Rodney Collins: No expectation of privacy when you use a county-owned phone

To The Daily Sun,

In reference to the Belknap County Sheriff's Department's administrative investigation, emotions should be set aside and facts should be the focus. Information and evidence should be gathered in an unbiased, comprehensive, accurate and professional manner.

In this case, if any employee is considered “at will,” just cause and the typical due process is subverted on the premise that an action was not undertaken arbitrarily and capriciously or maliciously. An attorney has demanded potential settlement offers and refers to the integrity of a particular unit without any articulated facts that integrity was compromised. The attorney then claims retaliation and harassment, which is eye catching for newspapers, but falls short of any specificity to support his assertions.

The attorney further claims protection by the New Hampshire Whistleblower’s Act while failing to provide reasons as to why it is applicable. The sheriff is also bound by the parameters of antiquated personnel laws. The attorney points out a sentence from a performance evaluation that is irrelevant to whether any violations of rules and regulations occurred under the current investigation(s). Then there are claims that complaints were not investigated but counter-claims that complaints were not received. An internal record-keeping review or polygraph should resolve that dispute.

In terms of the “hostile environment,” it generally refers to a protected class. Since that has not been identified by anyone in The Daily Sun account, it is a little puzzling as to how that even applies. The attorney quoted in the published article refers to a phone seized. From this phone, text messages were allegedly extracted that were of “a personal nature.” Since by all accounts, the phone in question was county-owned, I’m perplexed as to why the attorney wouldn’t realize that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. A further claim of spousal privilege given these circumstances reminds me of the movie, "Dumb and Dumber." Or in the words of a professor at UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law, “I would not put money on using the spousal communication privilege.” Enough said professor!

Another sensible comment within the article was attributed to Belknap County Commissioner David DeVoy, who said: “The sheriff has operational control of his deputies.” Yet another commissioner presumes someone must be hiding something because of the length of the investigation. In his position, presumptions without a nexus to facts are irresponsible. However, the length and cost of the investigation are legitimate questions. Everyone should stay in their respective lanes and fulfill their essential functions. The lawyer also claims foul by the sheriff possibly investigating one of the complaints but settled case law is clear that an appointing authority (especially a constitutional officer) is not conflicted to be the proverbial judge, jury and executioner. The necessity for a "disinterested party" investigator/trier isn't as broad as the colorful rhetoric suggested.

I once worked with Sheriff Mike Moyer and he is an honorable professional with integrity. He has preserved public trust. Demand accountability but don't litter the process with gobbledygook because you can't make sense of nonsense.

Rodney Collins

Mashpee, Mass.