real issue here is that "don't ask, don't tell" violates the civil rights of GLBT people in the military as once the military knows you are not "normal", they discriminate against you.

Yes and yes.
DADT still forces GLBT military personnel to stay in the closet, which is a violation of their rights to equal protection, their right to serve their country unimpeded by prejudice and is a policy that was outdated when it was conceived.
Both Blacks and women, if they know their history, know that this policy is wrong from the experiences of our own military acceptance of them over the past 150 years. Issues that continued, to some degree or another, up until the late 1970's before they began making real improvements.

And before anyone tries to blast me on this, I know because I am a US Army vet from a long line (230 years) of Soldiers, Sailors Airmen and Marines. So my information is from the source, when it comes to military law.

My information on civilian laws is from a few friends who are either law enforcement or lawyers.

[FalconAngel]

being a dependent of a member of the air force, the rapid city police was right to inform the air force that a suspect with ties to one of their personnel could well have been hidng out on air force property (where non-military law enforcement has no jurisdiction) tho. that is probably what happened in this case.

To get on base, particularly in these post 9-11 days, it is virtually impossible for non-dependent civilians to get onto a base unless they have specific business there, such as they work on base, have family there or something along similar lines.

The girlfriend was not able to be listed as a dependent, since that would have outed the Sgt under DADT.

But you have made presumptions of a couple of things.
1. If they thought that she were on base, they would have come to the base and contacted military police there, thus notifying the military of the relationship at that time.......not later, which is what they did.

2. They would not have contacted the Sgt, the Air Force Sp's would have contacted her either on behalf of the police or with the police alongside. This was not done, according to the reports available.

Being as the women did not live on base, there was no reason for the police to contact the military about this at all, except in the above event that you have suggested and has been shown to be extremely unlikely.



protects her from what? not having to leave work to help the local police find her spouse? that seems what you are implying with that statment.

Only that she has no lawful obligation to assist in her helping the police to find any person for the service of a warrant. Nothing more or less. She has an obligation to not impede them, but not even the police have stated that she impeded their operation of service.

No crime on her part, no business of the police to contact the military.



i agree. however, all non-military law enforcement agencies have the obligation to inform the military of any criminal, or suspected criminal, activities of military personnel and their dependents.

But, again, as far as the reports by the police, the Sgt was not a suspect, in any way. No crime, no criminal suspicion; no criminal suspicion, then her sexuality was not their responsibility, in any way, to report to the military.



they did not report newsome to the military tho. they reported newsome's dependent who was a fugitive from justice and could well have been hiding out on the air base.

Again, the woman is not a dependent because making her one would have outed her under DADT. And that would make this issue non-existent long before it happened.

And I have already explained the process, had they believed that the girlfriend had attempted to hide on base.

Btw, has anyone heard anything on what happened with the girlfriend? Did they find her and if so, where?



as far as is known, the police only notified air force law enforcement that a fugitive with ties to one of their personnel may be hiding out on their base so that they (air force police) could investigate on base and keep an eye out for the suspect.

And that is as far as they were required to take it. But they did not notify the Air Force that they were married, until after Sgt Newsome refused to assist the civilian authorities.
Military personnel have no right to refuse a similar request from military law enforcement, who would gladly cooperate in the case of someone hiding on base, which also would have removed more than a cursory contact with the Sgt.

If they had contacted military authorities to help find Sgt Newsome's wife, if they really did think that she was on base, the SP's woul have gone and talked to her and she would have been obligated, under the UCMJ, to go with them, if they even needed her to,at all.

So something is more than just a little wrong with the story from the RCPD.



the air force would want to know how the suspect was a dependent of newsome's. thus, the marriage license was brought into the matter. it is just unfortunate that newsome happened to be homosexual.

To get the girlfriend on as a dependent would have required a lot of very precarious juggling of the facts in order to not get found out under DADT, and still have her listed as a dependent.

The marriage license was not pertinent to the matter unless the wife was actually registered as a dependent on base. Something that I find to be highly unlikely.



as a result of being homosexual, the air force discharged her. i absolutely do not support that in any way.

Nor do I, but with conflicting stories from RCPD, which makes all of their stories highly suspect, it lowers the credibility.

Fact is that they know that what they did, the way they did, to Sgt Newsome was wrong and now they are in CYA and damage control modes.



non-military law enforcement IS obligated to contact military law enforcement when a service member or dependent of one has committed a criminal act. especially since the fugitive could have been hiding out on military property where non-military law enforcement has no jurisdiction.

Actually, unless it is the military personnel, civilian law enforcement is obligated. As far as dependents, no, unless it directly affects the military or the mission.

Military Police have authority over all personnel on base, even dependents.

Arrest/legal records are about the only thing that both civilian and military share on a common basis. And sometimes, not even then, as far as notice to local LE.

In addition to that, do we know if Sgt Newsome's wife was listed on base as a dependent and what dependent status was she listed as if she was?


i have not seen anywhere that the rapid city police department contacted the air force with the purpose of exacting revenge on newsome for not coming right home.

They contacted them after talking to her, not before. That is what the original statement was, by the RCPD. Their reason was to inform the military of something they did not know, and actually had no legal obligation to know; that being the sexuality of Sgt Newsome.



i am 42 years old. i have been around american law enforcement my entire life. i am friends with american law enforcement officials all the way up to, and including, the us marshal's service (which, by the way, is the law enforcement division of the us attorney general's office). i know how it is done in american law enforcement.

That's good. But remember that even all of those agencies have to follow the same rules as local LE. Every law enforcement agency, from the FBI all the way down to city PD, have a lawful and mandated responsibility to follow the same laws and the same restrictions to protect the individual rights of privacy and protection. One of those, and one of the most important of these, in criminal cases, is covered under the Miranda Act. This informed us of our rights when we are detained or arrested under suspicion of, or for, committing a criminal act. They read it to us a second time when we are questioned.

Your association with US LE agencies puts you a few steps ahead of others, who shall remain nameless, but that knowledge is only half of what you have learned. Laws change all the time, which is why the Police Law Enforcement Handbook is re-issued every year; to accommodate the annual changes in order to keep local and State LE informed and up to date.

However, under DADT, the issue of notification of a person's sexuality to military authorities can only be done if the person is a suspect in a case. Sgt Newsome was not a suspect, not a "person of interest, nor was it suggested that she was even involved in the crime that they were serving the warrant for; therefore RCPD overstepped their authority. They did it with full knowledge of what they were doing and full knowledge of the repercussions.



the only real wrong that has been committed is the air force discharging newsome for being homosexual. i absolutely do not support the discharging of military personnel for being GLBT.

No, it isn't the only real wrong, but it is a big one.

[FalconAngel]

Strictly speaking civil law enforcement isn't bound by that policy. That having been said. She can take them to the cleaners in a civil action.

Financial Damages
Emotional Distress
Invasion of Privacy
just to name a few liabilities

And let's not forget lost future income if she were planning on serving a full 20 years as a career NCO, which would include her retirement pay after she hits 65.

That becomes a very large chunk of cash.

[FalconAngel]

based around what I read in that report, newsome knew her partner was home and inside the house, she had lied to the police....
in nz we call that obstruction of justice...

Not exactly. The police went there and didn't find her, then called Sgt Newsome to enlist her aid in their search for her wife/girlfriend (whatever anyone wants to call her). She refused to leave work, which is her right, so they let the military know what they found about her sexuality, during the service of a warrant on an issue which was unrelated to her sexuality.

That, on it's own, might possibly fall under an unreasonable search, as it applies to someone who had not committed any crime and was not wanted for any crime, nor wanted for questioning in any crime.

Personal relationships between consenting adults, in and of themselves, is not within the lawful responsibility of the police to do anything about (barring cases of domestic violence).


she would have faced a civilian court if charged with that, but she definitely would have been called up in front of a military court for it cos they do not take kindly to it.....

If she had obstructed the efforts of the police, that would be true here as well, but she did not impede their efforts and they had a warrant, so they had every right to enter the home. It makes one wonder, since the reports that I saw does not say whether they entered the home or just looked in the windows. It seems that, since they had a warrant, that they would have entered the home, so I am presuming they did on the service of the warrant.

Assuming that they did enter the home, why do they make specific mention of seeing their marriage license on the kitchen table, through the window, instead of just saying that they found it during a search of the home for the suspect.

Am I the only one that finds that particular detail suspicious and telling?

But as far as Sgt Newsome, no crime on her part.

And as long as she did not divulge her relationship with the woman and actually managed to get her listed as a dependent, then not in a case of having her listed as a dependent.
Now if the women lived apart and Sgt Newsome was not deployed overseas in a war zone or remote facility, then it would be a criminal problem of fraud against the military system.



now something that is nagging at me, is the declaration of marital status and personal information as required for next of kin and legal signing rights, under nz law, ( again not sure if it applies to the us armed forces )....

Except for the effect of Sgt Newsome being discharged because of the military being notified of it, her legal marital status, nationwide, has little to no bearing on this.


newsome would have not declared her marriage to the military ( for obvious reasons ), but if she was receiving any benefit due to her status as a single person, when in fact married, she would be committing fraud

Actually, it would be the other way around.
Soldiers with dependents get more benefits than soldiers without dependents.

But the paperwork required to get your dependents registered and recognized on base is almost labarynthine in nature. And getting a dependent registered in a case like this, would be neigh on impossible.
Not completely impossible, but so difficult, with inclusions of court documents and other such things that would make it far more difficult than the value of the benefits and risks, particularly in light of DADT.



this is a grey area for me, as a legal marriage in one state, that is not legal in another, creates a issue as newsome would be legally married in one state and legally single in another ( due to the marriage not being legally recognized )
so what law applies, the state law or the military law ???

Under DOMA, it would not hold outside of those states that recognize Gay Marriage, unless a state decides to recognize it, even though they do not allow them. so you do understand it correctly in that respect.

And as far as the military, DADT.

[rissababynta]

To get on base, particularly in these post 9-11 days, it is virtually impossible for non-dependent civilians to get onto a base unless they have specific business there, such as they work on base, have family there or something along similar lines.

.

not true for some bases

[Samantha Sabrina]

The Air Force was just plain wrong here period.

Under DADT, the Sgt. did NOT tell, and even given the fact that the local PD brought this matter to the attention of the Military in order to confirm it they would have had to "Ask" the Sgt., thus either way the military broke the rules.

DADT does NOT state you can NOT serve if you are Bi or Gay, it says, if "YOU" don't tell, "WE" CAN'T ASK.

Search warrants MUST be specific in what they are searching for, if it was an Arrest Warrant, then they had NO right whatsoever to search the property, for and or use any "Evidence" they might find, including and specific to the "Marriage License", where was that document relevant to the arrest of the person they were hunting for?

How is it they knew by looking at a marriage license thru a window, that it belonged to the Sgt.?

How did they make the connection between the Sgt. and the person they were looking for?

I am very certain the marriage license did not have Sgt. Newsome, USAF written on it.

Why was it so important that the Sgt leave her post at that very moment to assist in the search, they could not have waited until she got off duty and then approached her?

There is something else to this story that has not come to light yet.

Just my perspective!

Hugggggggggggs
Samantha

[Long Duck Dong]

Not exactly. The police went there and didn't find her, then called Sgt Newsome to enlist her aid in their search for her wife/girlfriend (whatever anyone wants to call her). She refused to leave work, which is her right, so they let the military know what they found about her sexuality, during the service of a warrant on an issue which was unrelated to her sexuality.



can you prove that statement, falcon.....there is no proof that they contacted the military cos newsome refused to come home on the 20th....
but the police forces actions were in line with terms of military service upon recruitment and the terms of enlistment and service, following the actions of a person that is a suspect in possible criminal activity

I copied this from the statement posted by twyla....

At about noon on November 20th an officer arrived at the residence.

More than four hours after the initial effort to make contact with Ms. Hutson at the house, the
officer responded back to Sgt. Newsom’s home after receiving confirmation from the Alaska
Authorities that cell phone communications from Ms. Hutson to a third party in Alaska indicated
she was inside the house when the officer was there the first time.
Once the officer arrived back at the residence, he made contact with witnesses who saw Ms. Hutson look outside briefly just a
few minutes before, then go back inside. The officer called for a second officer to respond.
When the second officer arrived, he walked around the side of the house to check for a possible
means of escape. While there, he noted the dryer vent was exhausting hot air. He looked
through a ground level kitchen window of the home in an attempt to see anyone in the house. A
table was directly under the window and a document was lying face-up on the table
approximately two and a half feet from the officer’s face. The document was a marriage
certificate and he could read both names – Cheryl Hutson and Jene Newsome.

Sgt. Newsome’s duty shift ended at 4:00 pm that day and between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm phone
contact with Sgt. Newsome was re-established by the officer. The officer attempted to negotiate
a time for her to arrive home. Meanwhile a RCPD detective was summoned, arrived and was
collecting data to process a search warrant for Sgt. Newsome’s home. The scope of the search
warrant was to be limited to locating Ms. Hutson.

On Tuesday November 24th, the detective consulted with a lieutenant about sharing the report with the Air Force. The Lieutenant stated that it was routine to share information with the Air Force when a service member’s conduct is potentially criminal.

at that stage, it is possible to assume that newsome had acted to aid and abet a person hiding from the law....which is a criminal act.... and that a search warrant had not been issued at the time the police officer spotted the marriage cert, giving him reasonable grounds to suspect that mrs newsome may not being entirely trueful... it was after that point that a search warrant was sought
so the marriage cert was not found as the result of a search warrant, but testimony of witnesses that the suspect was indeed at the house, causing the police to check for signs that the person was still in the house

now other us members can state if on those grounds, that the police acted in accordance with proper procedure, as in nz, the police would follow the same actions ( tho sexuality is legal in the military )

and do not try the I do not know us law, crap either..... I am not claiming to know it and I do not live in the us anyway..... and I am noticing that partners of currently serving spouses, and other members are disputing what you are saying, and they are us citizens and in a position to know more than me...

but as I have stated, to withhold info or intently misinform the armed services in nz, under the terms of enlistment and service, is a offence...
and while mrs newsomes marriage was not legal in that state, it can give grave concerns to any officer about what information is or is not be used to mislead others....

and just to clarify, NO I do not see any reason that LGBT people can not serve in the armed forces, provided their actions or words, do not bring dishonor or disrepute to the services on the uniform, by way of conduct, legal or illegal

[Long Duck Dong]

I think I can answer that for you....

there is a understanding that a mans ( or womans ) castle is their home and sanctuary..... and that what goes on behind closed doors, is sacred..... well unless you are doing illegal things..... so there would not be any reason to feel that you have to hide yourself in your own home

[TwylaTwobits]

You know the fact that the marriage document was laid out on the table was bugging me..... then I sat there and realized what possibly happened. Cheryl Hutson was well aware that police were there to serve a felony warrant, in her desperation at knowing she was facing at least a year in jail on a felony warrant she laid it on the table knowing the cops would see it. If Sgt Newsome was no longer in the military she would have no reason for not being able to go visit Ms. Hutson in Alaskan jail. Just my two cents, not a vengeful act, but an act of desperation.

[FalconAngel]

Found this and thought it interesting. The Rapid City Police's response to the ACLU complaint. As laid out by them, Sgt Newsome was at one point considered as being charged with a crime, therefore making the sharing of the information to the Air Force essential..


http://temp.rcgov.org/police/ACLU_Complaint_Response.pdf

That changes things rather significantly.

[FalconAngel]

You know the fact that the marriage document was laid out on the table was bugging me..... then I sat there and realized what possibly happened. Cheryl Hutson was well aware that police were there to serve a felony warrant, in her desperation at knowing she was facing at least a year in jail on a felony warrant she laid it on the table knowing the cops would see it. If Sgt Newsome was no longer in the military she would have no reason for not being able to go visit Ms. Hutson in Alaskan jail. Just my two cents, not a vengeful act, but an act of desperation.

Except for the fact that we have a couple of bases in Alaska and she could have requested a transfer to Alaska. She may or may not have gotten it, but it would have been better, in the long run, than what did happen.

[TwylaTwobits]

No one knows the outcome yet but I'd say she was certainly taken to jail while awaiting extradition to Alaska. Most felonies carry a minimum of a year jail time, there is the possiblity of probation of course but when you don't know exactly what the warrant was for, only that it was felony. Well you can see why I think Ms. Hutson deliberately left the license out. Ms. Newsome had stated she had no idea of the location of the license in her house. Anyone who has watched even one episode of Law and Order would know that in plain sight is legal evidence even without a warrant when the police had the right to be there, as they did when arresting a person on a felony charge. If it had been in a drawer, an album, anywhere except laying in plain sight on a table, they would have had to have a search warrant for the house to find it. This is just my personal opinion but I truly believe it's the explanation for what has bugged me since I first read this story.

Found this in an article "Hutson waived extradition in December back to Fairbanks, Alaska, where she is accused of taking more than $3600 from a former employer" So the felony was for an accusation of theft possibly by embezzlement. We'll have to see if what happens to Ms. Hutson is newsworthy enough to be reported or if the world is only concerned with Sgt. Newsome.

[*jeannie*]

FalconAngel, everything i have stated in my previous posts on this thread were facts (except for my "it could have happened this way" post, #18, as that was merely a possible scenario).

it IS standard practice for local law enforcement to notify the military (the respective branch) of any and all possible criminal activites of the service member, his/her spouse and dependents.

all US service members are supposed to be made aware of that fact at, or shortly after, enlisting. even if a service member is somehow not informed of that (or somehow missed or forgotten it), it IS common knowledge among US service members.

since it was possible that the suspect may have been hiding out on the air base, local law enforcement had to notify air force law enforcement of that possibility so they (air force law enforcement) could keep an eye out for the suspect and investigate the possibility that sergeant newsome may have been aiding and abetting her spouse.

military law enforcement is allowed to investigate, arrest and even prosecute anyone, whether military or civilian, committing a criminal act on military property.

it turns out that sergeant newsome was suspected of aiding and abetting. something i had figured from the start anyway given how things had developed as stated in the news article.

the rapid city police department did NOT act out of revenge.


And before anyone tries to blast me on this, I know because I am a US Army vet from a long line (230 years) of Soldiers, Sailors Airmen and Marines. So my information is from the source, when it comes to military law.

sometimes sources can be wrong and, in this case, yours were wrong.


My information on civilian laws is from a few friends who are either law enforcement or lawyers.

it is a common occurrence that many law enforcement officers and lawyers somehow misinform people of the very laws they are working to enforce, prosecute or defend people on.

many only memorize the laws in their respective jurisdiction long enough to pass their exams or re-certs then forget them. then they only enforce those laws which are the most easily remembered due to being common violations.

i have many times over the years driven over to my lawyers office and borrowed this or that law book (up to date ones, mind you) and proven to people that what a police officer or lawyer had told them is simply not correct.


To get on base, particularly in these post 9-11 days, it is virtually impossible for non-dependent civilians to get onto a base unless they have specific business there, such as they work on base, have family there or something along similar lines.

it is not virtually impossible as, in these post 9-11 days, i have personally witnessed numerous people get on several different military bases with no more purpose for being there than to take a short cut to get to a location on the other side of those bases or to eat at whatever fast food restaurant may be conveniently located on those bases. i have also witnessed numerous civilians easily get on those same bases to visit, shop, etc. simply by being in a vehicle with a military sticker on it driven by a member of the military.


Laws change all the time, which is why the Police Law Enforcement Handbook is re-issued every year; to accommodate the annual changes in order to keep local and State LE informed and up to date.

i know that and, every year, i catch up on what has changed with local, state, federal and military law.

*

*

as for the marriage license being out on the kitchen table, i am thinking that the spouse had it down off the wall (or from wherever they kept it) and had set it on the table while in the process of trying to figure out where to hide it or get rid of it. it is even possible she may have received a call from sergeant newsome to do something with it to try to cover up their marriage since the police had contacted sergeant newsome in regards to her fugitive spouse or the spouse may have been acting on her own to hide it or get rid of it knowing it would reveal sergeant newsome's lesbianism.

*

*

Long Duck Dong, your post on this thread (#33) states how i had thought it may have transpired all along.


The Lieutenant stated that it was routine to share information with the Air Force when a service member’s conduct is potentially criminal.

i tried to say that but some did not believe me.

*