Tim White with Col. Steve O'Donnell

Our last guest is Tim White. Everybody knows who Tim White is, but I'll explain to him. I'm WPRI Investgate Reporter and Managing Editor at WPRI TV. From the Seekong Supply Hotline, you want to welcome Tim to the show. Hey, Colonel, thanks for having me on. I know your schedule's nuts, so I appreciate you giving me 10 or 15 minutes. So just jump right into it. Govontorial debate coming up that you're moderating in about a week. Let's talk about it. The microphone is yours. It's the first time someone probably said that to you, right? Yeah, usually I'm the one asking questions. Exactly. So our debate, our debate is the, is happening Tuesday, live at Rhode Island College, 8 p.m. on Channel 12, commercial free hour long. People can also watch it on WPRI.com or our free 12 plus TV streaming app. And, you know, this is, sometimes you have debates, Colonel Lake. We hosted at Roger Williams University School of Law with the Attorney General candidates where the voters really didn't know the four Democratic candidates for Attorney General. So that was sort of like a live job interview, if you will, vetting these candidates, getting voters to know their experience. That is not the case with what is going to happen on Tuesday. A lot of voters... have made up their mind, may have made up their mind in this race, but they know who these candidates are. And even if some are straddling the fence on it, there isn't a lot of, like, mystery as to who they are. I mean, of course, Helena Folks ran four years ago as well. So she's been essentially running for, uh, for that amount of time. And Governor Dan McKee is, is the incumbent. And we've already seen. from previous debates, including on WPRO, which was called a forum. But that's really a distinction without a difference because of the tone that it took. These two candidates, there is no love lost. And they clearly are trying to cut them out from under, you know, their knees out from underneath them in those debates and really going after each other's record. And so, you know, the AG's debate. We had a lot of tough questions for those candidates, but by and large, you know, the candidates with some notable exceptions, they were rather polite with each other, and they just really wanted to push forward their record and who they are. No, no, no, no. The debate we are expecting on Tuesday is to be far more pointed and sharp with the two candidates going on the attack.

Well, I've watched it, and so let's talk about the one that you've done. So talk about the Attorney General's one and what your feedback. And I agree with you, and I've been in law enforcement my whole life. And I know all four candidates, but I don't know them well. You know, I may know one better than others, but... In the past, I would, you know, you'd know who was running, you knew a lot about them. So how do you dig, I'm not dig information, but how do you present that differently where it's not as adversarial where you're trying to distinguish one candidate from the other as a person that moderates the debate? Well, the first thing that you have to consider here is it's four candidates. So it's very difficult in large. The largest debate, Colonel, I've done, is eight candidates, 2003. I've been, I'm approaching 70 debates now at Channel 12 since 2010. I think I started them. And when you have that many candidates, it's hard to get them to engage with each other, unlike, you know, what we just talked about with the governor's race. So a lot of this is. A ton of homework. Now, I have covered the Office of Attorney General in Rhode Island for 20 years, and I covered criminal justice in Boston for almost 10 years prior to that. So this is sort of in my wheelhouse, but you still have to learn and do research on each of the candidates so you can bring their record to the voters. They're not on TV as much as the governor's candidates are and so on and so forth. So you're really kind of engaging with them as the moderator in this case. when you have that many candidates on the stage. And so we have, we should name them here, Colonel. Kim O'Hern, who's a former assistant attorney general. You have Barrington State Rep. Jason Knight. You have Warwick State Rep. Joe Solomon Jr. And then Keith Hoffman, who was an assistant attorney general previously, and that he is actually endorsed by the current Attorney General Peter Nerona. So we just had to dissect each of their records and go back and look at the instance, how much criminal experience do they have, which is really important for the Office of Attorney General. Rhode Island does not have district attorneys. So every felony case in the state. is handled by the office of the Attorney General. It's really the primary function there, regulatory responsibilities, civil responsibilities, consumer protection that Peter Norona really beefed up under his tenure. So I'm not saying it's all criminal, but it's primarily criminal. So that's why we led with that topic off the top, especially when public safety and crime are always a top issue for voters when we poll. You didn't start a business just to keep the lights on. You're here to sell more today than yesterday.

You're here to win. Lucky for you, Shopify built the best converting checkout on the planet. Like the just one tapping, ridiculously fast acting, sky high sales stacking, championed checkouts. That's the good stuff right there. So if your business is in it to win it, win with Shopify. Start your free trial today at Shopify.com slash win. Mike Drop, hosted by former Navy CEO, Mike Ridland. What is your take? Was it what you expected? Oh, it was the best thing ever. It was something I always wanted to do. If you show me a clear goal, I'm like, okay, I can do that. Master Chief. He's like, you realize there's about 1% chance that you're making a 3%. That's all I need Master Chief. My platoon went home early, and I just went up to my chief, and I was like, I'm not going home. Turns out I'm staying. That's when we go to war. Yeah, I was like, okay, I could get used to this. Mike Drop, follow and listen on your favorite platform. as it should be. And I know you can't give opinions of, you know, which one did better. But I've watched it unfold, and it's going to be a dynamic that's much different to your point. Getting the message out through radio, television, ads, what distinguishes one from the other? Did anything stand out to you that you can answer that distinguishes one from the other? I know I had an hour and a half conversation this morning about flock. And that was a pretty animated conversation. Multiple callers calling in text lines were broken up. And that seems to be the flavor of the day. Most of the AGs in the interview, I didn't think fully committed to it. I think they weren't really, to my perspective, like super strong answers. We super support flock or they're going to take a look at it to make sure it's working properly. What are your thoughts? Yeah, so flock was a question that I had asked the candidates because of the rising concern on that balance between public safety and privacy interests. And really it's one of those things, Colonel, I think that it is not defined by party. You know, you have some Democrats are concerned about flock cameras. You have Republicans and civil libertarians, of course, who are concerned about those flock cameras. So it is of high interest. You are asking to be, and when you're a candidate for Attorney General, the state's top prosecutor. And you want to win cases and put bad guys in jail, right? And so these candidates, it's a tough question to talk about because they do want to strike that balance and they want to make sure there are strong policies and all of that. But they want good evidence. so they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial or to amount enough evidence where the defendant just caves and flock cameras have been very helpful for investigators and prosecutors in that. So there was no candidate on stage to my memory that was like, yeah, we got to get rid of those things, right? They all tried to find that balance. I think there is strong support for a... statewide policy that would define how flock cameras are used. Right now we have a patchwork. You got the state police policies, you got Providence PD, Cranston, so on and so forth. It was kind of like, you know this well, body-worn camera policies from many years ago before Norona came up and said, you know what, we're going to do a statewide policy here. Now, police departments can sign on or not.

all but one police department in Rhode Island signed on to the body-worn camera policy. So I think there's an appetite for whether it be the office of the Attorney General or legislatively done by the General Assembly, some rules and regulations statewide put onto flock cameras. And that's something we explored during the debate. No, understood. And I think in the conversation I had with a couple of the chiefs of police, You want to be ahead of technology. And sometimes, especially with child predators, the legislation is always five to ten years behind what, you know, these type of criminals are doing with technology. And so catching up to that. So here, you know, the technology is there. They're using it. And because there's been some snafews and some issues with people taking advantage of it. And personally, I think some of it's not even being communicated properly with the pros and cons. I think that's... How I look at it is that there's a balance. Here's what Flock does that's really positive for safety of citizens, how it helps, to your point, prosecute cases effectively. And then, you know, what are the safeguards that are put in place to make sure that's not being abused? So when it gets abused, that takes its own life where, you know, police officers, I mentioned earlier, have access to the Fusion Center data NCIC. They have access to a lot of data that we trust they'll use properly. And when they don't, then they're going to be held accountable for that. So it's no different, I think, if you're a lawyer. or even your business, if you're doing something that is beyond the scope we used to be doing, you're held accountable to that. And I think, you know, it's not like just to trust the police, but yeah, that we've made a commitment to keep our citizens safe, but do it within the parameters of the law. So now I think it's going to go backwards. It'll be part of a legislative process where it should get debated properly and then whatever the legislative process shows and then that will create better, not better policy, but policy for everybody instead of. To your point, different policies in different places. Yeah, I mean, look, it's a whole, it's not just flock cameras, though, the people that are concerned about, you know, quote unquote, police surveillance, which I know police chiefs don't like that when talking about flock. But you fold in not just slot cameras, you fold in drones that are ubiquitous now among all, I just did an investigation into them, all of that. And poll cameras, which state police have used, now those require a warrant. But when you put all of that together, The civil libertarians are very concerned about how that data is being stored for how long. And so codifying those things are very important. And no one is going to say, like with the Brown University shooting, you know, and the help that flocked cameras and tracking the car and all of that, that was obviously...

a crucial tool to investigators in that case. But you contrast that with the news on a new Bedford where police officers accused of using the flock camera system there, and I say accused, to track an ex-girlfriend, I believe it was, but track somebody that had nothing to do with a criminal investigation. Well, then that really raises concerns and probably strengthens the argument to have some sort of law. or statewide regulation that when something does go wrong, real accountability is there, not just an internal affairs investigation by the same police department that that cop works for. People want more. People want to know that if that information is misused, then there is going to be a cost for that. No, I agree. And I think, but those checks and balances are there for those other type of databases that the police have. So I just think one particular issue, licensed plate readers, it's a new one, but it's no different from utilizing NCIC inappropriately or running someone's plate that you're not supposed to run. It's the same thing. And so it's, you know, it's accountability because it's the police. It gets, you know, much more front page news, so to speak. So I think my point, I think, in talking to the people before. But I'm going to interrupt you. The other thing is people see them, right? So the difference with NCIC and all that, that's in some back room, right? That's the attorney general's office that police department sets out the state police and a computer that no one sees. It's in a cruiser. People see these cameras. They see them on polls. They see them all of that. So I think that's the other thing that law enforcement is, I agree with you, they have to communicate better. If they really feel strongly that these are things that keep the community safe, then these are very visual pieces of technology that make people feel uneasy because they're hoovering up information. And so that sort of open dialogue and communication, which many police chiefs do very, very well, by the way, is crazy. critical here. We've seen these flock cameras get vandalized in other communities, including in Cranston, because they're so visible. No, understood. They, they're, you know, it's that balance and that argument, so to speak, of both sides, with the value of it, non-value, and you're right, it's right out there in your face, but there, I was talking early about ring cameras and I was just looking at a video of somebody walking to someone's backyard. So there's cameras everywhere, and I still think the victims, Dave Bazzignani was on earlier talking about how it solved. his daughter getting killed. And the victim piece of this, I think, is really important. But, you know, the balance of trusting the police and verifying accountability. Chief Perez talked about accountability. And so I think that's the, I wouldn't say it's the debate or a conversation to keep happening. But I think it's got to be openly done, talk about the pros and cons. Because I've talked to a lot of people that live in towns that have canceled the flock that didn't really realize the value they brought to law enforcement. I think it's a mis...

guided perception of a smaller town thinks, oh, it's not Providence, or it's not New Haven, or it's not Hartford, where they need them, where, you know, crime in, you know, you could be in another city in town of Rhode Island in two, three minutes, then they become important. But, Tim, I got to cut you off. It's that time for a break. I know your schedule's nuts, too. I do appreciate you coming on in your perspective, and good luck with the debate next week. Thanks, Colonel. Appreciate it. Start your day with the morning jolt of Drake C. Toll. See, now it's on demand. My podcast is kind of a radio thing, I think, but also it's a bit of a TV show, and it's about whatever I want it to be. It's listening live as it happened, when it happened, with the instant reaction. You're home for talking sports. We go back, the Drake Toll Show, Westwood One Sports Network, and there will be on demand on your radio. Anywhere in the country, I'll see you there. Westwood One Sports Talk, your home for Drake C. Toll. Follow and listen on your favorite platform. platform.