The Exposure and the Cover-up of the Wroble Incident

[XLFD]

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.

[XLFD]

Aquaman, I don't have the police report regarding last year's break-in, but I do have the official crash report for 2013 ( ud10-2013-201383238.pdf ), and if you glance at that, you'll note that both vehicles involved were going straight ahead and that no swerving was noted and there is no mention of the bicycle not having lights.  The bicyclist is noted as having had alcohol, but no tests were taken and no tickets were issued for that offense.  

Instead the narrative and illustration shows that Olmstead's offense was riding on the roadway, where he was struck from behind by Wroble's vehicle.  I travelled that stretch last night, and I made an assessment that had Wroble been paying due attention he would have seen the bicyclist easily even without the mandated little red light a bicycle must have on their bike when riding after dark.  There is plenty of light in the area to see motion particularly when you consider the pedals would have reflectors on them catching the headlights. 

Surely, Olmstead rode unsafely for conditions, and had been drinking, and is at least partially at fault for setting this accident up, however...

The stupid MDOT engineers who put curbs at each driveway entrance along US 10 forcing bicyclists to either be on the roadway or negotiate the curbs on an unmaintained 'shoulder' have an assist in causing accidents like this, and unlike the MCSO, I cannot absolve the driver of failing to notice the rider and not changing lanes to avoid a crash that was preventable.   

[Willy]

She sure definitely helped turn things around by exposing her son's criminal activity to the World. Posting a photo of her son being released from jail is not my idea of helping him out. It's not law enforcement's job to rehabilitate prisoners. Their job is to baby sit them until they are released. If people are so concerned with that poor law breakers tragic treatment when he was released, why not show the same concern for his victims. I don't know Momma Wroble but from what I have seen of this situation there is no reason for me to have any respect for her. She was not thinking about others when she plotted to set up this scenario. She was trying to sabotage the Sheriff Dept. not help others. Just how many prisoners are arrested for running around naked and terrorizing innocent people? If that's who she is concerned about then I suggest we all declare her the patron Saint of Naked Criminals. Sorry but what she did does not rise to the level of respect by any means. The Sheriff's video was an obvious effort to countermand her public posting about her son's situation. Has she mentioned to anyone what exactly was in that bag her son left the jail with? If it contained clothing then this entire discussion has been a waste of time.

[AQUAMAN]

X, look at your earlier post, MCP article again, "Nick could have easily prevented" for where I got the info. on bike lights, and swerving into traffic from the shoulder of road. The hour of around midnight also makes strong suspicion of what Olmstead was doing out there in cold April weather. This was all said by Cole to the MCP, so I guessed it to be correct. Funny it's not on the police report though, hmm. 

[XLFD]

The information from a lot of bicycle accidents (especially when no other witnesses are around) are one-sided versions of what the driver says-- the bicyclist is often taken away to the hospital or the morgue before his version of events comes out, if ever.  Drivers often embellish the bicycle rider's swerving and lane use, especially when they take them down from behind and fear citations.  The news hounds get that first account before any crash reconstruction investigation takes place.  

In general, you can look at the damage to a bicycle and the car that hit it and figure out the mechanics of the collision, but I find few officers and deputies that actually value that solid evidence over the narrative of the driver-- at least before a full investigation is completed (which doesn't happen often enough in these crashes).

[XLFD]

Deja vu all over again? Nick Wroble arrested and arraigned for breaking and entering (much like a previous charge of home invasion).  This violated his probation and he's back in a familiar place.

[Willy]

I wonder if his mommy will be taking pictures of him going back to jail.