In temperatures below 20 degrees Fahrenheit in late January, released Mason County Jail inmate Nick Wroble exits the last door to freedom, with nothing on but some paper pants and a pair of socks.  Wroble's mother, waiting outside in the warmth of her car, captures the Kodak moment and shares it on Facebook along with a story of the jail not allowing her to bring in proper attire and footwear just prior to release. 

Jail officials effectively told her that Nick would leave with what he came in wearing, which wasn't a lot when he was nabbed for home invasion during the warm months.  The story and many of its twists and turns were followed in this LT article:  Kim Cold

Exposing Too Much

Sheriff Kim Cole to his credit, decided that the policy needed to be changed after the negative exposure, but after a brief turn on defense decided to counterattack by portraying the Wrobles as staging the release video by editing and staging a release video of his own.  

The MCP article on February 2nd that the video went with which ended thusly:  "Cole had posted a statement Thursday, Feb. 1, on the sheriff’s office Facebook page stating what had happened and that a policy was being developed. At that time, he said no other details would be released about the incident. When a Cadillac TV station reported on the incident [later on] Thursday, Cole said he was prompted to release further information. He met with Teresa Wroble Friday morning and explained that he would be releasing the video and audio to the media."

Sheriff Cole's Facebook post declaring he would release no further details is nowhere to be found; a promise hidden is a promise never made by the dishonorable.  From comments made by Teresa since, her consent was never received for making those records public, and she believes they tried to discredit and defame her.  I believe the sheriff's artfully produced audio/video sets the county up for liability in an invasion of privacy civil action.  

While an inmate's conversation with visitors is recorded and both parties (according to the sheriff) have the knowledge that they are being recorded, those recordings should only be used for security purposes or perhaps, as evidence for further prosecution if warranted.  But public release of these jail recordings of private conversations should not otherwise be used for the sole purposes of propaganda, discrediting a critic, or for public shaming-- which it seems to have been used for here.

A recent case involving former NFL player Aaron Hernandez illustrates this.  Most people realize that law enforcement can listen to non-privileged jail phone calls, however, this should not mean that private phone calls can be shared with anyone or everyone in the world.  The service provider determined that an unauthorized person (or people) accessed recordings of Hernandez’s phone calls and shared intimate or embarrassing details therein. 

Alas, his recent prison suicide effectively ended the lawsuit.  The Wrobles may have a stronger case, as the sheriff used their 'private' conversation in a manner for which it was never intended, not for security or law enforcement purposes.

Exposing Too Little

I made a four part FOIA request to the sheriff's office on 2-6-2018, it asked for:

1) The former written policy that disallowed released prisoners of the jail to be released in anything other than what they were wearing when they came in. If this is just an unwritten custom acknowledge that fact.
2) Any new written policy that amends the former written policy in 1) above (or the custom).
3) Release papers of Nick Wroble created or amended in January 2018.
4) Any internal audio/video footage of Nick Wroble immediately before his release in January 2018 interacting with correction officers.

In response I received a ten day extension a week later and their response on 2-28-2018, the very last day.  The response.pdf had both of the first two policies.  You will note the old policy signed by the sheriff less than half a year ago does not have anything regarding clothing, and the new policy develops a detailed correction that allows inmates to leave with either what they came in with, with clothes dropped off by family/friends, or jail-provided clothes that are seasonally appropriate.  If the inmate refuses to dress appropo for conditions, the releasing officer is to draft a report.  This was signed on February 8.  

For the third part of the request, I was given a release checklist only, with what appears to be redactions (the sheriff's office uses white out instead of black out for redacting exempt info).  Not included were any kind of release orders (see release policy 1a of the old policy) of which I hope to get on appeal, for they may have thought that wasn't part of my request.

There was no part of the video included of Nick Wroble before he left the last door, it was withheld under MCL 15.243(1)(c) .  In their denial they quote the first half of that subsection, namely:  "A public body may exempt from disclosure as a public record...a public record that if disclosed would prejudice a public body's ability to maintain the physical security of custodial or penal institutions occupied by persons arrested or convicted of a crime".

And yet they fail to explain why security camera footage for one incident of a few minutes in the administrative section of the jail where releases are conducted will hamper their ability to maintain security at the jail.  By the FOIA rules for exemptions, they must, for if you continue reading that subsection:  "...unless the public interest in disclosure under this act outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure."  

With that legal disclaimer in play, they must illustrate in their response why the unnamed security maintenance issue they have outweighs the public's right to know whether jail officials treated Wroble humanely and whether the official line spread by Sheriff Cole at the time he released his edited video was truthful.  One would think that even if they had a valid reason for holding back the video, which is unlikely, it wouldn't likely apply for the audio component.  Without any explanation, the response is incomplete.

Also incomplete and without any kind of FOIA exemption invoked to explain it is why the recipients of an E-mail is whited out.  One would expect that these would be correction officers and anybody that might deal with release orders, but nothing would exempt their names (or associated E-mails) from being released.  Such unwarranted exemptions only highlights their other non-release of the audio/videos and the release orders.  

Exposing Just Right

While we should be happy that there is now a policy for inmates at the Mason County Jail to be released back into society with at least a modicum of dignity on the day they leave, the episode that precipitated this change should still be reviewed.  The sheriff's office had no problems revealing specially edited audio of a 'private' conversation that neither Nick or Teresa Wroble ever expected would be revealed to the public.  It had nothing to do with the security of the facility, nor with anything criminal.  Yet they deny the audio and video of Nick Wroble's administrative release procedure after they claim a narrative that maintains their officers did everything according to policy.  

And Sheriff Cole's produced movie worked wonders with the public relations of his office.  Instead of Kim Cold, the sheriff who allowed an inmate to leave his facility in summer attire during arctic conditions because of a policy he signed that said you leave wearing what you wore in, he became a victim.  The mother of the inmate turned from a caring activist changing a stupid policy, to somebody looking for their fifteen minutes at the expense of her son.  It worked on the public, this is representative of the public's discourse after Sheriff Cole changed the narrative, from WOOD's version of the story on Facebook:

Do not be so easily fooled by an official who would so easily share a mother and son's private conversation to the public edited for his benefit and without any remorse, but would instead keep private the public records that would illustrate the demeaning inhumanity of a policy he endorsed throughout his professional career.

Views: 1093

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So in the end where are we?  Do we think that there was truly an issue here?  Has a person ever been pushed out of jail  not properly dressed without their consent?   Did the family do this for the good of others or for personal gain? 

You didn't serve time behind bars because you make good choices. 

The deplorable Public actions of Propaganda fabricated by the sheriff and the media to slander the Wroble's is appalling!

These disgusting actions were willful, and intentional.The Sheriff should step down. This was nothing short of "Gross Negligence or Willful Misconduct".

I hope the Wroble's act swiftly with a heavy legal recourse. 

And I hope they seek legal representation by an out of town attorney that has experience in this type of shenanigans.

Can you say PHOTO OP?  This whole thing was a put on show by the Wroble's family.  They had a agenda to prove police brutality  or something.  Maybe i was to somehow justify why her son was in jail.  He's criminal, they put criminals in  jail. It was stated in the paper by the mother about a week ago that her son didn't want to put on any clothes as he didn't want dog hair on them. What a crock of BS.  In the video he walked out the door with a black bag and put it on the bench.  So that leaves me to believe that he had clothing he could have put on before he walked outside.   As for the Sheriff releasing a recorded conversation , that would in my mind unlawful.

Even though I don't like how Cole handled this after it was brought to the public's attention, I have to agree with the posters in the above facebook page especially Mark Schofield. This may have exposed how Cole reacts to negative news but to me this was a situation blown way out of proportion by the criminals mommy. I would think that any recording inside the jail is not private and can be treated as such, unless it's between an inmate and an attorney. If the Sheriff wants to release it I see no reason he shouldn't. I have even less respect for the Wrobles than the Sheriff. Wroble jr causes trouble to get in jail and Mom Wroble causes trouble when Jr gets out. Some family.

What Nick Wroble did last summer was wrong, no doubt so far. What his mom did was right, but some in LE wanted to twist it to appear wrong too. What Cole did first and lastly, were both wrong, except his supposed revision of policy on releases. So, we have 3 wrongs, and 1 questionable right, and that does not equal out to a right imho. LE only seeks to cya in the public eye, not reveal the entire story and truth, which usually equals justice, and this time real justice is still being screwed, and I don't see it as the Wroble's alone now.

Has momma Wroble ever publicly apologized for her son's criminal activity? Did she apologize to the people her son terrorized?  Did she apologize to all of her relatives for helping to drag their family name thru the muck? I for one am tired of these selfish people who think the World revolves around them and their bad seed children. Every time I hear the name Wroble I'm sure not going to associate it with anything positive.

Okay, just make sure you say the same thing about Kim Cold Willy, because he's anything from positive most of the time too, and he thinks the World revolves around him too, so big selfish deal!  Did he also apologize? NO! And his grandeur Ass never will either!

I'll say what I think needs to be said. I also replied about Cole, but in this situation momma Wroble outshined Cole in the devious department. She'd make a good Undersheriff.

Agreed! But only if you stick to fishing.

I'm fairly sure Nick's whole family is not proud with what he did this last summer, I surely hold him fully accountable for his actions then, I would even go further and say that Nick could have easily prevented this traffic accident that happened in 2013 which put Tim Olmstead in the hospital.  Tim was riding his bicycle while under the influence, and has since been arraigned in local courts for some sundry offenses of assault and battery 2015 and pot possession/driving w/o license in 2016, but that doesn't mean I can't hold Nick accountable for not noting him that night and passing him safely; I know I would have.  

But in this case, Willy, I think you are focused more on what happened in 2017 and not what happened in 2018, and for holding Nick's mother too accountable for what he has done in the past without also holding her accountable for her own (and Nick's sister's) successes through life.  Nick is responsible for his own failings, his mother is hopeful that he can turn things around and shows throughout this incident that she felt the sheriff's policy was not constructive in accomplishing that goal of hers. 

I know I would have exposed that sick policy that works against rehabilitation and encourages recidivism if my offspring was forced to leave jail in paper pants and socks in the middle of a cold spell in winter.  I respect Teresa Wroble a lot more for this incident, because she was thinking more of others who would be inconvenienced in the future by this poor policy, rather than by what others might think of her for doing so.  

It's easy to overlook this when your focus is drawn off by the sheriff's video and narrative, and what landed the son in jail.

That 2013 accident didn't have any charges against Wroble. Olmstead was drunk on a bike, with no lights, swerving into traffic off the roadside, about midnight in April. What's Olmstead doing out there in that condition at that time? That doesn't excuse Wroble completely, but he didn't get a ticket either. In this case, I'd like to see a police report of the incident last summer of the home invasion, wondering. If the MCSO is so innocent on this entire deal, why doctor up a video with overdubbing of audio? Audio that was privileged conversation too, or would think so.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service