Foxborough police may have violated public records law in Chandler Jones' medical emergency

[Yehoodi]

I have a few things to add from my reading of the situation.

 

1) Jones went to the police station to seek aid with a medical condition that he was having over the weekend.   Regarding any criminal action on the night in question, there is none as, VL's friend indicated, the Mass Law created an exception to those who seek medical help.  See MGL Ch. 94C Sec. 34A(b).  https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter94C/Section34A .  So even if Jones was under the influence of drugs or overdosed, he can not be charged criminally with the drugs in his system.

 

2) As for any other criminal activity all we are left with whatever may have been found, in plain view, by the police in Jones's home.  As VL's friend indicated, the police went to the home and did not require a warrant based on the safety exception to the warrant requirement.  However, warrant exceptions only have a limited scope and the police may not go beyond the scope of the exception.  That is to say, if the police go there to lock up the home, once they find Jones's keys, they can then leave and lock the door; and as such, the safety concern (unlocked home) has been accomplished and the safety concern has lapsed so they are not authorized to stay any longer.  So they can not go around and search the house after finding the keys.  From what I have heard on the radio is that the fire dept found the keys on the kitchen table along with some class D substance.  So all we have is a class D substance found.

 

3) As for the concerns of records being modified, changed, redacted, etc. after the initial creation of the report, it was done so in the effort to comply with laws regarding personal medical information not being made public, so it is understandable that the police at times can be caught in middle of having a public record (their police report) containing information which is prohibited from being made public.  And Jones was not the only record changed over the weekend.  Indeed, the Foxboro police/Fire, made 34 such reports and had to make changes/modify 5 of the reports including Jones's report.  So the dept. altered 5/34 reports or about 1 in 9 reports.  So it looks like a normal course of practice as opposed to something out of the ordinary.   

[dynasty13]

23 minutes ago, bababooey said:

It wouldn't belong here if Steve Avery was the civilian involved, but the whole reason why it is being discussed here is because it's Chandler Jones. Without an NFL player's involvement, there wouldn't have been a potential violation of the law by the officer. That's why it's being discussed.

 

We don't know exactly what happened, so for you to make this claim and pass it off as fact, well...that's the issue here because we've seen how things can blow up from bull spit. 

 

How about just once...ONCE...you wait until the story is clear before trying to form the narrative yourself? 

[Gramz]

@Yehoodi  regarding #3

 

I had also read that they changed or modified a few other reports that day, however I also read those "other" modifications came within minutes of the initial report,  as in....   officer noticed some mistakes he had written and corrected.     It is my understanding Jones report was modified and erased only after a news source asked to see the report.   Is that correct?    If so,  there is some difference here and you could understand why some are seeing

[dynasty13]

2 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

@Yehoodi  regarding #3

 

I had also ready that they changed or modified a few other reports that day, however I also read those "other" modifications came within minutes of the initial report,  as in....   officer noticed some mistakes he had written and corrected.     It is my understanding Jones report was modified and erased only after a news source asked to see the report.   Is that correct.    If so,  there is some difference here.

 

There would be a difference, yes, but 'different' doesn't necessarily mean 'nefarious'. In one case, they modified something immediately to fix a mistake, and in the other, they modified something relating to medical information before it was to go public. IF that was all that happened (as they are saying), why is this a story?

[Gramz]

3 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

 

There would be a difference, yes, but 'different' doesn't necessarily mean 'nefarious'. In one case, they modified something immediately to fix a mistake, and in the other, they modified something relating to medical information before it was to go public. IF that was all that happened (as they are saying), why is this a story?

Because, like it or not, a "suspected"  drug overdose of a major sports figure, is News, and so is suspected cover up by the local law enforcement.   

 

I'm glad Jones is okay, I'm glad he got help and the detox or whatever treatment he got at the hospital to clear his system and send him on his way.   I'm also glad that he has been embarrassed and humiliated by this incident,  it may very well save his life in the long run.    Or not.    That is up to him and the choices he makes of what or what not to put in his body going forward.

 

[dynasty13]

32 minutes ago, bababooey said:

LOL I said exactly what happened. A Patriots player has an allergic reaction to synthetic weed, the cops are notified. We don't know what else happened since then because the record was removed entirely without explanation (a possible violation of the law and a scary precedent to set). The side facts are the Foxborough chief of police has run stadium security for 3 decades and there is a playoff game this weekend that Jones will be playing in.

 

See...you are using what may be a harmless connection in order to suggest dubious behavior....and at this stage of what we actually know, that's crap. 

 

That's like me saying, "well, it was reported that Peyton's wife had HGH shipped to her house for her use, but hey! Peyton lived there too and, oh by the way, happened to be recovering from an injury".

 

That's not fair to do. Again, creating the narrative based on personal feeling based speculation instead of letting it play out and discussing it then is a problem.

[TheRustonRifle#7]

Lol, some Pat's fans will go to great lengths to defend their team while trying to drag other teams down in order to make their sullied image lesser....glad Chandler is ok and practicing. Let's hope for his sake that nothing more comes of it?

[SteelCityColt]

37 minutes ago, bababooey said:

LOL I said exactly what happened. A Patriots player has an allergic reaction to synthetic weed, the cops are notified. We don't know what else happened since then because the record was removed entirely without explanation (a possible violation of the law and a scary precedent to set). The side facts are the Foxborough chief of police has run stadium security for 3 decades and there is a playoff game this weekend that Jones will be playing in.

 

Viri posted a counter argument detailing the procedures as to why it was handled in a such a way. You've called them garbage but haven't actually shown them to be false.  

 

As you say it's a "possible" violation. Show it to be an actual one before you spout off. 

 

That's the point I'm making. 

[Yehoodi]

16 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

@Yehoodi  regarding #3

 

I had also read that they changed or modified a few other reports that day, however I also read those "other" modifications came within minutes of the initial report,  as in....   officer noticed some mistakes he had written and corrected.     It is my understanding Jones report was modified and erased only after a news source asked to see the report.   Is that correct?    If so,  there is some difference here and you could understand why some are seeing

 

Yes there is a timing of the difference, agreed.  But non the less reports have been changed.  Perhaps the Jones report was overlooked until they looked at it again upon request from the Herald, maybe there are other reports resting in the police files that should be changed and not been proofread. 

 

So on one the hand I agree with your point.  But on the other hand it, the changing of a report is not an uncommon occurrence; and as such, does not carry the extra suspicion that it is the only reported changed.    

[SteelCityColt]

@Yehoodi I thought you'd be able to offer an explanation into the legal ins and outs. 

 

Embarrassing incident for the player, but not as big as it's made out to be. From the reading of everything so far no "crime" actually occurred. 

[bababooey]

26 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

3) As for the concerns of records being modified, changed, redacted, etc. after the initial creation of the report, it was done so in the effort to comply with laws regarding personal medical information not being made public, so it is understandable that the police at times can be caught in middle of having a public record (their police report) containing information which is prohibited from being made public.  And Jones was not the only record changed over the weekend.  Indeed, the Foxboro police/Fire, made 34 such reports and had to make changes/modify 5 of the reports including Jones's report.  So the dept. altered 5/34 reports or about 1 in 9 reports.  So it looks like a normal course of practice as opposed to something out of the ordinary.   

Except that's not true. From boston.com article from the initial link.

 

Quote

 

"Of all the medical emergencies that Foxborough police responded to during the last seven days, only one deserved a “modification” to the official police log by a lieutenant.

It also happened to be the only incident involving a New England Patriots defensive end."

 

Yes, there were more updated but all were changed by a dispatcher minutes after the incident, which would be a normal course of business. 

Quote

"Foxborough police responded to 34 medical emergencies over the last week, including the one involving Jones, according to the public log. Only four others were modified, and all were changed by a dispatcher minutes after the incident. "

A dispatcher minutes after does not equal a lieutenant doing it days later. From the article

Quote

Only Jones’ emergency was modified by a lieutenant, and it was the only record changed days after the fact. 

Below is the reason why we are discussing this

 

Quote

 

Police are allowed to redact information, so long as they cite the reason why. In fact, in the police logs provided for Sunday, information about two other calls was redacted—one involving a child, and the other a domestic dispute.

But Jones’ incident wasn’t just redacted. The information in question is gone, with no indication to the public of what was taken out or why.

 

Please read the entire article before trying to spin it. Patriots player aside, it's scary if anyone thinks that this is legit for a police to be able to do. I'm a huge police supporter and accept that there are a few bad apples like we see in these nationwide cases, but there's no way even the most staunchest police supporter could be ok with the complete removal of records no questions asked.

[bababooey]

32 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

 

We don't know exactly what happened, so for you to make this claim and pass it off as fact, well...that's the issue here because we've seen how things can blow up from bull spit. 

 

How about just once...ONCE...you wait until the story is clear before trying to form the narrative yourself? 

We don't know what happened because.....see my post above.

 

Again, if it was Jimmy O'Malley nobody would care. It was Chandler Jones. That's why it's a story. Simple as that.

[SteelCityColt]

17 minutes ago, TheRustonRifle#7 said:

Lol, some Pat's fans will go to great lengths to defend their team while trying to drag other teams down in order to make their sullied image lesser....glad Chandler is ok and practicing. Let's hope for his sake that nothing more comes of it?

 

I'm not sure we've seen any of that going on so far? 

 

So far for a discussion involving the Pats, it's been quite civil, it's good. 

 

 

[bababooey]

49 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

Because, like it or not, a "suspected"  drug overdose of a major sports figure, is News, and so is suspected cover up by the local law enforcement.   

 

I'm glad Jones is okay, I'm glad he got help and the detox or whatever treatment he got at the hospital to clear his system and send him on his way.   I'm also glad that he has been embarrassed and humiliated by this incident,  it may very well save his life in the long run.    Or not.    That is up to him and the choices he makes of what or what not to put in his body going forward.

 

You'd think after his brother was humiliated, stripped of his title, and suspended from the UFC, he would have learned the lesson.

[bababooey]

6 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

@Yehoodi I thought you'd be able to offer an explanation into the legal ins and outs. 

 

Embarrassing incident for the player, but not as big as it's made out to be. From the reading of everything so far no "crime" actually occurred. 

Please see my response then. Just because he's a lawyer doesn't make him right. I'm a CPA and am paid to be skeptical about everything. Maybe we should listen to more than just the lawyer from Boston.

[TheRustonRifle#7]

Just now, SteelCityColt said:

 

I'm not sure we've seen any of that going on so far? 

 

So far for a discussion involving the Pats, it's been quite civil, it's good. 

 

 

Ok if you say so? Sorry if I stirred the pot? I must have read more into some repiles than others have?

[bababooey]

34 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

@Yehoodi  regarding #3

 

I had also read that they changed or modified a few other reports that day, however I also read those "other" modifications came within minutes of the initial report,  as in....   officer noticed some mistakes he had written and corrected.     It is my understanding Jones report was modified and erased only after a news source asked to see the report.   Is that correct?    If so,  there is some difference here and you could understand why some are seeing

YASSS Gramz YASSSSS

[SteelCityColt]

@bababooey

 

Just so you don't think I'm being completely against your view, I agree that if something is a Police record that alterations should be carefully handled. They are after all "public" record? 

 

But on the flip side, would you want the police holding information on you if you hadn't committed a crime. 

General question outside of what happened with Jones. There was a big out cry here when the police started holding DNA samples from people who have never been charged of a crime. 

[bababooey]

4 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

@bababooey

 

Just so you don't think I'm being completely against your view, I agree that if something is a Police record that alterations should be carefully handled. They are after all "public" record? 

 

But on the flip side, would you want the police holding information on you if you hadn't committed a crime. 

General question outside of what happened with Jones. There was a big out cry here when the police started holding DNA samples from people who have never been charged of a crime. 

I'm pretty sure marijuna is illegal, which is confirmed what he was doing.

 

Edit: Yes, they should be handled carefully. The entire issue is that this was not normal course of business. Modification by dispatcher minutes after vs. complete removal by lieutenant days later with no reason for modification.

[SteelCityColt]

1 minute ago, TheRustonRifle#7 said:

Ok if you say so? Sorry if I stirred the pot? I must have read more into some repiles than others have?

 

No need to apologise, I was genuinely asking the question because I couldn't see it myself. I must have read less into it! 

 

It's a good discussion so far, just trying to keep it that way that's all.

[SteelCityColt]

Just now, bababooey said:

I'm pretty sure marijuna is illegal, which is confirmed what he was doing.

 

I thought it was "Spice"? 

[TheRustonRifle#7]

Just now, SteelCityColt said:

 

No need to apologise, I was genuinely asking the question because I couldn't see it myself. I must have read less into it! 

 

It's a good discussion so far, just trying to keep it that way that's all.

You are doing a fantastic job! I would hate to be in your shoes...keep up the good work

[bababooey]

2 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

I thought it was "Spice"? 

Synthetic Marijuana. Which I imagine isn't legal. Please see my edit to the post you were quoting. On the flip side, how would you feel if cops had evidence that confirmed your innocence and then removed it without reason. It goes both ways guy.

[Yehoodi]

Just now, SteelCityColt said:

@Yehoodi I thought you'd be able to offer an explanation into the legal ins and outs. 

 

Embarrassing incident for the player, but not as big as it's made out to be. From the reading of everything so far no "crime" actually occurred. 

 

Yes it is an embarrassing incident for Jones.

 

As for the legal ins and outs, its tough to do unless one knows all of the facts, which I do not know and can only speak to what I mentioned in my post. 

 

From the facts that we know it pretty much a straight forward, albeit embarrassing, incident.  Essentially, Jones is criminally exempt from whatever he had in his system (assuming he came to the police station in good faith seeking medical assistance and was not caught by the police wandering around the neighborhood).  I heard on the radio that this Foxboro Police station also has an ambulance company in the same building, so it is understandable that Jones would go to that building to seek medical help as both the police and an ambulance company are in the same location.

 

As to the Class D substance in his kitchen, it was found near his keys so basically in plain view (cops where in a legal position at the keys).  The only issue would be if the police can demonstrate enough facts to support the safety concern exception to the warrant requirement and thus prevent the class D substance from being suppressed if the police wanted to prosecute.   My guess this would be easy to do, as they knew Jones who likely did not have his keys on him and they wanted to go and get his keys and lock up his house whilst he was in the hospital.   I would venture that Jones consented to the police retrieving his keys and locking his house, this consent would be a second authorization for the entry to find the keys and lock his home.

[dynasty13]

4 minutes ago, bababooey said:

We don't know what happened because.....see my post above.

 

Again, if it was Jimmy O'Malley nobody would care. It was Chandler Jones. That's why it's a story. Simple as that.

 

So you only reeeeeeeally care because it's a Patriots player. If it was someone else, non story.

 

And you said it, we don't know what happened. Yet once again, YOU seem to. Tell me, how does that keep happening? You're doing the same thing you did last January...you read the report, make your own connections, and then present them as fact. 

[SteelCityColt]

Just now, bababooey said:

Synthetic Marijuana. Which I imagine is legal. Please see my edit to the post you were quoting. On the flip side, how would you feel if cops had evidence that confirmed your innocence and then removed it without reason. It goes both ways guy.

 

That it does, but that would imply I was going to be charged and would need the evidence? That and imply it's a criminal investigation. 

[bababooey]

2 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

 

So you only reeeeeeeally care because it's a Patriots player. If it was someone else, non story.

 

And you said it, we don't know what happened. Yet once again, YOU seem to. Tell me, how does that keep happening? You're doing the same thing you did last January...you read the report, make your own connections, and then present them as fact. 

That's not what I'm saying. If it was Sheamus McTool then this wouldn't be in NFL General. But it's Chandler Jones, so it is.

 

We don't know what happened because it was removed. Not in the normal course of business. Not by a dispatcher. Not minutes later. That's the issue. That's not right. This isn't up for debate.

 

If you don't like to hear it then hit "ignore"

[bababooey]

5 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

That it does, but that would imply I was going to be charged and would need the evidence? That and imply it's a criminal investigation. 

I'm sure Jim Buting and Dean Strang agree with you.

[SteelCityColt]

3 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

 

So you only reeeeeeeally care because it's a Patriots player. If it was someone else, non story.

 

And you said it, we don't know what happened. Yet once again, YOU seem to. Tell me, how does that keep happening? You're doing the same thing you did last January...you read the report, make your own connections, and then present them as fact. 

 

I think that's unfair on @bababooey because it's not like it's just him. If it's not an NFL Player then this isn't news, simple as. 

[SteelCityColt]

1 minute ago, bababooey said:

I'm sure Jim Buting and Dean Strang agree with you.

 

I've yet to see the show, nor am I familiar enough with the case to comment.

[TheRustonRifle#7]

Synthetic Marijuana has been outlawed in most states...not sure which ones still allow it and if Mass is one of them? Anyway, like i said before I am glad Chandler is ok...liked him since his Syracuse days and was hopeful he would have been drafted by Indy.

[Yehoodi]

20 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

@Yehoodi I thought you'd be able to offer an explanation into the legal ins and outs. 

Embarrassing incident for the player, but not as big as it's made out to be. From the reading of everything so far no "crime" actually occurred. 

double post, sorry.

[bababooey]

1 minute ago, TheRustonRifle#7 said:

Synthetic Marijuana has been outlawed in most states...not sure which ones still allow it and if Mass is one of them? Anyway, like i said before I am glad Chandler is ok...liked him since his Syracuse days and was hopeful he would have been drafted by Indy.

It's outlawed in Massachusetts.

[dynasty13]

6 minutes ago, bababooey said:

That's not what I'm saying. If it was Sheamus McTool then this wouldn't be in NFL General. But it's Chandler Jones, so it is.

 

We don't know what happened because it was removed. Not in the normal course of business. Not by a dispatcher. Not minutes later. That's the issue. That's not right. This isn't up for debate.

 

If you don't like to hear it then hit "ignore"

 

You aren't just speaking to 'the issue', though. You are trying to create a narrative that there was some grand cover up, and that's what I am reacting to.

 

You're presenting the connection of the police chief running stadium security and 'making sure a player is on the field for a playoff game' as a way to immediately draw skepticism and make it sound dubious. Why would that even be your first inkling? It speaks to a dangerous inconsistency to how these types of things are handled. 

[SteelCityColt]

1 minute ago, bababooey said:

It's outlawed in Massachusetts.

 

Is use outlawed or just production and sale?

[bababooey]

1 minute ago, dynasty13 said:

 

You aren't just speaking to 'the issue', though. You are trying to create a narrative that there was some grand cover up, and that's what I am reacting to.

 

You're presenting the connection of the police chief running stadium security as a way to immediately draw skepticism and make it sound dubious. Why would that even be your first inkling? It speaks to a dangerous inconsistency to how these types of things are handled. 

I am speaking to the issue. Please see my dismantling of Yehoodi's post above.

 

Again, hit "ignore".

[SteelCityColt]

2 minutes ago, TheRustonRifle#7 said:

Synthetic Marijuana has been outlawed in most states...not sure which ones still allow it and if Mass is one of them? Anyway, like i said before I am glad Chandler is ok...liked him since his Syracuse days and was hopeful he would have been drafted by Indy.

 

Agreed, love him as a player.. to have him in Indy would have been great. 

[bababooey]

3 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Is use outlawed or just production and sale?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/2015/08/14/synthetic-marijuana-now-banned-boston/HgVzsp5DP4ljk26UDuOxwI/story.html

 

Both.

 

Edit: Would seem logical that you wouldn't just outlaw production and sale and not use.

[BrentMc11]

Foxborough has a new motto.....

 

What happens in Foxborough stays in Foxborough......                                                                                     (Ya ain't from around here are ya boy?)

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, BrentMc11 said:

Foxborough has a new motto.....

 

What happens in Foxborough stays in Foxborough......                                                                                     (Ya ain't from around here are ya boy?)

LOL