Review intended to answer questions regarding claims of retaliation
(DES MOINES) – Gov. Terry E. Branstad today appointed former Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Louis A. Lavarato to conduct an independent review into the firing of DCI Agent Larry Hedlund.
In a letter to former Chief Justice Louis A. Lavarato, Branstad stated:
“You are known within the legal community for your integrity, legal acumen and impartial judgment. I believe the people of Iowa would benefit from your independent review of a matter of public interest.”
[…]
“I am committed to transparency. Iowa law prevents all Iowans from having all of the facts and evidence surrounding Mr. Hedlund’s termination; therefore, I ask you to fully review the Internal Affairs investigation and provide the public with your own independent conclusion as to whether Mr. Hedlund’s termination was in any way related to retaliation for reporting my vehicle for speeding on April 26, 2013.”
The governor is commissioning this review to put to rest any lingering questions or doubts as to whether or not retaliation was the cause of Larry Hedlund’s termination from the Iowa Department of Public Safety.
The governor believes all Iowans deserve complete transparency, deserve the truth, and deserve the whole truth. The governor believes transparency will be achieved with this independent review.
“Iowans may continue to have questions and doubts about the allegations made until they know the whole story. I want Iowans to know the truth,” said Gov. Branstad. “Former Chief Justice Louis A. Lavarato is a respected and impartial statesman, and will offer a fresh, independent review of this matter. He will share his findings with Iowans, and will bring to light the full truth.”
The governor has asked for the review to be fully independent, allowing Iowans the opportunity to review former Chief Justice Louis A. Lavarato’s findings as early as possible once the full review concludes.
The difference is why do SOME Iowa State Patrol, deputies and city police (EMPHASIS ON SOME) believe they can do ANYTHING they want when they’re behind the wheel?
I drive nearly 600 miles a day, six days a week. Like my brothers and sisters driving truck, we see a LOT. And yet, if we, as truck drivers, get caught 15 mph or more speeding, that’s called a serious misdemeanor, and we can lose our license for up to a year – three violations, and the loss is permanent.
We regularly see law enforcement officers pass us, while they steer with their thighs so they can use both hands to type on their computers; talking on their cellphones without a hand-free microphone and just plain out-right speeding.
I had an EMT tell me he brought an ambulance back from the dealership in Illinois, Code 3 (lights and siren) the entire way so he could get home earlier.
I know of a sheriff’s deputy (not from this area) that scared the heck out of his family members riding with him in his private vehicle, by not stopping for red lights and turning left on red lights, saying, “I’m allowed to do this.”
It’s time law enforcement be held accountable for their actions as well – the computer and GPS systems are already on-board their vehicles. Each time they exceed the speed limit by 10 mph, a report needs to be sent to their commanding officer (it happens already in most big-rigs, so I know it can be done!) the officer needs to be explaining why they performed in such a manner!
After all, their paycheck, their uniform, weapon, bullets, vehicle AND FUEL is paid for by US! It’s time they take their responsibility seriously!
@Trucker Dave-there have always been cowboys in law enforcement. If you think they are bad here go to Texas. I had cops down there tell me that nothing is against the law if you don’t get caught. There is a unwritten rule in law enforcement that you always give a fellow officer a break when ever you can.
and therein lies the problem we are talking about. people with clout, power, (law enforcement) taking advantage of the system. even when they say its dangerous or unsafe, when you do the same thing. speeding is against the law, its dangerous when your driving 90. And further more Bumstead was late for another appointment. whos to say he didnt tell the driver they were lats and to step on it. Or maybe it was simply understood that they were late and the driver NEEDED to speed. still Bumstead is guilty in part.
What difference does it make? The officer that was driving was ticketed for speeding. Branstad was just a passenger.
damage control? Why not let the courts decide the TRUTH. Does anyone know if former Chief Justice Louis A. Lavarato is a republican? and who appointed him?