Sensitive documents and internal communications from within the largest police organization in the country are starting to leak onto the open internet. The hacker behind the leak goes by the alias “the Cthulhu,” and is also responsible for a number of high-profile breaches, including a massive hack of the crowdfunding site Patreon.

The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), which has thousands of local chapters representing over 325,000 police officers, has confirmed the documents are real and that the FBI has been notified.

The leaked documents include forum postings, names and addresses of police officers and contracts made with city authorities. The first release is only 259 MB, but the Cthulhu claims to have an additional 18 terabytes worth of data that he will comb through and potentially begin releasing over time.

“A society cannot be at peace when the citizens and the enforcers of the law are at war.”

What the hackers found: According to the Guardian, the leaked forum threads are unflattering. They expose police officers speaking ill of President Barack Obama, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and “illegals.”

But the real meat of the hack could be the leaked contracts. The ability of unions to defend officers from punitive action is, some argue, one reason for the ongoing police brutality issues in the U.S.

“No one really knows what is going on inside police unions,” Alex Vitale, associate professor of sociology at Brooklyn College, told the Guardian. “The most troubling thing is that they have been able to work out disciplinary procedures that shield them from oversight, as in what steps that the employer has to go to discipline or terminate someone.”

But the hacker behind the leak insists he’s not anti-police — he’s just trying to “help” the police correct their behavior and foster better relations between police and citizens.

“A society cannot be at peace when the citizens and the enforcers of the law are at war,” the hacker wrote on his personal site. “Instead, it is the duty of every citizen to support their democratic society, even if in the short term it may seem like you are attacking them.”

Denver’s largest police union is filing a lawsuit against the city for its new body camera policy, saying that it was implemented without input from members of the force. The Denver Police Protective Association also said they support the program, but just didn’t like the process that led to its implementation.

The announcement came on Nov. 4, with the union filing the suit against the City of Denver on behalf of its roughly 1,300 members. They are seeking to stop the implementation of the full program, scheduled to begin after the beginning of the year, or at least fix what they deem as its flaws. There is a pilot program currently underway, but the department is saying they will continue as planned unless the courts tell them otherwise.

“There’s lawsuits all the time,” said Deputy Chief Matt Murray. “The courts have their job, and we will respect that process. And we also have things we have to do, and certainly we will react appropriately if the courts tell us to stop.”

The camera program comes in the wake of several high profile police abuse cases around the nation and the need to observe incidents, both for the protection of citizens and police. After all, if there is video evidence, the truth is much easier to obtain. However, video evidence is not a silver bullet by any stretch, as several recent cases have shown, because people will still have different interpretations of the events in question. Additionally, some civil rights advocates fear unintended consequences, such as the possibility ofillegally obtaining evidence.

The union alluded to the latter in their statement, citing broader privacy concerns for citizens in their filing. They also expressed concerns about officer safety and security, as well as possible mistrust among officers thanks to their lack of input.

Overall, the implementation of body cameras will likely be a good thing. It will have a few kinks to iron out at first, to be sure, but it’s hard to argue that having a second set of eyes on a possible altercation will do anything but aid the good cops while weeding out the bad ones.

By Bob Knudsen from The Examiner

When Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke to the Fraternal Order of Police last month, she came with a message: “Thank you for being the peacemakers.” Black Lives Matter activists were taken aback, with prominent activist DeRay McKesson tweeting, “We have officially entered the twilight zone.”

If you have paid any attention to the ongoing debates about law enforcement and black bodies, this will not surprise you.

On July 17, 2014, Eric Garner was killed during an attempted arrest — Garner was selling loose cigarettes — when an officer placed him in a chokehold. The head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, Patrick Lynch, said that it was “not a chokehold,” and that the city’s mayor, Bill De Blasio, needs to “support New York City police officers unequivocally.” A CBS News headline summarized the union’s response as arguing that Garner was “complicit in his own death,” by refusing arrest and being overweight.

Ed Mullins, head of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, called the $5.9 million settlement the city made with Garner’s family “shameful” and “obscene.” ‘’Where is the justice for New York taxpayers?” he asked.

Union leaders

When two NYPD officers were killed by a madman who sought “revenge” in the wake of Garner’s death, Lynch used their deaths as political leverage, saying the “blood on the hands starts at City Hall in the office of the mayor.”

It’s not just New York. After police shot and killed Tamir Rice, the Cleveland Police Department had to distance itself from its local union leader. “This shooting was justified,” said Jeffrey Follmer, Cleveland Police Union chief. “It’s a tragedy for this 12-year-old, but it was justified.”

In Baltimore, after Freddie Gray was found dead with a severed spine while detained, union officials denied the police had any responsibility for Gray’s death, then worked to undermine the credibility of state prosecutor Marilyn Mosby, charged with investigating the case.

Time after time, it is police union leadership that defends and protects the cops involved in the cases that have fueled the Black Lives Matter movement. Time after time, police union leaders provide voice to the very arguments and justifications that Black Lives Matter activists, and the politicians who align with the movement, seek to combat.

Indeed, the Fraternal Order of Police has consistently sought to prevent the federal government from addressing issues of police conduct and law enforcement. After the White House announced restrictions on the military-grade equipment that could be used by local forces, the union accused the White House of politicizing officers’ safety because they “don’t like the optics.”

Protecting good cops

Whatever you think of the comments from union officials highlighted above, there is no doubt that they strike at the heart of Black Lives Matter. It is surprising, then, that there is so little discussion of police unions, and the role that they play in shaping law enforcement practices and the policies that shape them.

The website for Black Lives Matter, admittedly a diffuse movement, does not mention police unions once in its “demands.” While labor unions’ support for Black Lives Matter is promoted on liberal websites, the role police unions play in these debates has not made its way into the national dialogue.

Recently, however, some activists associated with the movement included “fair police union contracts” in a 10-point set of policy solutions as part of a new effort called Campaign Zero. This is an important step that might signal a new phase of the broader movement. Even so, it is striking that police unions have escaped sustained, systemic critique from many of the most visible, mainstream politicians and pundits most eager to align with Black Lives Matter.

Does the generally progressive ideological bent of some Black Lives Matter activists and supporters prevent them from a sustained critique against unions? Are politicians eager to say whatever the movement asks them — unless it costs them something like an endorsement by the Fraternal Order of Police?

Officers deserve to be protected as they serve the community, and their safety is imperative, but they should not be able to act with impunity. Unions should understand that when they lash out at critics in defense of cops who misuse their authority, they weaken their ability to protect the good cops — the vast majority of police around the country.

Police unions should be allies in efforts to reform our criminal justice system, and we need to hold them accountable.

Michael Wear led faith outreach for the 2012 Obama campaign and worked as a White House aide.

Gene Ryan, right, President of Fraternal Order of Police Baltimore City Lodge #3, answers questions during a news conference at the lodge’s headquarters

A Fraternal Order of Police lodge is asking Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby to appoint a special prosecutor to the Freddie Gray investigation because of her personal connection to the Gray family’s attorney, William H. “Billy” Murphy Jr., and her marriage to a city councilman.

The letter from Gene Ryan, president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 3, also states that none of the six officers involved in Gray’s arrest and death were responsible for the 25-year-old West Baltimore man’s death that spurred protests and unrest, including rioting and looting on Monday. The letter was released just minutes before Mosby announced charges against the officers.

“Not one of the officers involved in this tragic situation left home in the morning with the anticipation that someone with whom they interacted would not go home that night,” the letter states. “As tragic as this situation is, none of the officers involved are responsible for the death of Mr. Gray.”

Ryan requests that Mosby appoint a “Special Independent Prosecutor.”

“I have very deep concerns about the many conflicts of interest presented by your office conducting an investigation in this case,” the letter states.

“These conflicts include your personal and professional relations with Gray family attorney, William Murphy, and the lead prosecutor’s connections with members of the local media,” the letter states. “Based on several nationally televised interviews, these reporters are likely to be witnesses in any potential litigation regarding this incident.”

Murphy supported Mosby during her campaign last year. He donated $5,000 to her campaign and served on her transition committee.

In a statement to The Baltimore Sun, Mosby said the Gray case doesn’t pose any conflicts for her and the police union donated to other candidates in election to be the state’s attorney.

“State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby has been elected by the residents in Baltimore City to uphold the law in every neighborhood including her own, regardless of if her husband is the councilman within the district where numerous crimes occur,” said spokeswoman Rochelle Ritchie. “Hundreds of people donated to her campaign. There is no conflict of interest surrounding Billy Murphy. He is representing the family in a civil case which has nothing to do with the criminal case.”

The FOP letter also expresses problems with Mosby’s marriage to Baltimore City Councilman Nick Mosby.

“Most importantly, it is clear that your husband’s political future will be directly impacted, for better or worse, by the outcome of your investigation,” the letter states. “In order to avoid any appearance of impropriety or a violation of the Professional Rules of Professional Responsibility, I ask that you appoint a Special Prosecutor to determine whether or not any charges should be filed.”

The letter continued:

“We recognize that there are many dimensions to this situation: the public sentiments — on all sides; the investigation being conducted by your office; the internal police investigation; and a necessary review of the tools, equipment, and resources afforded to Baltimore police officers in order to carry out their sworn duty as police officers.”

The letter also states that the officers involved in the case are “sincerely saddened by Mr. Gray’s passing.”

“They are all committed police officers who have dedicated their careers to the Baltimore City Police Department,” he writes. “And that has been lost in all of the publicity. All death is tragic. And death associated with interaction with police is both shocking and frightening to the public.

“Each of the officers diligently balanced their obligations to protect Mr. Gray and discharge their duties to protect the public,” the letter states. “I have full faith in your professional integrity. While I have the utmost respect for you and your office, I have very deep concerns about the many conflicts of interest presented by your office conducting an investigation in this case.”

On an emotional level, Arizona Senate Bill 1445 has a certain appeal. It would require police departments to withhold for 90 days the name of an officer involved in a use-of-force incident.

The natural inclination is to protect a cop when a shooting inflames passions. Arizona law already allows that, entrusting police chiefs to balance competing interests and exercise judgment.

SB 1445 throws judgment out, instead giving priority to riding out a storm. The unintended consequences are so great the Legislature should reject this bill.

Secrecy breeds mistrust. We saw that in legislative leadership’s rush to pass a budget before the public could dig into it. A body that already suffers from low public approval took another hit. That’s unfortunate and could have been avoided with greater transparency.

Similarly, police departments that withhold the names of officers involved in shootings risk losing pubic support. Did the officer have a sterling record or a history of complaints? Involvement in previous shootings? Up-to-date training? Are they hiding something?

Knowing the answers can ease tensions. It doesn’t make sense to tie a police department’s hands.

Unless you lead the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. It is the primary force behind this bill, another front in its battle against whoever sits in the Phoenix police chief’s office. PLEA’s only interest is protecting its members, and the Legislature should remember the union has gone to great lengths to defend members who ended up in prison.

Police chiefs have a bigger vision that that.

That’s one reason the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes this bill. Its members recognize responsibility to their communities requires them to exercise discretion and balance interests. Lawmakers should consider their counterproposal, which would allow departments to withhold the name of an officer involved in a shooting, “taking into consideration the privacy, confidentiality and safety of the police officer.”

That clearly gives preference to keeping the name private for an appropriate amount of time, while trusting police chiefs to do their jobs and serve their communities. It’s the right approach.

It also recognizes this truth: Names will come out. If you doubt it, consider that the supposed name of the holdout juror in the Jodi Arias case was circulating online within hours of the verdict.

If a police officer’s name is to be released, better that it be done in a responsible way with full context. The police chief’s proposal would allow that. SB 1445 would inflame rumor mills. It’s a bad bill.