More to the story of the lost gun - temporary theft?

I recently wrote two articles published in the Messenger Publications issues of March 19 and April 9. The stories are about a Mille Lacs County deputy who misplaced his law enforcement firearm in a public restroom. The gun was found and turned over to law enforcement. That is it in a nutshell. But there is more to the story. There always is.

I just finished reading the Brainerd Daily Dispatch and this week’s issue of the Mille Lacs County Times. That is something we do in the newspaper business. We read newspapers. A lot of different newspapers. Every day.

I read the Times article by Dawn Slade, “Forgotten gun incident leads to investigation.”

This is the first mention of the “forgotten gun” in the Times paper. The article states, “Recently the Mille Lacs Messenger broke the story after obtaining an internal document from the sheriff’s office, which Sheriff Brent Lindgren says was obtained illegally. Lindgren called it a breach of security. That’s a separate crime that’s occurred,’ Lindgren said.”

I wrote the articles mentioned by the Times. That paragraph mentioned above (from the Times article) leads readers to believe that I obtained the document illegally, that I committed a crime. That is simply not true. I do have a copy of the document and it was in no way received illegally.

The Times has access to the same incident reports that I have. They are emailed to both papers weekly. The first report of the “forgotten gun” was mentioned in the sheriff’s report as a theft from Unclaimed Freight. I received the report a week after the fact because they are weekly reports. I started investigating the incident.

It took time. Several phone calls were thwarted by comments like, “No comment.” “It is under investigation.” So I continued to do my job. I asked a lot of people questions. The funny thing is when you are a reporter, you talk to a lot of people who know something, but don't want to go on record, but may know someone who does. So you ask some more. I kept asking and looking for answers.

We ran a story on the incident as soon as I had tangible proof on record. After that, I confidentially interviewed the person who found the gun and turned it in. We ran that story, too.

The Times article says Lindgren is trying to find out who the man is who “took” the gun, because that is a crime.

Whether or not a crime was committed by the person who found the gun and turned it over to police, is not my position to say. I have read statute 609.52 which in part says for an act to be considered a theft, one must have “intent” to permanently deprive another of their property. The man who found the gun said he had every intention of getting it to police. Which he did.

As for why I am not telling the Sheriff who the man is who found the gun, is because I told the man I would not and that his wishes to remain anonymous would be kept — at least by me. Should he at some point decide on his own to come forward that is up to him. But I stand by my word. And Minnesota statute 595.021 — otherwise known as the Free Flow of Information Act, or the Shield Law — says I do not have to reveal confidential sources or unpublished notes.

“The Minnesota shield law, which was revised in 1998, explicitly recognizes the public's interest in protecting the free flow of information provided by the news media. The law protects those persons "directly engaged in the gathering, procuring, compiling, editing, or publishing of information" from revealing sources or unpublished information." (Student Press Law Center.)

Journalists take the Shield Law seriously and do not use it lightly. We discussed the issue at length in the office and contacted our attorney before the interview was even conducted. We also discussed with our attorney the information on how I obtained the now infamous document.

I can assure you, everything I did was legal. And ethical.

As for Milaca Police Chief Mike Mott not revealing the name of the man who found the gun, Mott gave HIS word he would not. He is standing by his word. Integrity.

One last note, I also wonder what a “temporary theft” is. The Times article states, “Lindgren added if the person is found guilty of temporary theft and the police chief aided the offender, he could also be charged with a crime.” What is a temporary theft? Is that a crime? What does that mean? Does that mean there can be temporary murder? Temporary rape? Temporary arson? Temporary assault? Or just temporary insanity?

Just something to think about.

Peace.

p.s. if you are interested in the articles in the Messenger, try these addresses. Copy and paste into your browser. click enter.

http://www.millelacsmessenger.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=18168&TM=64159.87

http://www.millelacsmessenger.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=18011&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=&S=1