3 ms·
>violated public records law for retaining documents, I doubt that. Most public records laws I have ever seen explicitly state that if you are a State employee
by fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>violated public records law for retaining documents,
I doubt that. Most public records laws I have ever seen explicitly state that if you are a State employee and you have documents which you know to be germane to an ongoing criminal investigation that they must not be destroyed, and that knowingly destroying documents in such a case is an offense.
- tantalor 13y agoI think you misunderstood. The implication was he "violated public records law for retaining documents" by destroying documents. The relevant paragraph is, Peek's letter contends that on May 24, Kruidbos wiped clean the information on a computer assigned to him, thereby violating public records law.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoRight you are, I missed that part.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 13y agoYou misread the source. Your interpretation would only make sense if the article read 'violated public records law by retaining documents.' This is a pretty elementary grammar mistake on your part.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoYes! You are right! I am either incredibly new at reading, or maybe I was just careless. You win a prize! Congratulations!