A long front-page article in the Star Tribune ("A secret informant — or abuse by police?" May 16) reports on the actions of Minneapolis police officer Tony Partyka against a Black man, Andre Moore, on two occasions in 2019 and 2020.
These actions include physical abuse (showing a photo of Moore's face with multiple injuries), a suspicious no-knock warrant resulting in an early morning forced entry into his home and damage to his property, lying to Judge Paul Scoggin, bogus evidence, a possibly nonexistent or untrustworthy confidential informant and other abuses of police procedure. Moore spent seven months in jail before he was released when the case against him was dropped for "no evidence." What stands out for me in this long article, though, is this sentence: "Partyka was given no discipline by Minneapolis police."
It is no wonder that incidents of police misconduct like we've seen recently have continued to happen when there are no consequences for the police who perpetrate them.
Nancy Beach, Minneapolis
• • •
The story of the police beating Andre Moore and jailing him for seven months based on false evidence created by officer Tony Partyka is excellent reporting that raises many questions:
Why hasn't Partyka been disciplined for the beating — which is on videotape — or for misleading the court? What will happen to his other cases, now that he has shown his word can't be trusted? Are there other officers who make up false evidence? What has the county attorney's office done to screen out cases from officers who act like Partyka did? What actions will justice system leaders take to show that the system has integrity?
We can be proud of public defenders Tanya Bishop and Alicia Granse for bringing to light the unjust treatment of Moore. But what other wrongly developed and wrongly prosecuted cases are back behind the curtain of secrecy?
John Stuart, Minneapolis
• • •
Mere days after publishing an account of how officers lied and exaggerated to create and escalate charges against a suspect, why is the Star Tribune still publishing stories solely based on credulously repeating claims made by officers or their spokespeople? Yes, it's plausible that some suspects have gotten more resistant or defiant in recent weeks or months. But isn't it time to move beyond reporting the claims of officers as irrefutable facts?