Dog Brothers Public Forum

DBMA Martial Arts Forum => Martial Arts Topics => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on July 09, 2007, 05:46:43 AM

Title: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 09, 2007, 05:46:43 AM
Woof All:

Although there is already a LEO issues thread, the focus here is a bit different.  We are also looking at the rights of the citizen.

TAC
CD
=============================
By CWS on the WT forum:

This of course does not deal with the issue of a drug dog having a legal right to be brought by police to sniff your car (the Caballes case), but one thing is for sure. If you grant permission to search, search they will. And find they will. If all you have is an unlicensed weapon in your car, and no drugs, are you really worried about what a drug sniffing dog will find?

Secondly, even if you have drugs in the car, I am not sure an officer can hold you up indefinitely awaiting a drug dog to come sniff your car. One key element of the Caballes decision was that the whole matter occurred in 10 minutes, and during the time period the officer was still legitimately in ticket writing mode.

From the Caballes case: "A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission. In an earlier case involving a dog sniff that occurred during an unreasonably prolonged traffic stop, the Illinois Supreme Court held that use of the dog and the subsequent discovery of contraband were the product of an unconstitutional seizure. People v. Cox, 202 Ill. 2d 462, 782 N. E. 2d 275 (2002). We may assume that a similar result would be warranted in this case if the dog sniff had been conducted while respondent was being unlawfully detained."


KNOWLES v. IOWA

certiorari to the supreme court of iowa

No. 97-7597. Argued November 3, 1998--Decided December 8, 1998

An Iowa policeman stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding and issued him a citation rather than arresting him. The officer then conducted a full search of the car, without either Knowles' consent or probable cause, found marijuana and a "pot pipe," and arrested Knowles. Before his trial on state drug charges, Knowles moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that because he had not been arrested, the search could not be sustained under the "search incident to arrest" exception recognized in United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 . The trial court denied the motion and found Knowles guilty, based on state law giving officers authority to conduct a full-blown search of an automobile and driver where they issue a citation instead of making a custodial arrest. In affirming, the State Supreme Court applied its bright-line "search incident to citation" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, reasoning that so long as the officer had probable cause to make a custodial arrest, there need not in fact have been an arrest.


Held: The search at issue, authorized as it was by state law, nonetheless violates the Fourth Amendment. Neither of the two historical exceptions for the "search incident to arrest" exception, see Robinson, supra, at 234, is sufficient to justify the search in the present case. First, the threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation is a good deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest. While concern for safety during a routine traffic stop may justify the "minimal" additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type search. Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger. Second, the need to discover and preserve evidence does not exist in a traffic stop, for once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. Iowa's argument that a "search incident to citation" is justified because a suspect may try to hide evidence of his identity or of other crimes is unpersuasive. An officer may arrest a driver if he is not satisfied with the identification furnished, and the possibility that an officer would stumble onto evidence of an unrelated offense seems remote. Pp. 3-6.

569 N. W. 2d 601, reversed and remanded.
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Question:

As I understand it with a Terry Stop, wouldn't the motorist be free to go if he does not consent to a search given that asking for consent means the officer has no PC and has already given out the speeding ticket?

CWS:
From the actual Terry case:

"Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.

(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20.
(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.
(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22.
(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.
(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26.
(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-923.ZO.html - Caballes case

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-7597.ZS.html - Knowles case
Title: Alien-Police Interaction
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 18, 2007, 04:02:40 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070718/NATION/107180075/1001
=====================


Border case defended
By Jerry Seper
July 18, 2007

The U.S. attorney whose office won convictions against two U.S. Border Patrol agents for shooting a fleeing drug-smuggling suspect in the buttocks yesterday described as "the big lie" accusations that the prosecutions were not justified.

During a rancorous Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton defiantly said agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, now serving lengthy prison terms, committed "serious crimes" in a case that was not about immigration issues or the Border Patrol but the rule of law.

"Agents Compean and Ramos crossed the line. They are not heroes," Mr. Sutton said. "They deliberately shot an unarmed man in the back without justification, destroyed evidence to cover it up and lied about it. A jury heard the facts and voted to convict.

"There is no one to blame for what has happened but themselves," he said.

But Sens. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, and John Cornyn, Texas Republican, questioned whether the 11- and 12-year prison sentences handed to Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean, respectively, were justifiable and whether the decision to grant immunity to drug-smuggling suspect Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila was properly handled.

Mrs. Feinstein, who chaired the hearing, asked whether the government's priorities were "out of whack" when it made the immunity offer to "a drug trafficker," noting that Mr. Aldrete-Davila — who abandoned 743 pounds of drugs as he fled to Mexico — was "not an innocent who was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time."

"I find it hard to believe that someone trusted with $1 million in drugs is simply an amateur drug mule," she said.

Mr. Cornyn said he had "serious concerns about judgment calls" made during the case, adding that Mr. Sutton's office allowed Mr. Aldrete-Davila to violate the terms of his immunity agreement without consequences.

He and Mrs. Feinstein questioned Mr. Sutton on why the government gave Mr. Aldrete-Davila unlimited and unescorted access to the United States as part of the immunity agreement and whether he might have transported a second load of drugs into the country during that time.

They said that Mr. Aldrete-Davila re-entered the United States on at least 10 occasions from March to November 2005 and that the documentation authorized by the immunity agreement allowed him to cross the border legally at any time without notifying anyone and being unescorted.

"I would like to hear more about the policy that allows for this kind of unsupervised passage into our country and why someone who was known to smuggle in drugs would be given such flexibility," Mrs. Feinstein said.

Mr. Sutton acknowledged that a "humanitarian visa" given to Mr. Aldrete-Davila as part of the immunity agreement may have been "a mistake" but said it is necessary for his office to have access to would-be witnesses in pending cases — some of whom live in Mexico.

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) documents, which remain under seal, show that Mr. Aldrete-Davila was the focus of a drug investigation into his reported stashing of 750 pounds of marijuana at a house in Clint, Texas, in November 2005 — nine months after he was shot.

The DEA's investigative reports, according to law-enforcement authorities and others who have seen the documents, said that the owner of the house, Cipriano Ortiz-Hernandez, picked Mr. Aldrete-Davila from a photo display and that the homeowner's brother, Jose Ortiz, told agents that Mr. Aldrete-Davila brought the marijuana from Juarez, Mexico, and identified him as "the person who was shot by Border Patrol agents."

Mrs. Feinstein also questioned why the agents were charged under a federal statute setting a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison. She said that as the law was written, it presupposes an underlying crime, adding that there was no underlying crime in the Ramos-Compean case.

She said the law needs to be clarified by Congress to prevent prosecutorial overcharging.

Ramos, 37, and Compean, 28, were sentenced in October on charges of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and a civil rights violation. The conviction came after Mr. Aldrete-Davila was located in Mexico by Homeland Security investigators.

In the packed audience was Patty Compean and Monica Ramos, both of whom shook their heads in disagreement when their husbands were accused of being responsible for the incident.

T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 11,000 of the agency's nonsupervisory personnel, disputed government claims that the agents were prosecuted because they shot an unarmed man, covered it up, destroyed evidence and filed false reports.

"Make no mistake about it — Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila was not simply a mule as the prosecution tried to claim who was looking to earn $1,000 so he could care for his sick mother," he said. "The wrongdoing here was bringing 743 pounds of marijuana into the country ... and the person who did that was granted immunity by our federal government."

Presidential candidate Rep. Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who introduced a bill calling for a congressional pardon for the agents, described their prosecution as "the most severe injustice I've ever seen with respect to the treatment of U.S. Border Patrol agents or, I might add, the treatment of any uniformed officers."

Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, California Republican, said the decision to give immunity to "the drug dealer and throw the book at the Border Patrol agents was a prosecutorial travesty."

"The whole episode stinks to high heaven," he said.

Defending Mr. Sutton were Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar and former Border Patrol sector chief Luis Barker, who headed the office where the shooting occurred. They blamed Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean for failing to follow Border Patrol policies and covering up the incident.

"This has been a tragedy with emotional undercurrent. But there should be no mistake. ... It begins and ends with the actions of Agents Compean and Ramos," Mr. Barker said. "Not the prosecutors. Not the judge or the jury, as has been suggested."

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: peregrine on July 21, 2007, 09:40:37 PM
If you don't want to get hasseled by the police i would attempt to blend in with the sheep.
Don't wear or dislplay excessive or obtuse jewelry and clothes. Don't drive a rice rocket with 20" chrome rims. Don't have the nra sticker and marijuana leaf sticker on your rear window. Don't loudly proclaim you are an individual. etc. etc.

Also every citizen should attmept to know their rights in this regards- tery frisk, terry stop, probable cause, reasonable doubt, legal knife size, dangerous weapons, curfews, felonious asault vs misdemeanors, etc.

be polite and professional.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 22, 2007, 05:03:43 AM
Peregirne:

Good point about knowing your rights! 

The problem is that I have never seen a simple statement of what the police can and cannot do.  What are the criteria that must be met before they can they search me?  My car?  My home? 

What should I do if the officer is NOT meeting these criteria so as to protect my rights? And not get hurt/killed?

CWS, can you/would you help us out here?

TIA,
CD
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Bandolero on July 22, 2007, 07:00:11 AM
Peregirne:

Good point about knowing your rights! 

The problem is that I have never seen a simple statement of what the police can and cannot do.  What are the criteria that must be met before they can they search me?  My car?  My home? 

What should I do if the officer is NOT meeting these criteria so as to protect my rights? And not get hurt/killed?

CWS, can you/would you help us out here?

TIA,
CD

Being a law school grad, you know better than anybody else that this is a complicated subject.  Each situation has to be looked at closely because a single variable might change what is otherwise illegal, to one that is legal.  And vice versa.

For example, suppose the police have a search warrant for your house to look for a Stinger missile.  Well then they are entitled to look in any locations in your house that might contain a Stinger missile.  If during the search the police take the cover off your toilet tank and find a handgun taped to the side of the inside of the tank, they will probably not be allowed to use that as evidence against you in a criminal proceeding because the place they looked (your toilet tank) was not a place that a reasonable person could expect to find something as large as a Stinger missile.

Or suppose the police have an arrest warrant for somebody, and they hit the house that is the person's residence (I will expand upon this in a moment).  Note that this is not a search warrant, but an arrest warrant.  Upon entry the police have the right to control the occupants in the house while they search the house for the wanted person.  The police may choose to do this by having all occupants sit on the living room couch and other chairs.  But for officier safety they probably have the right to search the immediate area of the couch and chairs, and anything within lunging distance, for weapons.  If they find drugs or illegal guns under the couch cushions, those items could probably be used in a criminal prosecution.  However, these same items, if found in a kitchen drawer could probably not be used because it was not reasonable to 1) expect the wanted person to be in a kitchen drawer (although the cabinet underneath would be fair game), and 2) the kitchen drawer was likely not within lunging distance of the living room couch.

Now let's modify the scenario a little.  Suppose the police pursuant to an arrest warrant come to a house which is not the wanted person's residence.  Suppose they get a tip that a fugitive from NYC is at Crafty Dog's house right now.  Well Crafty Dog's house is not the wanted person's residence (of course once again a small variable change, like say the wanted person has been staying at Crafty's house for a week already and the wanted person had completely abandoned his prior residence in NYC, etc., might change the legalities).  If the police search Crafty's house (under my original scenario and without a search warrant for person), and find a massive drug and illegal weapons cache, they will probably not be able to use the evidence to prosecute Crafty (unless Crafty or another adult in the house with power to authorize, like the wife) gave permission to search.  Another minor variable change...the status of "residence."  If the wanted person is now essentially living at Crafty's house (sleeps there, has not left the house in a week, eats all his meals there, is using the phone there at hours consistent with living at a place, in other words a list if variables starts adding up, then that same search might well be considered legal because Crafty's house may well be considered the wanted person's residence.

Finally, search and seizure law changes.  When I first started my job in 1980 the limitations on vehicle searches were more stringent than they are now.  At that time during a vehicle stop the police, for officer safety, could only search those areas within lunging distance of the driver and passengers (depending upon their status..like small children), for weapons.  Nowadays more of the car is fair game.

So it is a complicated subject and not easy to write an absolute list about.  What may be a lawful Terry frisk in one situation, may be completely unlawful by the same officer in the same exact spot 5 minutes later with another person.

If Random House wants to give me a $500,000 advance on a book, I will start the book tomorrow.  :-)
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 02, 2007, 09:26:47 PM
By TODD RUGER
todd.ruger@heraldtribune.com

SARASOTA -- John Coffin opened the garage door to see his wife on the floor, screaming in pain as two sheriff's deputies tried to handcuff her, Coffin's attorney said in court Monday.

"He grabs his wife and begins to pull her away," defense attorney Brett McIntosh said. One of the deputies then jumped Coffin from behind, "and that's where this case is focused."

Coffin, 56, faces years in prison on felony battery charges that in April 2006 he attacked deputies James Lutz and Stacy Ferris, whose name is now Stacy Brandau.

Monday was the first day in a trial in which prosecutors will use the serious injuries sustained by the deputies to show Coffin is guilty.

Coffin's defense attorney will argue that he was defending his wife, and his home, from deputies who had no right to be there in the first place.

Prosecutors say the fight started when Coffin came into the garage, punched Ferris in the face and threw her against a wall.

When Ferris tried to arrest him for that battery, Coffin fought them and both deputies "were defending themselves and trying to get away," Assistant State Attorney Jessica Zack said. "The pictures will tell you the story as well."

Coffin's attorneys say the two deputies are the ones who broke the law.

"We will find out about the credibility of these officers," McIntosh said Monday in court.

The deputies were at the Coffins' home trying to serve a civil injunction on Coffin, who had been served the same papers five days earlier in Charlotte County.

The deputies entered the garage even though they did not have a search warrant or arrest warrant allowing them to enter the Coffins' house.

And they arrested Cynthia Coffin, 50, on obstruction charges for not following their order to bring her husband outside.

McIntosh said the deputies had no grounds for the arrest.

The charges against her have since been dismissed. A jury had been picked in Cynthia Coffin's case in December when a judge granted a defense attorney's last-minute motion to dismiss the charges because of those facts.

On Monday in court, Zack held up photographs to show the extent of the deputies' injuries and only touched briefly on the issues the defense has raised.

"Whether or not the officers should have entered the house is something I'm sure they would take back if they could," Zack said.

Brandau got the facial bruising in the photos because John Coffin punched her in the face and threw her against a wall when he came into the garage, Zack said.

Lutz got the injuries to his head when he was shocked with a Taser during the fight, then knocked unconscious with three strikes to the head with the butt of that Taser gun, Zack said.

John Coffin's trial is expected to end today.

Last modified: March 13. 2007 3:35AM
__________________
And the final outcome:

Judge acquits John Coffin on 5 felony charges; Coffin gets time served on 6th.
By TODD RUGER

SARASOTA -- John Coffin won't spend any more time in jail for beating up two sheriff's deputies inside his house, striking one in the head with a Taser gun he took from the other.

Circuit Judge Rick De Furia said at Coffin's trial Tuesday that he doesn't condone the violence against the deputies.

But Coffin, 56, had a right to defend his family and property because the deputies had no right to be in Coffin's house in the first place, De Furia said.

"Law enforcement was responsible for the chain of events here," De Furia said. "I think in situations like this, officers become so frustrated they go beyond what the law allows them to do."

The fight started when Coffin heard his wife screaming in pain, went into the garage and saw two deputies arresting her on the floor.

The deputies were trying to serve Coffin with civil papers that had been given five days earlier. They had entered the garage even though they did not have a search warrant or arrest warrant.

And they arrested Coffin's wife, Cynthia, 50, on obstruction charges even though she had no obligation to follow their orders to bring her husband outside.

"The most critical is the fact the officers broke the law by stopping the garage door from going down," and then entering the garage, De Furia said.

A jury was picked for the trial Monday. But the judge granted a motion by Coffin's attorneys, Derek Byrd and Brett McIntosh, and acquitted John Coffin on five of six felony charges Tuesday morning.

Coffin pleaded no contest to the remaining charge of taking a Taser gun from one of the deputies during the fight.

Before handing down the sentence, De Furia asked how long Coffin spent in jail after his initial arrest.

"You spent eight days in the Sarasota County jail," De Furia said. "That's your sentence. No probation."

Relatives applauded, and Coffin walked out of the courthouse with only a $358 bill for court costs. The sentence surprised even defense attorneys, who had suggested De Furia sentence Coffin to probation.

Prosecutors had asked for more than a year of prison time because of "the totality of the case" and the injuries to deputies James Lutz and Stacy Ferris, whose name is now Stacy Brandau.

The two deputies testified about their injuries Tuesday -- three blows to the head with the butt of the Taser gun knocked Lutz unconscious.

"I just ask that he doesn't get away with this," Brandau told the judge.

Assistant State Attorney Jeff Young told the judge the case "could have been over in five seconds" if the Coffins "had simply come out and cooperated."

"That is a man who took it upon himself to beat up two police officers," Young said.

De Furia said that while he believed the deputies' mistakes were not intentional, the Coffins had every right to lock doors, try to close their garage door and not cooperate.

"What took place in the house was unfortunate," De Furia said, "but Mr. Coffin ... had a right to resist."

Last modified: March 14. 2007 5:36AM
__________________
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: lewis on November 07, 2007, 03:42:46 AM
Wow.  That just shows how different the laws are in differing states.  In Kentucky you have no right to resist an arrest, even if it is later proven to be an unlawful arrest.  That case would have been completely different here.

Part of the reason that the issue of what the police can and cannot do is so muddy is that many people go to extremes.  Some people seem to think we can do anything while others think we have almost no authority at all.  As usual, the truth is in the middle.

I have more to say, but no time right now.  Will post again later today.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 07, 2007, 03:40:20 PM
Cops Say the Darndest Things!


#16 "You know, stop lights don't come any redder that the one you just went through."


#15 "Relax, the handcuffs are tight because they're new. They'll stretch after you wear them a while."


#14 "If you take your hands off the car, I'll make your birth certificate a worthless document."


#13 "If you run, you'll only go to jail tired."


#12 "Can you run faster than 1200 feet per second? Because that's the speed of the bullet that'll be chasing you."


#11 "You don't know how fast you were going? I guess that means I can write anything I want to on the ticket, huh?"


#10 "Yes, sir, you can talk to the shift supervisor, but I don't think it will help. Oh, did I mention that I'm the shift supe! rvisor?"


#9 "Warning! You want a warning? O.K., I'm warning you not to do that again or I'll give you another ticket."


#8 "The answer to this last question will determine whether you are drunk or not. Was Mickey Mouse a cat or a dog?"


#7 "Fair? You want me to be fair? Listen, fair is a place where you go to ride on rides, eat cotton candy and corn dogs and step in monkey poop."


#6 "Yeah, we have a quota. Two more tickets and my wife gets a toaster oven."


#5 "In God we trust, all others we run through NCIC."


#4 "How big were those 'Just two beers' you say you had?"


#3 "No sir, we don't have quotas anymore. We used to, but now we're allowed to write as many tickets as we can."


#2 "I'm glad to hear that Chief (of Police) Hawker is a personal friend of yours. So you know someone who can post your bail."


#1 "You didn't think we give pretty women tickets? You're right, we don't. Sign here!
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2007, 04:44:43 AM
Not quite sure how to describe this one , , ,

http://www.biggeekdaddy.com/humorpages/Misc/lawnmowerDUI.html
Title: Law of vehicle searches
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2007, 08:08:28 AM
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1980/new_york_v_belton.htm

An automobile in which respondent was one of the occupants was stopped by a New York State policeman for traveling at an excessive rate of speed. In the process of discovering that none of the occupants owned the car or was related to the owner, the policeman smelled burnt marihuana and saw on the floor of the car an envelope suspected of containing marihuana. He then directed the occupants to get out of the car and arrested them for unlawful possession of marihuana. After searching each of the occupants, he searched the passenger compartment of the car, found a jacket belonging to respondent, unzipped one of the pockets, and discovered cocaine. Subsequently, respondent was indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance. After the trial court had denied his motion to suppress the cocaine seized from his jacket pocket, respondent pleaded guilty to a lesser included offense, while preserving his claim that the cocaine had been seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the search and seizure, but the New York Court of Appeals reversed.

Held : The search of respondent's jacket was a search incident to a lawful custodial arrest, and hence did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The jacket, being located inside the passenger compartment of the car, was "within the arrestee's immediate control" within the meaning of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, wherein it was held that a lawful custodial arrest creates a situation justifying the contemporaneous warrantless search of the arrestee and of the immediately surrounding area. Not only may the police search the passenger compartment of the car in such circumstances, they may also examine the contents of any containers found in the passenger compartment. And such a container may be searched whether it is open or closed, since the justification for the search is not that the arrestee has no privacy interest in the container but that the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may have. Pp. 457-463.

============

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5165.ZS.html

THORNTON v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 03—5165. Argued March 31, 2004–Decided May 24, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before Officer Nichols could pull over petitioner, petitioner parked and got out of his car. Nichols then parked, accosted petitioner, and arrested him after finding drugs in his pocket. Incident to the arrest, Nichols searched petitioner’s car and found a handgun under the driver’s seat. Petitioner was charged with federal drug and firearms violations. In denying his motion to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an unconstitutional search, the District Court found, inter alia, the automobile search valid under New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, in which this Court held that, when a police officer makes a lawful custodial arrest of an automobile’s occupant, the Fourth Amendment allows the officer to search the vehicle’s passenger compartment as a contemporaneous incident of arrest, id., at 460. Petitioner appealed his conviction, arguing that Belton was limited to situations where the officer initiated contact with an arrestee while he was still in the car. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Held: Belton governs even when an officer does not make contact until the person arrested has left the vehicle. In Belton, the Court placed no reliance on the fact that the officer ordered the occupants out of the vehicle, or initiated contact with them while they remained within it. And here, there is simply no basis to conclude that the span of the area generally within the arrestee’s immediate control is determined by whether the arrestee exited the vehicle at the officer’s direction, or whether the officer initiated contact with him while he was in the car. In all relevant aspects, the arrest of a suspect who is next to a vehicle presents identical concerns regarding officer safety and evidence destruction as one who is inside. Under petitioner’s proposed “contact initiation” rule, officers who decide that it may be safer and more effective to conceal their presence until a suspect has left his car would be unable to search the passenger compartment in the event of a custodial arrest, potentially compromising their safety and placing incriminating evidence at risk of concealment or destruction. The Fourth Amendment does not require such a gamble. Belton allows police to search a car’s passenger compartment incident to a lawful arrest of both “occupants” and “recent occupants.” Ibid. While an arrestee’s status as a “recent occupant” may turn on his temporal or spatial relationship to the car at the time of the arrest and search, it certainly does not turn on whether he was inside or outside the car when the officer first initiated contact with him. Although not all contraband in the passenger compartment is likely to be accessible to a “recent occupant,” the need for a clear rule, readily understood by police and not depending on differing estimates of what items were or were not within an arrestee’s reach at any particular moment, justifies the sort of generalization which Belton enunciated. Under petitioner’s rule, an officer would have to determine whether he actually confronted or signaled confrontation with the suspect while he was in his car, or whether the suspect exited the car unaware of, and for reasons unrelated to, the officer’s presence. Such a rule would be inherently subjective and highly fact specific, and would require precisely the sort of ad hoc determinations on the part of officers in the field and reviewing courts that Belton sought to avoid. Pp. 4—8.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Zooligan on November 26, 2007, 06:37:51 AM
Also every citizen should attmept to know their rights in this regards- tery frisk, terry stop, probable cause, reasonable doubt, legal knife size, dangerous weapons, curfews, felonious asault vs misdemeanors, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/You-Police-Boston-T-Party/dp/1888766093/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196085266&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/You-Police-Boston-T-Party/dp/1888766093/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196085266&sr=8-1) used to be a really good book about Terry frisks, searches incident to arrest, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc.  As several reviewers mention it probably needs updated with regards to the erosion of the 4th ammendment in the post-9/11 world.

On that topic, http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html (http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html), provides an excellent summary of some of the non-terrorist-activity-related 4th ammendment implications of the Patriot Act.  Combine that with

(CWS note: his a$$ would have been grass if they would have found drugs, etc. Generally if they come across Item B in your house during the process of looking for item A pursuant to a search warrant, it is admissible as evidence.  There is a caveat related to size of item A being sought).

and you have the perfect weapon for politically-motivated character assasinations -- just keep secretly searching until you find something you can use.

-Z
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 01, 2007, 09:03:27 AM
Officer asks for help:

A) Hue & Cry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue_and_cry

B)  The 2007 Florida Statutes


Title XLVI
CRIMESChapter 843
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICEView Entire Chapter843.06 Neglect or refusal to aid peace officers.--Whoever, being required in the name of the state by any officer of the Florida Highway Patrol, police officer, beverage enforcement agent, or watchman, neglects or refuses to assist him or her in the execution of his or her office in a criminal case, or in the preservation of the peace, or the apprehending or securing of any person for a breach of the peace, or in case of the rescue or escape of a person arrested upon civil process, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. History.--s. 16, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2585; GS 3505; RGS 5391; CGL 7530; s. 2, ch. 28118, 1953; s. 1, ch. 63-433; s. 1039, ch. 71-136; s. 32, ch. 73-334; s. 1338, ch. 97-102.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 10, 2007, 01:43:06 PM
The classic bit from Chris Rock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2wOxnAiIVs
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Tom Stillman on December 11, 2007, 05:47:54 PM
On the subject of drugs and guns. I wonder how L.A.P.D. would react to medical marijuana and fire arms found in same vehicle. I can not seem to get a definitive answer from law enforcement or medical marijuana providers. Normally it would be a felony to possess both guns and pot in same vehicle.  There is still a negative stigma when it comes to possession of booth said items and I find myself keeping the two separated just in case. Then theres the problem of other law enforcement agencies i.e. federal law enforcement and how they would react to same scenario.  Funny thing is, If we were discussing more common perscription medication, then it would not even be an issue. It seems that there is still allot of uncharted territory when it comes to medical marijuana laws and how they are enforced.  In the meantime, I would say, Be Carefull and use discretion because, the last thing you want is a room without a view,  complaments of the U.S. Correctional dept...   :-o      DT
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Howling Dog on December 12, 2007, 11:06:36 AM
Woof Tom, I don't think that the cops are really going to dig finding a control substance and a gun in the same area.
Regardless of weather its "medical marijuna" or not. You still get stoned on it correct?
Are you allowed to drive a car while on med. maryjane? (I hope not)
To my knowledge we don't have med marijuana in Ohio...so Iam just speculating.
                                                           Dog TG
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Tom Stillman on December 12, 2007, 12:28:21 PM
Hey Tom, Good to hear from you, I understand your point completely and it is a valid one although, the affect I get from cannabis really doesn't impair my ability to make responsible decisions per say. Yes I do keep firearms and cannabis in separate areas in an attempt to abide by the law(as grey as it may be), and yes I do refrain from driving while under the influence which you will be glad to here is also against the law. Intoxication from marijuana in my opinion is not going to impair a responsible persons ability to be responsible but, I do agree it can slow ones reflexes which could impair ones driving ability. As far as firearms are concerned, I don't make the connection. A gun is a tool,  just like a hammer or an axe. What puzzles me is,  given the same scenario with lets say, perscription pain medication such as Vicadin,  I'm sure it would not raise as many eye brows as medical cannabis being in close proximity to a firearm.   It seems there is a double standard here. (for lack of a better term) Personally, I would be much more concerned with mixing alcohol and firearms.     IMHO, Alcohol has a greater potential for causing a responsible person to make irresponsible decisions while under the influence. Marijuana carries with it, a social stigma that will no doubt continue for many years to come.  :-(    DT
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Tom Stillman on December 12, 2007, 01:11:53 PM
"That is a man who took it upon himself to beat up two police officers," Young said"
                                                                                                                                                                                      If this guy was so concerned about his wife, then why would he put themselves in a life threatening confrontation with the cop's. I don't care what your rights are, that was clearly the wrong decision to make given the situation. If I was a cop and I saw someone beating my partner unconscious and I had already been over powered by the assailant, if I was able I would shoot the fool. Maybe the cops were overstepping their bounds. Thats for a court to decide. Eventhough he got away with it, in my opinion this person is as dumb as DIRT .   :-D   DT
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 15, 2007, 07:32:51 AM
A moment on the lighter side of things:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ndc_VHu37PA
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 19, 2007, 06:55:12 AM
IMHO our misguided War on Drugs has many costs-- one of which is a logic of kicking in people's doors on no-knock warrants lest the drugs be flushed.  In a free (hence armed) society, the potential for tragedy and clusterfcuk is obvious.
================

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317398,00.html

MINNEAPOLIS — With her six kids and husband tucked into bed, Yee Moua was watching TV in her living room just after midnight when she heard voices — faint at first, then louder. Then came the sound of a window shattering.
Moua bolted upstairs, where her husband, Vang Khang, grabbed his shotgun from a closet, knelt and fired a warning shot through his doorway as he heard footsteps coming up the stairs. He let loose with two more blasts. Twenty-two bullets were fired back at him, by the family's count.
Then things suddenly became clear.
"It's the police! Police!" his sons yelled.
Khang, a Hmong immigrant with shaky command of English, set down his gun, raised his hands and was soon on the ground, an officer's boot on his neck.
The gunmen, it turned out, were members of a police SWAT team that had raided the wrong address because of bad information from an informant — a mistake that some critics say happens all too frequently around the country and gets innocent people killed.
"I have six kids, and only one mistake almost took my kids' life," said Moua, 29. "We will never forget this." /**/
No one was hurt in the raid Sunday, conducted by a task force that fights drugs and gangs, though two police officers were hit by the shotgun blasts and narrowly escaped injury because they were wearing bulletproof vests.
Police apologized to the family and placed the seven officers on leave while it investigates what went wrong.
Such mistakes are a fact of police work, some experts said.
"Does going to the wrong address happen from time to time? Yes," said John Gnagey, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association in Doylestown, Pa. "Do you corroborate as best you can the information the informant gives you? Absolutely. But still from time to time mistakes are made."
One of the biggest botched raids in recent years happened in Atlanta in 2006, when police killed a 92-year-old woman in a hail of nearly 40 bullets after she fired a shot at what she thought were intruders. Police had gone to her house on a drug raid, but no drugs were found.
Prosecutors said that in obtaining a search warrant, Atlanta police falsely told a judge that an informant had confirmed drug dealing there. The scandal led to a shake-up in the department, two officers pleaded guilty to manslaughter and civil rights charges, and the city faces at least two lawsuits.
Reliable figures on the frequency of erroneous raids are hard to come by. Federal agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, said they do not keep track.
A study last year by the libertarian Cato Institute said: "Because of shoddy police work, over-reliance on informants, and other problems, each year hundreds of raids are conducted on the wrong addresses, bringing unnecessary terror and frightening confrontation to people never suspected of a crime."
Gnagey disputed the reliability of the research behind those figures, and said it is impossible to know whether they are too high or too low. He said no dependable estimates exist.
"Going to the wrong home is an extreme rarity," said Mark Robbins, a law enforcement professor at Minnesota State University, Mankato. "It's just unfortunate that when it does, it often ends up in violent and even tragic incidents."
In the Minneapolis case, the nature of the tip and precisely what police were looking for were not disclosed; they have not released the search warrant. And it was not clear how far off the mark the informant was in supplying the address.
No charges were brought against Khang, a laid-off machine operator who lives in crime-ridden north Minneapolis. Khang used the shotgun for hunting, said his brother, Dao Khang. In Minnesota, no license is required to own a shotgun.
Khang, who speaks some English but used an interpreter during an interview, said he does not remember hearing any calls of "Police!" until his sons shouted. He said he would never knowingly shoot at officers.
"That's why I reacted the way I did, to protect my family and two sons," said Khang, 34, whose children are ages 3 to 15.
Lt. Amelia Huffman, a police spokeswoman, said the information in the search warrant came from a source who had been reliable in the past.
Huffman said officers who routinely work on drug and gang cases are trained to try to corroborate their information. As for why the process didn't work this time, "that's one of the things the internal investigation will go through in exhaustive detail," she said.
The Hmong are hill people from Laos who aided the CIA during the Vietnam War by fighting the Viet Cong. Hmong refugees began arriving in Minnesota in the late 1970s, and there are perhaps 60,000 Hmong in Minnesota today.
The Khang family is living with relatives until the house gets cleaned up. The raid left six windows broken and walls and ceilings pocked with pellet and bullet holes.
"The whole family is badly shaken and still trying to understand what happened," Moua said.


Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Zooligan on December 19, 2007, 09:42:23 AM
Peregirne:

Good point about knowing your rights! 

The problem is that I have never seen a simple statement of what the police can and cannot do.  What are the criteria that must be met before they can they search me?  My car?  My home? 

What should I do if the officer is NOT meeting these criteria so as to protect my rights? And not get hurt/killed?

CWS, can you/would you help us out here?

TIA,
CD

I ran across this recently -- http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/dwb%20bust%20card7_04.pdf

I'm not sure how current the info is, but it seems like a pretty good resource with respect to some of these questions.

DZ
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 23, 2007, 09:41:40 PM
Last updated December 21, 2007 11:23 p.m. PT


Scott Eklund / P-I
Jesse Toro watches his wife, Joelle, speak on his behalf before his sentencing Friday.

No jail for firing back at police

Plea deal brings lesser sentence

By LEVI PULKKINEN
P-I REPORTER

Jesse James Toro II learned in a Seattle courtroom Friday that he will not face jail for his role in a rolling shootout with three undercover police officers.
Toro, 29, was behind the wheel of a Cadillac sedan in June when he got into an argument with three plainclothes members of the Seattle Police Department's vice squad. Stopped at a South Lake Union intersection, one of the officers shot Toro's car, and then the officers chased him north.

Having pulled away from the police -- the officers' civilian-style Ford SUV couldn't keep up with the more muscular Cadillac -- Toro stopped his car on a residential street in the Green Lake neighborhood. When the officers reappeared, Toro drew a pistol and shot out their vehicle's front tires.

Toro pleaded guilty earlier this month to two misdemeanor gun charges as part of a plea deal, a dramatic reduction from the felony assault charge originally levied against him.
"I wanted to go to trial with this, and I thought I could win," Toro told Superior Court Judge Andrea Darvas before she handed him a suspended sentence of one year in jail. Toro said he didn't want to risk a felony conviction or a lengthy prison term away from his wife, Joelle, and 8-year-old daughter.

The state's case was complicated by the fact that Toro had no way of knowing that his pursuers were police, said Hugh Barber, the deputy prosecutor who handled the case.
"Fundamentally, this was an incident between a citizen and undercover officers in an undercover vehicle," Barber said. "We had to analyze it as if it was citizen on citizen."

Barber said the charges Toro pleaded guilty to -- unlawful display of a firearm and reckless endangerment -- held him accountable for brandishing a weapon during the initial altercation, which one of the three vice officers claimed Toro did. Toro has denied the allegation.

Key facts of the night remain in question. Officers initially said they fired only one shot at Toro's car, missing it and striking a wall. But a bullet hole found in the side of the Cadillac seemed to disprove that.

Speaking after he received his sentence Friday, Toro said he believes officers fired at him more than once during the initial altercation. He also believes they shot at him while racing after him on the Aurora Bridge.
"There was a point in the chase when I thought they were going to kill me," Toro said. "I had no idea it was the Seattle police."

 Scott Eklund / P-I Jesse Toro is hugged by his stepmother, Theresa, after he received a suspended sentence for a shootout with Seattle police officers.

While he still thinks he was in the right, Toro said the incident has prompted him to make some changes.
He said he doesn't argue with other drivers anymore -- "I just keep my head forward now," he told Darvas -- and he has closed his specialty jewelry business. He traded his jeweler's loupe for a sledgehammer, going to work in construction.
"This has taken a toll on all of us," Joelle Toro said. "It's been a tough situation."

While Darvas abided by the sentencing recommendation agreed to by both attorneys, she did order Toro not to possess a firearm in the next four years.
"The only way that I'm going to have a comfort level in this case ... is that Mr. Toro not be allowed to possess firearms," she said. Toro also was ordered to surrender his concealed-pistol permit.

A Seattle police review board is expected to release its investigation into the case in coming weeks. Calls to the Seattle Police Officers' Guild were not returned Friday.
Title: Skateboarder
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 13, 2008, 02:08:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLYzho6Af_o

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330501,00.html


===============

And here is a real gem:  Man in wheelchair dumped on floor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAGb7_g4Aso
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 25, 2008, 06:28:28 AM
Taser application

http://www.policelink.com/entertainment/videos/3450-suspect-moons-the-cops-and-gets-tased-for-it?referral=pl_nlet
Title: SCT: Po may search after invalid arrest !?!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 23, 2008, 03:22:14 PM
Supreme Court says police may search even if arrest invalid By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Wed Apr 23, 12:02 PM ET
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_search

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence, even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated state law.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
The unanimous decision comes in a case from Portsmouth, Va., where city detectives seized crack cocaine from a motorist after arresting him for a traffic ticket offense.

David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and let the driver go.

Instead, city detectives arrested Moore and prosecutors say that drugs taken from him in a subsequent search can be used against him as evidence.

"We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for half a century," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.

Moore was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that police should have released Moore and could not lawfully conduct a search.

State law, said the Virginia Supreme Court, restricted officers to issuing a ticket in exchange for a promise to appear later in court. Virginia courts dismissed the indictment against Moore.

Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only following a lawful state arrest.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she finds more support for Moore's position in previous court cases than the rest of the court does. But she said she agrees that the arrest and search of Moore was constitutional, even though it violated Virginia law.

The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors.

The federal government said Moore's case had the potential to greatly increase the class of unconstitutional arrests, resulting in evidence seized during searches being excluded with increasing frequency.

Looking to state laws to provide the basis for searches would introduce uncertainty into the legal system, the 18 states said in court papers.

___
Title: A case in Atlanta finally ends
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 21, 2008, 09:04:59 AM


This case was the subject of a huge and often heated thread on the Warrior Talk forum.  One of the main strands concerned the merits and drawbacks of no-knock search warrants-- which in this case led to the death of 92 year old woman who shot at the men smashing through her door.
======================

Atlanta officer convicted in coverup of shooting
Arthur Tesler didn't fire a shot, but he now faces five years in prison in the death of a 92-year-old woman killed during a botched drug raid.
By Jenny Jarvie, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 21, 2008
ATLANTA -- In a verdict that brought tears to both sides of an Atlanta courtroom Tuesday, a jury convicted a police officer of lying to cover up his role in the fatal shooting of a 92-year-old woman.

Arthur Bruce Tesler, 42, is the only officer to face trial in the death of Kathryn Johnston, felled by a hail of bullets after plainclothes narcotics officers burst into her home in November 2006. He faces as many as five years in prison.

After deliberating more than three days, the state court jury acquitted Tesler of violating his oath of office and of false imprisonment under color of legal process. If convicted of all three charges, he could have faced as many as 20 years in prison.

Unlike two officers who testified against him, he was on duty outside Johnston's house and never fired a shot.

The Rev. Markel Hutchins, a community activist who represents Johnston's family, described the verdict as "bittersweet."

"Juries typically don't convict police officers," he said. ". . . Nothing can bring back Kathryn Johnston, but to the extent that her life can be used to make sure that no more citizens are violated, we think it is a step in the right direction."

Others were more blunt.

"Justice has not been done," said State Rep. "Able" Mabel Thomas. "This officer lied, this officer was part of the coverup. Blood was on his hands."

Johnston's shooting stirred up a whirlwind of protest about aggressive policing in her predominantly African American neighborhood of southwest Atlanta and triggered a federal probe into corruption in the Atlanta Police Department.

Last year, state prosecutors dropped murder, burglary and assault charges against two officers in exchange for their cooperation with a federal investigation into what the U.S. attorney here has described as a "culture of misconduct." Jason R. Smith and Gregg Junnier pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and federal civil rights charges. Junnier faces 10 years behind bars and Smith faces 12, but they have yet to be sentenced. The federal probe continues.

The shooting occurred two days before Thanksgiving, when officers burst through Johnston's front door without knocking after an informant provided false information that drugs were being sold at her house. She fired a single shot from a .38-caliber revolver but did not hit anyone. The officers fired 39 shots, striking Johnston five or six times.

Prosecutors say the officers lied to a magistrate to get the no-knock warrant, claiming that a confidential informant had made a purchase at the address and that the house was fitted with electronic surveillance. Both claims were false.

According to testimony, officers handcuffed Johnston as she lay dying, planted three bags of marijuana in her basement, and asked an informant to pretend that the officers had sent him to her home earlier to purchase drugs.

In his testimony, Tesler, a junior detective who had worked on the narcotics unit for less than a year, admitted that he had lied to help cover up the botched raid. But he said he did not know that Smith had lied to a judge to obtain the no-knock warrant.

In closing statements Thursday, his attorney, William McKenney, argued that Tesler was just a rookie who went along with the coverup because he felt intimidated by his more experienced partners.

Since the shooting, the Atlanta Police Department has tried to address claims that narcotics officers routinely lied to obtain search warrants and planted drugs at crime scenes so they could make arrest quotas. Police Chief Richard J. Pennington disbanded the narcotics unit, then reformulated it and doubled its size. The department also introduced more stringent requirements for how officers can obtain search warrants.

Last year, the Atlanta City Council created a citizen review board to investigate allegations of police misconduct.

On Tuesday, Fulton County Dist. Atty. Paul Howard said he hoped the Tesler verdict would bring "some closure" to Johnston's family. With the three officers involved in the shooting incarcerated, he said, "as a community, we should be pleased."

jenny.jarvie@latimes.com
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 07, 2008, 09:49:40 AM
The question arose on the WT forum as to whether a citizen could video interactions with the police without their knowing about it.  Here's the response that made the best sense to me:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The law in California is fairly simple for recording conversations. It is illegal (a misdemeanor) to record (including video recordings accompanied by sound) conversations that are intended by the parties to be private or confidential. See California Penal Code section 632. The test of whether a conversation is intended to be private turns on the reasonable objective (not subjective) expectations of the parties that their conversation would remain private. California courts have generally held that conversations in a public place or in any area where the parties could not have reasonably expected their conversation to be private can be recorded. I don't know if there is any case law on point but I would expect that a police officer who has pulled someone over for a traffic violation was not intending that his conversation was going to remain confidential. After all, many police agencies tape record the stops themselves and the traffic stops almost invariably occur in public spaces. I think you are safe (at least legally) taping the conversation in California.

--------

Contrast the CA law requiring both people to know if a phone conversation is being recorded.
Title: Super Cop hero
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 14, 2008, 04:19:30 AM
Off-duty Ohio 'supercop' kills robber


By Sarena McRae and Patrick O'Donnell
The Plain Dealer
CLEVELAND, Ohio — A 35-year veteran Cleveland police officer known by neighbors as Supercop shot and killed a man suspected of robbing a KeyBank on Wednesday afternoon on the city's near West Side.
The officer, James Simone, 60, was off-duty when he happened upon the robbery, chased the suspect and shot him as he attempted to escape.

This image, supplied by the Cleveland Poilice Department, shows a Dec. 12, 2001, mugshot of Robert Hackworth, 35, who was shot and killed Wednesday, July 9 in Cleveland by a 35-year police veteran James Simone, 60, known as "Supercop."
(AP Photo/Cleveland Police)
The 35-year-old suspect, Robert Hackworth, who lived on a nearby street, died at the scene.
"I don't know what the officer saw, what the officer was confronted with," police spokesman Thomas Stacho said. "Certainly, he felt the need to use deadly force. He acted heroically. This was an officer off-duty by himself who confronted a male who had just robbed a bank."
Simone has been involved in at least 10 shootings in his years on the force, has been shot himself and has been injured when his cruiser was hit during a stop.
He has been named patrolman of the year and awarded a medal of valor, in addition to being honored by Mothers Against Drunk Driving for issuing dozens of citations.
Simone, who is known around the neighborhood, had walked into the bank in a strip mall on Fulton Road at Memphis Avenue about 3:30 p.m. to cash his paycheck when bank staff informed him they had just been robbed.
After seeing a man running from the bank, Simone chased him on foot as he headed south on West 52nd Street.
A woman driving by volunteered to drive Simone as he chased after Hackworth. Steve Loomis, head of Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association, said a dye pack in the $2,000 Hackworth stole had exploded, making it clear he was fleeing a robbery.
According to Stacho, Hackworth ran a few houses up the block when the car with Simone in it pulled up. Stacho said Simone got out of the car, confronted Hackworth and shot him in his side. Hackworth then drove away in a truck he had waiting. Simone stayed in close pursuit.
Mary Jean Zenda was in her driveway just a few doors down from the shooting. She said Simone pulled up in the car and yelled at the fleeing man.
"He said, 'This is an officer, freeze,' " she said. "He shot while the guy was trying to get in his truck."
Hackworth drove the truck south on West 52nd Street and attempted to turn at the Woburn Avenue intersection, but crashed into a telephone pole. Simone, who was following in the car, stopped and removed him from the truck. Hackworth died at the scene.
The suspect had taken the truck from a local car dealership for a test drive and parked it on West 52nd Street before he went into the bank. It was not severely damaged in the crash.
Police have not recovered a weapon from Hackworth nor the truck, Stacho said. Loomis said the suspect did not show a gun in the bank but threatened that he had one.
Stacho said police believe the suspect was acting alone.
After walking through the chase scene with investigators, Simone left with Loomis and declined to comment.
Loomis said Simone was upset about the shooting, but called it justified because Hackworth was reaching inside the truck. Though a gun was not visible, he said, Simone had no idea what he was reaching for.




http://www.policeone.com/police-hero...-kills-robber/
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: LtMedTB on July 28, 2008, 04:26:24 PM
A LEO here in SC told me they get around illegal search of a vehicle by impounding the car and performing an "inventory" on it. Apparently state law allows them to perform this inventory so you can't claim something is missing from the vehicle when you get it back. It seems shocking to me this is allowed, but it's been confirmed by other deputies.

I thought it would be interesting to have an attorney write up a "waiver of liability" form that I could carry in my glove compartment. That way, if I'm ever arrested, I can hand it to the deputy, releasing him and the department harmless from any liability associated with not performing an inventory on the vehicle.

I'll bet that would confuse them! :)
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on July 28, 2008, 05:36:34 PM
If your car is a traffic hazard, waiver or not it's getting inventoried/towed. Pre-printed waiver or not, what happens to the car of an arrestee will be determinded by dept. policy. Also search incident to arrest applies.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: LtMedTB on July 30, 2008, 08:20:48 PM
If your car is a traffic hazard, waiver or not it's getting inventoried/towed. Pre-printed waiver or not, what happens to the car of an arrestee will be determinded by dept. policy. Also search incident to arrest applies.

I should clarify that the "inventory" includes the trunk space, which as far as I know, is not covered under search incident to arrest. I agree that in all likelihood department policy will determine what happens to the car. However, I also know that you can't write a policy for everything, which is why there is a chain of command. You could ask for the arresting officer's supervisor to be present at the scene and make it clear that you don't want the vehicle inventoried. Granted, they might impound and "inventory" the vehicle anyway, but under what pretext? Would any evidence found be admissible in court?

Tom
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on July 30, 2008, 09:17:55 PM
The quick answer is "it depends". The courts have ruled in the past that you have a lesser expectation of privacy for your vehicle than you do for a home. The mobility of a vehicle is a factor. The admissability of evidence seized in an inventory/tow depends on the court's view of the seizure of the car, contrasting "fruit of the poisoned tree" vs. "inevitable discovery".

Just because you demand a supervisor doesn't mean one will respond or honor your wishes.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: LtMedTB on July 30, 2008, 09:47:24 PM
Just because you demand a supervisor doesn't mean one will respond or honor your wishes.

Hi, GM.

Thanks for the comments.

I would suggest that one ask respectfully rather than make demands. Most of these types of encounters (around here anyway) are videotaped, including audio. If you're having a respectful discussion about the disposition of your property pursuant to your arrest, you're savvy enough to understand issues related to search and inventory of the vehicle, and you're offering to indemnify the department with regard to the vehicle's contents, it's probably not a bad idea for the arresting officer to bump it up to his sergeant or lieutenant. Either way, it's evidence for a jury that you asked to see a supervisor, that you specifically asked that the vehicle not be inventoried, and that the "inventory" may not have been necessary from the standpoint of protecting the department from liability. I would think it would be a good idea to secure a search warrant before opening up the truck under such circumstances, or at least get a judges opinion on the matter. Anyway, I respect LEOs and the work they do. I just don't like gimmicks designed to circumvent constitutionally protected rights.

Tom
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on July 31, 2008, 06:43:25 AM
**Below i've cut and pasted from a large, well run Sheriff's Dept. policy on motor vehicle search/seizure.**

10. Motor Vehicle Searches

a) Generally, deputies do not need a warrant to stop and search a vehicle capable of being moved when there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is in the vehicle. This exception is allowed due to exigent circumstances created by the mobility of the vehicle and the diminished expectation of privacy.

 b) When probable cause exists, the following circumstances make a warrant unnecessary:1) The vehicle is moving. 2) The deputy has reason to believe that persons known or unknown may move thevehicle. 3) The vehicle has recently been moved. 4) It is impractical to post a guard while obtaining a warrant. 5) The probability exists that time or elements may destroy evidence. 6) It is an emergency situation in which the vehicle must be searched to save life,prevent injury to others, or prevent serious damage to property.

c) When an occupant of a vehicle has been taken into custody, the deputy may conduct a warrantless search of the passenger compartment where weapons or evidence of a crime may be located. The search may include glove boxes, receptacles, luggage bags, clothing, or other closed containers.

11. Vehicle Inventory Search: a) On July 6, 1976, the Supreme Court expressed four (4) reasons why police may inventory impounded vehicles:

1) To protect the owner’s property while it is in police custody.

 2) To protect the police and the municipal government from claims or disputes overalleged lost or stolen property.

3) To protect the police from the potential danger of thieves entering the vehicles and stealing firearms or drugs left therein.

4) To determine whether a vehicle is stolen and to learn the owner’s identity. b) When impounding any vehicle, a thorough search of the vehicle (to include the trunk) will be conducted. This search will include any and all containers, whether open or closed to inventory the contents. The contents of the vehicle will be listed on the reverse side of the impound sheet and signed by the tow truck driver.

12. Plain View Doctrine:a) When the deputy is lawfully on the premises, the deputy may make a warrantless seizureof property if it is immediately apparent that the property constitutes criminal evidence. b) The item seized must be immediately apparent as contraband or evidence of a crime. If the item must be moved or examined more closely, plain view doctrine does not apply.A search warrant will be required to move/seize the item. c) Except in cases involving exigent circumstances or motor vehicles, a plain view observation of contraband or evidence does not justify a warrantless entry into aconstitutionally protected area to seize the item.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: LtMedTB on July 31, 2008, 08:54:14 AM
Very enlightening, thank you, GM.

Tom
Title: Police kill mayor's dogs in no-knock raid
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 03, 2008, 09:00:56 AM
Some Doubt Mayor's Tie to Drugs
One Theory Has Md. Man an Unwitting Recipient
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Aaron C. Davis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 2, 2008; B01



Police are investigating whether a package of marijuana addressed to the wife of a Prince George's County mayor was really intended to be intercepted by a deliveryman as part of a drug smuggling scheme.

A Prince George's Sheriff's Office SWAT team and county police narcotics officers burst into the house of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo on Tuesday evening after they saw Calvo take the package inside. In the course of the raid, they shot and killed his two black Labrador retrievers.

According to law enforcement sources, police believe it is possible that a deliveryman intended to collect the box from Calvo's porch, either before the package was signed for or after the mayor or his wife reported that it wasn't theirs. They asked to remain anonymous because the investigation is ongoing.

Police had been tracking the package, which was addressed to Calvo's wife, since a police dog at a shipping facility in Arizona alerted authorities to the presence of drugs inside. It was delivered to Calvo's house by police posing as deliverymen and left on his porch at the instructions of his mother-in-law. After the raid, police recovered an unopened package containing more than 30 pounds of marijuana, but they made no arrests.
The possibility that no one in Calvo's house was the intended recipient of the package is among several theories police are pursuing.

Prince George's State's Attorney Glenn F. Ivey said that police have made some "headway" in the investigation, which continues.

"I don't think they've shut down any angles in their investigation," he said.
Special Agent Edward Marcinko, a spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration in Maryland, said it is not unheard of for traffickers to ship a package to a stranger's home.

In February, for instance, Dunn Loring resident Sid Phillips said his 76-year-old neighbor opened a UPS package left on his porch and discovered marijuana packed in vacuum-sealed pouches inside.

Phillips said the neighbor called him for advice, and the two of them reported the discovery to police. Officers swarmed the house and collected the drugs without incident. The package, Phillips said, had been sent from Arizona, just like the box delivered this week to Calvo in Maryland.

"If the same thing happened to this mayor, I would totally sympathize," Phillips said.

Fairfax police spokesman Don Gotthardt confirmed that police seized approximately four pounds of what they suspected was marijuana in the Dunn Loring incident.

In another case this year, a College Park area resident reported receiving a package with drugs inside, one of the sources said.

Residents of Berwyn Heights., meanwhile, have expressed outrage over the raid and the shooting of the two dogs, well known to neighbors who often saw the 37-year old mayor walking the dogs.

Calvo has said that sheriff's deputies shot his 7-year-old dog, Payton, near the front door and then his 4-year-old dog, Chase, as the dog ran into a back room. He has said that he and his mother-in-law were handcuffed and interrogated for hours while surrounded by the carcasses and blood of his pets.

"There is not anybody in the town who is not outraged at how this came down," said Ann Harris Davidson, a Berwyn Heights resident for 22 years.
A rally in support of Calvo and in memory of his dogs has been scheduled for tomorrow evening at a ball field in the town. Berwyn Heights Police Chief Patrick Murphy said his eight-person department has been besieged by phone calls from as far away as Louisiana from people who mistakenly believe his officers were involved.

Murphy said he is angry that, instead, his officers were not informed ahead of time of that the county planned a major operation inside the town limits, especially in light of a 2006 incident in which then-Prince George's Police Chief Melvin C. High expressed formal "regret" that Berwyn Heights police were not told of threats made to an abortion clinic.
"I believe there is absolutely no credible reason why notification to my police department should not have been made," Murphy said. He said he is confident his officers could have entered Calvo's house without violence.
Cpl. Clinton Copeland, a spokesman for the Prince George's police department, said officers had a "no-knock" warrant, which allowed them to enter the house without alerting Calvo. Such warrants are issued when police fear they might face armed suspects. He said they notified Murphy immediately after entering the house.

"They were not notified before then due to the integrity of the ongoing investigation and for officer safety purposes," Copeland said.

The dogs were shot by county sheriff's deputies. The Sheriff's Office did not return calls for comment yesterday. A sheriff's spokesman has expressed regret over the death of the dogs but said deputies on the scene felt threatened by the pets.

Ivey said the marijuana seized could have fetched as much as $70,000.
"From my perspective, the key part is figuring out where the drugs came from and who should be held accountable for that," he said.

Staff writer Henri E. Cauvin contributed to this report.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 06, 2008, 10:39:55 PM
Pr. George's Officers Lacked 'No-Knock' Warrant in Raid
Authorities, Who Broke Down Door During Search for Drugs at Home of Berwyn Heights Mayor, Had Said They Obtained Document
By Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 6, 2008; B01



Prince George's County authorities did not have a "no-knock" warrant when they burst into the home of a mayor July 29, shooting and killing his two dogs -- contrary to what police said after the incident.

Judges in Maryland can grant police the right to enter a building and serve a search warrant without knocking if the judge finds there is reasonable suspicion to think evidence might be destroyed or the officers' safety might be endangered in announcing themselves.

A Prince George's police spokesman said last week that a Sheriff's Office SWAT team and county police narcotics officers were operating under such a warrant when they broke down the door of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo, shooting and killing his black Labrador retrievers.

But a review of the warrant indicates that police neither sought nor received permission from Circuit Court Judge Albert W. Northrup to enter without knocking. Northrup found probable cause to suspect that drugs might be in the house and granted police a standard search warrant.
"There's nothing in the four corners of the warrant saying anything about the Calvos being a threat to law enforcement," said Calvo's attorney, Timothy Maloney. "This was a lawless act by law enforcement."

Police spokesman Henry Tippett said yesterday that the statement about the warrant that public affairs officers released Friday was based on information provided by Maj. Mark Magaw, commander of the narcotics enforcement division. A request to interview Magaw was not immediately granted yesterday, and Tippett said he could not explain the discrepancy.
"That was the information that was given to us," he said.

Calvo's home was raided after he brought a package addressed to his wife inside from his front porch. Police had been tracking the package since a dog sniffed the presence of drugs in Arizona. It was delivered to the house by police posing as deliverymen and left on the porch on the instruction of Calvo's mother-in-law.

After the raid, police found the unopened package, containing 32 pounds of marijuana, in the house. According to law enforcement sources, police are investigating whether a deliveryman might have been the intended recipient of the package instead of Calvo or his wife. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the case is open.
Calvo has said that sheriff's deputies entered without knocking and began shooting immediately, killing 7-year-old Payton first, then shooting 4-year-old Chase as he ran to another room.

Sheriff Michael Jackson (D) has not returned several messages about the case. Sgt. Mario Ellis, a Sheriff's Office spokesman, said last Wednesday that deputies regretted shooting the dogs but that they had felt threatened by them. He has not returned calls since.

The case has highlighted friction between law enforcement agencies. The county police and Sheriff's Office have jurisdiction throughout Prince George's and typically handle major crimes, but they share jurisdiction with smaller police forces in some of the county's 27 towns and cities.

Berwyn Heights Police Chief Patrick Murphy has been highly critical of the county police for not alerting his eight-member department before the raid. He said his officers could have gained entry to the home without incident or informed county police that Calvo was unlikely to be violent.
Greenbelt Police Chief James R. Craze said yesterday that county officers contacted his 54-member department the day of the raid to ask whether his emergency response unit could serve the warrant. County police have said the Sheriff's Office was asked to participate because its team was busy at the time. Craze said it is not unusual for agencies to cooperate in such cases.

"From what I know, their SWAT team wasn't available, and that's why they were out shopping," he said.

He said his department, which conducts a drug raid a month, declined to take part because it is authorized to operate outside city limits only when the raid is conducted by a regional task force led by the Maryland State Police. County police are not part of the task force, Craze said.
Craze said county police do not always alert his officers when operating in Greenbelt. "Obviously, I would prefer that they do," he said.

The warrant issue will probably only heighten anger in the community over the incident. Even when a search warrant has been issued, courts have held that police must generally knock to announce their presence, preserve the privacy of a homeowner and let occupants know they are not experiencing an illegal home invasion.
"It's a traditional constitutional protection, going back forever," said defense attorney Richard A. Finci, who is not involved with the Calvo case.
Police officers are sometimes allowed to search without knocking, even without getting authority in advance, but courts have ruled they can do so only if there are specific circumstances at the time of the search that lead officers to conclude evidence might be destroyed or law enforcement could be endangered, said lawyer William C. Brennan, who is not involved with the case.

Were Calvo or his wife, Trinity Tomsic, to be charged in the case, the issue of the search could come up if prosecutors tried to introduce the box of marijuana as evidence. More likely, experts said, the issue could form the basis of a civil rights lawsuit filed by the family against the county in the incident.

Another issue that could arise in court is whether officers provided Calvo a copy of the warrant at the time of the raid, as required by law. Maloney said they did not, even though a detective signed a sworn statement to the judge indicating that he had. Instead, the detective brought the warrant to Calvo several days later, Maloney said.

Maloney said that Calvo and Tomsic are waiting for an explanation from law enforcement and that it would be premature discuss legal action.
Title: Chapter Two
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 07, 2008, 08:03:32 AM
Continuing with this story

Pr. George's Police Arrest 2 In Marijuana-Shipping Plot
One Package Went to Mayor's Wife
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Aaron C. Davis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 7, 2008; A01



Prince George's County police announced yesterday that they have arrested a deliveryman and another man who they say are involved in a scheme to smuggle marijuana by shipping packages addressed to unsuspecting recipients, including a delivery last week to the wife of the mayor of Berwyn Heights.

The county Sheriff's Office SWAT team and narcotics officers raided the home of Mayor Cheye Calvo and his wife, Trinity Tomsic, after intercepting a package addressed to her that was filled with 32 pounds of marijuana. During the raid, officers broke down Calvo's door and fatally shot the family's two black Labrador retrievers.

Police said the package was one of about a half-dozen retrieved by authorities in the past week along the route of a deliveryman in northern Prince George's. The packages contained a combined 417 pounds of marijuana valued at about $3.6 million.

Police Chief Melvin C. High would not rule out that Calvo and Tomsic had some involvement in the delivery. Asked whether police had cleared them, he said: "From all the indications at the moment, they had an unlikely involvement, but we don't want to draw that definite conclusion at the moment." He later said, "Most likely, they were innocent victims."
Neither he nor Sheriff Michael A. Jackson apologized for the raid, which they said was conducted responsibly, given what deputies and officers knew at the time.

Calvo declined to comment. Timothy Maloney, an attorney for Calvo and Tomsic, said the arrests confirm that Tomsic was a "random victim of identity theft at the hands of major drug traffickers."

"This crime was compounded by law enforcement when it illegally invaded the Calvo home, tied up the mayor and his mother-in-law, and killed the family dogs," he said in an e-mail. "The Calvo family is still waiting for an explanation from law enforcement as to how this could possibly have happened."

Police had been tracking the package since a drug-sniffing dog in Arizona drew attention to it. Calvo has said law enforcement officers burst into his home moments after he picked up the package from his porch and brought it in. It had been left on the porch on the instructions of his mother-in-law by police posing as deliverymen. Calvo has said sheriff's deputies entered without knocking and began shooting immediately.

High said one of the men arrested was an independent contractor who worked as a package deliveryman. The police chief did not release the name of either man.

High and Maj. Mark Magaw, commander of the county's narcotics enforcement division, said the two suspects worked in tandem. The officials said that the deliveryman would drop off the package and that the other man would come by shortly thereafter and retrieve it.
At other times, the officials said, the suspects exchanged packages face to face in parking lots. In two instances, Magaw said, the deliveryman mistakenly took drugs to the wrong address, then went to the houses and asked for the packages.

He said police investigating the case uncovered a separate and parallel scheme to use the package delivery system to send marijuana. They arrested two other men yesterday in connection with that conspiracy and seized about 100 pounds of marijuana.

High and Jackson spent much of a news conference yesterday defending the raid on Calvo's home. They said using a SWAT team was appropriate because guns and violence are often associated with drug rings.
"In some quarters, this has been viewed as a flawed police operation and an attack on the mayor, which it is not," High said. "This was about an address, this was about a name on a package . . . and, in fact, our people did not know that this was the home of the mayor and his family until after the fact."

High said Jackson's team was responsible for determining how "dynamic" an entry was required. Jackson said that the search warrant authorizing the raid was obtained by the police department and that his team was there only because the police's SWAT team was busy on another assignment.

Neither explained why police spokesmen initially said a "no knock" warrant had been authorized, giving law enforcement officers permission from a judge to raid the home without announcing their presence. Magaw said there was no such thing as a no-knock warrant and denied telling public information officers that one exists. Legal experts say a law adopted in 2005 created such a warrant.

Police are allowed to enter without announcing themselves even without the authorization, but only if specific circumstances at the scene lead them to reasonably suspect that evidence might be destroyed or officers' lives endangered.

Jackson said yesterday that his team was justified in entering the home as forcefully as it did because Calvo's mother-in-law screamed when she saw the officers approaching the house. The noise, he said, could have alerted any armed occupants of the home or allowed time for destruction of any evidence.

He also defended the shooting of the dogs. He said his deputies were "engaged" by the dogs, by one as they entered the house and by the other as they made their way through it. Neither dog bit a deputy, he said.

Calvo maintains that his dogs were peaceful.

Maloney said yesterday that it was "demonstrably false" to suggest the dogs were threatening law enforcement, and on the whole called the law enforcement's statement about the raid "defensive" and "outrageous."
Neither agency has asked for the family's version of the raid, he said.
"It is clear that neither agency can conduct an independent review into the law enforcement misconduct that occurred here, nor are they willing to review their policies involving no-knock entry and the killing of innocent family pets," Maloney said.

The family will hold a news conference today to address the issues. Calvo, 37, works part time as the mayor and serves as director of expansion for the SEED Foundation, a national nonprofit group that runs urban public boarding schools. Tomsic is a finance officer for the state.

Staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 08, 2008, 12:51:21 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317398,00.html


MINNEAPOLIS — With her six kids and husband tucked into bed, Yee Moua was watching TV in her living room just after midnight when she heard voices — faint at first, then louder. Then came the sound of a window shattering.

Moua bolted upstairs, where her husband, Vang Khang, grabbed his shotgun from a closet, knelt and fired a warning shot through his doorway as he heard footsteps coming up the stairs. He let loose with two more blasts. Twenty-two bullets were fired back at him, by the family's count.
Then things suddenly became clear.

"It's the police! Police!" his sons yelled.

Khang, a Hmong immigrant with shaky command of English, set down his gun, raised his hands and was soon on the ground, an officer's boot on his neck.

The gunmen, it turned out, were members of a police SWAT team that had raided the wrong address because of bad information from an informant — a mistake that some critics say happens all too frequently around the country and gets innocent people killed.

"I have six kids, and only one mistake almost took my kids' life," said Moua, 29. "We will never forget this."

No one was hurt in the raid Sunday, conducted by a task force that fights drugs and gangs, though two police officers were hit by the shotgun blasts and narrowly escaped injury because they were wearing bulletproof vests.

Police apologized to the family and placed the seven officers on leave while it investigates what went wrong.

Such mistakes are a fact of police work, some experts said.
"Does going to the wrong address happen from time to time? Yes," said John Gnagey, executive director of the National Tactical Officers

Association in Doylestown, Pa. "Do you corroborate as best you can the information the informant gives you? Absolutely. But still from time to time mistakes are
made."

--

They gave the MN SWAT guys some medals.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5484185


A Minneapolis family is outraged that members of the SWAT team that mistakenly raided their house and fired upon them last December have been awarded medals for their bravery under fire.

According to Heffelfinger, the Laotian family has owned and lived in the house for four years and had no knowledge of the female police informant. "Ironically, the house is located across the street from a police precinct," Heffelfinger said, "so, if [the SWAT team] had simply asked the precinct, they would have learned the family was not gang bangers."

"They were acting in good faith on a warrant that was properly drawn up, based off of what appeared to be good information," Garcia said. "Their bravery under fire should not be negated [because of the misinformation]."

But the Khangs, through their lawyer, beg to differ.

"They were given medals for taking fire in my client's house ... where, by the grace of God, no one was killed that night," Heffelfinger said.
Police claimed to have protected the six children -- ranging in ages from 3 to 15 -- that night, but Heffelfinger says it's "hogwash."

Two of the children jumped up from a mattress on the floor to hide in a corner seconds before the same mattress was littered with bullets fired from the police, he said.

--

Some video. Upper right hand corner.

http://wcco.com/iteam/swat.team.honored.2.783216.html
__________________
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: SB_Mig on August 09, 2008, 09:41:07 PM
Fascinating lecture on NOT talking to the police:

Part One - Law professor

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

Part Two - Police officer

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&hl=en

Stresses the importance of the Fifth Amendment.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 25, 2009, 04:57:18 AM
1. Supreme Court decision on search incident to arrest in vehicles:

In a 5-to-4 decision, the majority overturned the rule in New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981). Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to arrest of an occupant or recent occupant only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

The case is Arizona v. Gant, #07-542, 2009 WL 1045962, 2009 U.S. Lexis 3120, viewable at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf
Title: They've an eye on you, but not you on them?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 13, 2010, 07:35:54 AM
http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns


Are Cameras the New Guns?
In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state's electronic surveillance law - aka recording a police encounter - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, "Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals…." (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)

The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.

Glik captured a police action on his cellphone to document what he considered to be excessive force. He was not only arrested, his phone was also seized.

On his website Drew wrote, "Myself and three other artists who documented my actions tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law. The police hesitated for two months because they knew it would mean a federal court case. With this felony charge they are trying to avoid this test and ruin me financially and stain my credibility."

Hyde used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the police. After doing so, he was criminally charged.

In short, recordings that are flattering to the police - an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog - will almost certainly not result in prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple dissent.

A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.

Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an explanation: "For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man."

When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.

Happily, even as the practice of arresting "shooters" expands, there are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested "shooter," the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.

As journalist Radley Balko declares, "State legislatures should consider passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law enforcement officials."

Wendy McElroy is the author of several books on anarchism and feminism. She maintains the iconoclastic website ifeminists.net as well as an active blog at wendymcelroy.com.



The author of this post can be contacted at tips@gizmodo.com
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on June 13, 2010, 05:23:23 PM
I can't imagine the courts ultimately upholding these statutes.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 13, 2010, 08:14:01 PM
Precisely so.  What I find remarkable is the shamelessness of the egregious (sp?) bullying.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on June 13, 2010, 08:23:20 PM
I first pinned on a badge post-Rodney King. We were taught in the academy never to do or say anything you wouldn't want to be seen on CNN. Expect public scrutiny, especially in an age where everyone has cameras integrated into their cell phone.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 14, 2010, 04:35:09 AM
"I first pinned on a badge positron King."

Sorry to be slow-witted.  What is your meaning here?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on June 14, 2010, 07:21:46 AM
D'oh!

Frakkin' spell check mishap.  :-o
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Dog Howie on June 14, 2010, 07:45:25 AM
I can't imagine the courts ultimately upholding these statutes.

Ultimately every area of government needs accountability. Just like citizens need to be held accountable to the laws. There issues are being made more difficult becuase we are dealing with meaningful changes in the availablity and distribution of both media and ideas brought about very recently and to very extreme degrees by advances in technology (specifically recording and production of audio/video and distribution of same). Remember it has been just the past 10 years...maybe 5 that Internet access has just rounded the corner to being widely available in the US. That is a VERY short time. Issues like Privacy and Defamation are just two issues that have been radically affected and the wave that is affecting them has not even ebbed yet. People still believe that what they read is true. One used to have a lot of credability and expertise to get a book published.... now anyone with a word processor can have their ideas available for sale and/or download at Amazon.com.  Digital production allows virtual seemess editing and even the  most sophisticated layman would not be able to ID a  modified audio or video file (if modified well). And those "modifications" can now be accomplished on software systems that used to cost $250,000.00 and now similar features are available for $2500.00,,, And it's getting cheaper.... and better... quickly.

It will get harder and harder to credentialize video and audio evidence because of this alone. The threat to privacy is astounding... for instance did you know that THIS VERY FORUM is scanned by reporting agencies who associate the email address you use in your registration (if you show it publically on this forum) and then they merge that with other databases to get your personal information and associate it with your name and other activities. tHEY THEN ASSOCIATE YOUR FORUM PEN-NAME WITH YOUR ACTUAL NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND YOUR CREDIT HISTORY..... i;LL STOP THERE. BTW, when I said THIS forum I meant THIS ONE. And that isn't unusual... they scann all message boards.

we have aLONG way to go.

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on June 20, 2010, 06:30:39 AM
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-i-saw-at-the-lakers-riots/?singlepage=true

I don’t know when this peculiar custom began, but it is one I hope — in vain, surely — to see ended someday.

I refer to the bizarre practice of some sporting fans who, on the occasion of their favored team having achieved some triumph on the court, field, or ice rink, choose to celebrate the event by running amok in the streets, looting businesses, breaking windows, tipping over automobiles, and setting fire to garbage cans, cars, and, occasionally, the unfortunate passerby.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: stilljames on June 27, 2010, 04:56:46 AM
First off, let me say that I respect the majority of LEOs.  I have an application in with the Chattanooga PD.  I've helped teach DT to police officers.  I hold a profound respect for what I would call natural law and a certain amount of respect somewhat less than total for societal law.  I will also say that I was commissioned in the USAR a long time ago.  That caveat is so that people understand that I look at things from the POV of a trained leader.

A couple of classic videos about talking to the police and not doing it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912#

One thing that I constantly tell people who get upset at LEOs is that LEOs are human beings, too.   That means they do good things and bad things, smart things and foolish things.  And are just as vulnerable to things like peer pressure, mob mentality and the Group Monkey Dance syndrome as the rest of us.

Repeatedly, I see that many events that end in tragic overreactions are contributed to by the officer who should have been in charge failing to act in that manner.  LEOs act in chaotic situations.  The more variables, ie people, in a situation, the more chaotic it is.  A senior officer's job is to stay as calm as possible and try to navigate the chaos and restore order.  On more than one occasion, officers questioned after an exhange of fire, when asked why they were firing at a vehicle, responded with something along the lines of:  Because the man next to me was shooting.

One of the hardest lessons for  NCOs and Officers in the military to learn is that shooting is for privates.  Supervisors should fire only when they must do so.  As a platoon leader, if I am shooting, I control one weapon.  If I am managing, I control 30 of them.  Plus artillery and air support.  When you have 3 or more officers, someone needs to step back and be in charge.

This is also true of civilians on the workplace, etc.   

This is my view of how to protect yourself from unreasonable search and seizure and no-knock warrants, etc.  Someone earlier in the topic  mentioned blending with the sheep.  I mostly agree.  It's called the passive defense.  Or as Guru Crafty has said:  Avoid doing stupid things in stupid places with stupid people.  It protects you from villains.  But it also keeps you from being mistaken for a villain.   It is a very common human tendency, for good reason, to think that, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and hangs around with a bunch of other ducks, it is probably a duck.  It is pattern recognition that aids survival.

The first guideline:  Try not to do anything illegal.  This is actually impossible in our society.  Our patchwork of a legal system with the emphasis on lawyers and hair splitting means that almost anyone can be charged with some sort of crime at any time.  Just try to drive the speed limit in a city.  Even if other drivers do not rear-end you in a fit of road rage, the police notice you.  DEA Officers have admitted, in news interviews, that they view anyone driving the speed limit as suspicious.

Second guideline:  Do not do anything to attract attention more than necessary.  Keep your vehicle reasonably clean.  Keep your registration and tag sticker current.  Keep your city and county stickers current if you need to have them.  Keep headlights, tail lights and break lights in proper working order.  All of those are cheap and easy to fix.  If you can afford to buy a handgun or medical marijuana or a bottle of scotch or DVDs or dinner for 2 at a restaurant, you can afford to have them working properly.

Keep your vehicle interior reasonably clean and neat.  If you have locking boxes, keep them shut and locked.  Have a locking box in your trunk and keep it locked with a sturdy lock.  Don't have empty or opened containers of alcohol in your vehicle even if you have not had a drink in 2 or three days.  Dress neatly.  It doesn't have to be expensively.  Just neatly.  If you have a beard or goattee, keep it trimmed.  Even if you have long hair, keep it maintained.  Talk respectfully.  Look respectfully.  Smile.

If stopped by an officer, be calm and polite.  Remember that the officer is probably at least a little scared of you.  If you can calm the officer down, it can only help you.  Pop hazard lights, pull over as soon as it is safe, kill the ignition and leave your hands on the wheel.    If it is at night, turn on the overhead light.  Do not fumble for license, registration or anything else.  Do not even roll down the window if it is up.  Wait for instructions from the officer.      Smile. 

Politely refuse the search if asked.  Don't be confrontational.  If pulled over incorrectly, don't attempt to hold court on the side of the road.  Hold court in the courthouse. 

Personal story  I was pulled over by an LEO for running a red light.  I thought this was improbable because I had been behind the officer at the traffic signal and had not had to drive around or through him.  I told the officer this.  He said, not politely, that I had indeed run the red light.  I immediately smiled and said, thank you.  I took the citation.  I showed up in court.  There was no officer.  I spoke with the judge.  I discovered that the officer had suffered a heart attack later that evening.  In all likely hood, the officer was in pre-cardiac arrest, was not thinking clearly, and genuinely believed I had run the traffic light.  So, when  you are pulled over, remember that you may not be cuffed, but detaining you is an arrest.  Act like it.  And you don't know if the officer is sick with the flu, suffering heat stroke or otherwise impaired.

If an officer attempts comedian of the year award with you or starts harassing  you, swallow your pride, take the verbal and psychological hits with a smile and let your lawyer hit him back later, in court. And remember that verbal judo works both ways.  If the officer attacks you, well, you'll have to make the decision on how to act for yourself.  I'm not going to make it for you because I probably won't be there. 

As far as your residence goes, follow similar guidelines.  A generally neat and weill maintained house or apartment.  Have good windows and doors with sturdy locks.  The heavy duty, insulated doors and windows that lower heating bills can also stop criminals.  And, should the police show up at the wrong address to serve a no-knock warrant at 3am, the delay in gaining entry because of security doors and windows, buys you time to wake up and analyze the situation.

If you have firearms, have a secure storage device.  Gun safes are not THAT expensive.  If the police decide they want to seize your firearms during an arrest, all you have to do is invoke your right to remain silent and to have legal counsel and wait.  They might get your ready shotgun and handgun.  But the rest of the collection is behind a 15 minute determined entry attack lock.  Hopefully, by the time the police get the equipment needed and can break into the safe, your lawyer will have been notified by someone and can check to see if they've followed procedure.

The best line of defense we have is our brain that helps us make wise choices. 

Without advocating illegal activities, look at it this way.  Smoking marijuana, drinking beer, etc, is a choice.  Doing either of those things while driving is also a choice.  A stupid and unsafe choice.  Honestly, eating fast food while driving is stupid and dangerous.  So is talking on our phones, swapping CDs, browsing through the iPod, etc.   

As an aside, I remember a lady I met complaining that bicycles frustrated her when she was driving.  They took up her lane and slowed her down.  She just wanted to run them over.  With a smile, I asked her, "Is your time so valuable that 10 minutes of it is worth killing someone over?"  As soon as I put it to her like that, she backpedaled.

The point of that digression:  Are we that strapped for time that we can't hold off on the phone call from Mom for 2 minutes.  That we can't  wait a bit before eating so we can stop and just eat?  If you are the sort of person who can't wait 10 or 15 minutes to get home to have a drink of beer or smoke marijuana, then you do not need to be doing those things at all.   If our time for any of those things is THAT short, we probably need to re-evaluate how we are spending our time and what our priorities are.

As Terry Pratchett wrote in a novel:  Rules are meant to make your think before you break them.

The important part is that we do think. 

When we deal with police officers, do we really want to die because we got caught up in the barking ego dance?

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: stilljames on June 27, 2010, 05:35:45 AM
A personal example of not thinking that almost got me into trouble last night because I failed to blend in.

I suddenly remembered that it was a friend's birthday.  I'd been at the gym and was tired.  I went home and grabbed the first set of clothes off the pile I had taken from the drier before going to the gym.  I grabbed my easiet set of shoes to put on.  I grabbed his birthday present and drove to his home.  All reasonable, right?

Let's give the outside details a bit more.  I showed up at a trailer park in rural Tennessee and got out of a plain brown SUV wearing black BDU pants, a plain back t-shirt and black Bates zipper-sized combat boots with a 5.11 ball cap in my hand.  The cap was a present for my friend who had seen one and said he'd like one.  In about two seconds, I realized what I had done.   There were about 2 dozen residents staring at me.  two-thirds of them were obviously getting ready to either run or attack.

Many of these people had met me before.  but always in jeans and running shoes.   but I'd failed to think about what I looked like and where I was going.  and showed up on a weekend when a bunch of my friend's neighbors were drunk or stoned or both.  It gets even worse because I have a medical condition that means I cannot drink at all.  So when someone comes over to find out who I was and offer me a drink, I had to turn it down.   A dozen or so knives clipped to belts all over.  People nervous.  A recipe for trouble. 

So, I took off my shirt, gave my friend his hat, had some cake and got the hell out as soon as I could without inspiring them to chase me. 

An example of how simple, innocent decisions get us in to trouble.  In a hurry, I failed to think about what I was doing and almost got into a scrap with people that I've met before and know are pretty much only a danger to themselves, aside from the occasional rough and tumble fistfight                                                                 
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on June 27, 2010, 09:01:25 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/opinion/26macdonald.html?ref=opinion

Fighting Crime Where the Criminals Are
By HEATHER Mac DONALD
Published: June 25, 2010

THERE was a predictable chorus of criticism from civil rights groups last month when the New York Police Department released its data on stop-and-frisk interactions for 2009. The department made 575,000 pedestrian stops last year. Fifty-five percent involved blacks, even though blacks are only 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites, by contrast, were involved in 10 percent of all stops, though they make up 35 percent of the city’s population.

According to the department’s critics, that imbalance in stop rates results from officers’ racial bias. The use of these stops, they say, should be sharply curtailed, if not eliminated entirely, and some activists are suing the department to achieve that end.

Allegations of racial bias, however, ignore the most important factor governing the Police Department’s operations: crime. Trends in criminal acts, not census data, drive everything that the department does, thanks to the statistics-based managerial revolution known as CompStat. Given the patterns of crime in New York, it is inevitable that stop rates will not mirror the city’s ethnic and racial breakdown.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on August 05, 2010, 08:21:26 AM
(Moved from Homeland Security and American Freedom per Crafty's request)

Speaking of "bully" feel about it, someone posted a while ago (I couldn't find it) that photography is allowed/protected in a public
place.  I agree; I enjoy photography (film) and am up on the laws.  Yet I find Police want to be exempt from the law - can't take the heat???
Or they just enjoy the intimidation?  No matter how you look at it, it's wrong.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008566,00.html?hpt=T2


Anthony Graber, a Maryland Air National Guard staff sergeant, faces up to 16 years in prison. His crime? He videotaped his March encounter with a state trooper who pulled him over for speeding on a motorcycle. Then Graber put the video — which could put the officer in a bad light — up on YouTube.
It doesn't sound like much. But Graber is not the only person being slapped down by the long arm of the law for the simple act of videotaping the police in a public place. Prosecutors across the U.S. claim the videotaping violates wiretap laws — a stretch, to put it mildly.

Law enforcement is fighting back. In the case of Graber — a young husband and father who had never been arrested — the police searched his residence and seized computers. Graber spent 26 hours in jail even before facing the wiretapping charges that could conceivably put him away for 16 years. (It is hard to believe he will actually get anything like that, however. One point on his side: the Maryland attorney general's office recently gave its opinion that a court would likely find that the wiretap law does not apply to traffic stops.)

The legal argument prosecutors rely on in police video cases is thin. They say the audio aspect of the videos violates wiretap laws because, in some states, both parties to a conversation must consent to having a private conversation recorded. The hole in their argument is the word "private." A police officer arresting or questioning someone on a highway or street is not having a private conversation. He is engaging in a public act.

Even if these cases do not hold up in court, the police can do a lot of damage just by threatening to arrest and prosecute people. "We see a fair amount of intimidation — police saying, 'You can't do that. It's illegal,'" says Christopher Calabrese, a lawyer with the ACLU's Washington office. It discourages people from filming, he says, even when they have the right to film.

Most people are not so game for a fight with the police. They just stop filming. These are the cases no one finds out about, in which there is no arrest or prosecution, but the public's freedoms have nevertheless been eroded.
Title: Pants on the ground!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 16, 2010, 06:46:23 AM
Court Rules Police Can Pull Up Suspects' Saggy Pants
1,193 Views 39 Comments  Minneapolis Star Tribune via YellowBrix

September 15, 2010

ST. PAUL, MN – White Castle, weed and baggy pants. It has all the elements of a comedy, but throw in a concealed handgun, a suspected drug deal and a wardrobe malfunction, and it’s a Minnesota Court of Appeals case that even compelled a judge to quote an “American Idol” audition.

St. Paul police officer Kara Breci and her partner spotted a possible drug deal in a car at a White Castle parking lot in November 2008. They ordered the men out of their vehicle and told them to put their hands in the air. That’s when suspect Frank Irving Wiggins’ baggy pants, already dangerously low at the knees, fell to the pavement.

Breci hoisted the jeans and found a .38-caliber pistol inside the front pocket. Wiggins was eventually convicted of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person and sentenced to five years in prison. He challenged the legality of the pants-hoisting, with the case ultimately landing at the state Court of Appeals.

“This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of a novel police procedure which, as far as we can tell, has never been reviewed on appeal by this court or any other,” wrote Judge Kevin G. Ross in an opinion filed Tuesday.

Breci and her partner encountered Wiggins and another man in a car in a high drug-activity area. A third man popped into the backseat. His hands were suspiciously slider-free.

“No one in the car appeared to be eating,” Ross wrote.

The officers approached, and the backseat passenger admitted that a plastic bag contained marijuana. That’s when the men were ordered out, and the pants fell.

Breci felt the gun through Wiggins’ pants and asked him about it. He denied knowing what it was. Breci removed the gun.

Wiggins, 24, later tried to suppress the gun evidence in his case before district court, citing unlawful seizure and pat-search, but was denied.

Ross wrote that the circumstances of the drug search would “lead a reasonable officer to suspect that Wiggins was engaging in a drug deal,” and that Breci’s actions were not unconstitutional.

The judge wrote that Breci’s actions weren’t a search, but “incidental contact.”

“Perhaps [Breci] decided to raise Wiggins’ pants to afford him a bit of dignity regardless of her planned search,” Ross wrote in the opinion. “Or perhaps she wanted to avoid the risk of contacting his genitalia through his underwear during her pat-search.”

Breci’s actions were intended to provide Wiggins with privacy, not deprive him of it, as a search would, Ross wrote. “We acknowledge that one might be offended by an officer’s realigning of his pants: It is the sort of thing that one usually prefers to do for himself,” the decision read. "Wiggins argues that affirming the district court would encourage officers to trample the privacy of young people who participate in this baggy-pants fashion trend. The concern is unwarranted.

“We are confident that our opinion will not be misconstrued to suggest that an officer can freely meddle with a person’s clothes to the refrain, ‘Pants on the ground, pants on the ground’…”
Title: Prone still dangerous
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 28, 2010, 09:54:35 PM

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2018727-Prone-subjects-Deadly-in-an-instant
Title: "He got away" has consequences
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 26, 2010, 12:27:35 AM
The intro comment is by an LEO friend whose judgment I greatly respect:
===================
Because several officers together did not have the ass to take this man into custody, he killed one of their brethren shortly thereafter...
 
----------------------------------------------
 
Excerpt from a Wash Post article yesterday:



About 1:30 p.m. Sept. 23, McDonald spotted a 1997 burgundy Buick with a broken taillight. He ordered the driver, Shermell Howard, 27, to pull over, according to a police report. In the car with her was Daniel Giddings, also 27, a 240-pound felon whose physique one official would describe as "prison buff." The Taurus was tucked into his waistband.



Giddings had been released from prison 36 days earlier after serving eight years of a 12-year sentence for aggravated assault. A judge had ordered him to report to a halfway house, but Giddings soon absconded in violation of his parole. When several police officers, acting on a tip that Giddings was at a house in the area, tried to arrest him, he fought with them and escaped. Now, he was wanted for aggravated assault on the officers as well as the parole violation.



As McDonald walked up to the vehicle, Giddings jumped out and ran. McDonald chased him three blocks through the North Philadelphia neighborhood known as Strawberry Mansion, a place of boarded-up buildings and painted brick rowhouses with metal bars on the doors and windows.
 
"White T-shirt, brown jacket," McDonald breathlessly told a police dispatcher as he called in the incident on his police radio at 1:46 p.m. and gave his location. "Twenty-four hundred Colorado. Just got on a red bike."
 
McDonald didn't say - maybe he didn't have time - that Giddings had knocked a child off the bicycle.
 
McDonald caught up to Giddings, losing his hat along the way. The officer grabbed Giddings and drew his ASP police baton. The two fought. The felon threw the officer to the ground. Both drew guns, Giddings's Taurus against McDonald's Glock 9mm service weapon.
 
Shots were traded, and McDonald was hit several times, including a round that went through his shoulder and pierced his heart.
 
Giddings then stood over the officer and pumped more bullets into him...
Title: Whoops , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 09, 2010, 09:10:46 AM
http://policelink.monster.com/news/articles/147680-charges-allege-city-hired-unlicensed-police-officers?utm_source=nlet&utm_content=pl_c1_20101209_unlicensedofficers
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 09:30:53 AM
Wow. That is so horrifically bad, it's hard to imagine.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 12:12:42 PM
Wow. That is so horrifically bad, it's hard to imagine.

Actually, most police departments have a rule that they aren't allowed to go any more than 15 mph faster, yet just a few days ago I saw a highway patrol officer doing well in excess of 100mph.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/8fc2b35b-7475-47e7-82dc-95c831217327/Lenemier.aspx

I'm not saying that the guy should have been a police officer and I hate rapists. I'm saying that the fact that the guy was a criminal doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of sworn LEO's that aren't also breaking the laws routinely and little is done about it.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 12:20:05 PM
No, it depends on the state laws and departmental policy covering pursuits and emergency response. I've never seen anything that says 15 MPH over the posted limit for LE. Care to cite your source?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 12:40:52 PM
No, it depends on the state laws and departmental policy covering pursuits and emergency response. I've never seen anything that says 15 MPH over the posted limit for LE. Care to cite your source?

There are several and the link above from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement states it clearly in the middle of the pdf file that the link leads to.

All in all, police routinely break laws that normal people would never get away with, such as the CHP officer doing well over 100mph, talking on cell phones, perjuring themselves, ad infinitum.... They have a brotherhood, and they look out for each other even when they are in the wrong. It's been proven time and time again and they are simply above the law.

If you'd like more instances of this, I'll provide the links.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 12:59:48 PM
I didn't see anything about 15 MPH as a limit for pursuits or emergency response in the PDF.

I noticed you're a cop-basher, and thus most likely a criminal. So what have you been arrested for?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 01:11:39 PM
I didn't see anything about 15 MPH as a limit for pursuits or emergency response in the PDF.

I noticed you're a cop-basher, and thus most likely a criminal. So what have you been arrested for?


It's right in the middle of it requiring supervisor approval for anything exceeding 15 miles an hour above the speed limit.

Expecting everyone to tow the line in regard to the law makes me a criminal? How so?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 01:17:24 PM
It says code 2 response. Do you know what code 2 means? Code 3?

You are denying a criminal history? Yes or no?

Hint: The criminal personality tends to project criminal conduct on everyone as a mechanism to justify their own misconduct.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 01:21:20 PM
It says code 2 response. Do you know what code 2 means? Code 3?

You are denying a criminal history? Yes or no?

Hint: The criminal personality tends to project criminal conduct on everyone as a mechanism to justify their own misconduct.

I'm actually trying to determine why you're supportive of people that have sworn an oath to uphold the law, yet break it. You want to go into what codes mean instead of why criminals that wear badges and have sworn to uphold the law aren't prosecuted for it. Let's talk about that.

To answer your question, no I'm not a criminal.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 01:26:04 PM
Your whole premise is bogus. Law enforcement officers have more liability, both civil and criminal than anyone else in society. Law enforcement officers are also empowered to do things like ""running code 3" than others are not. Why are you an ignorant cop-hater?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 01:28:32 PM
Do you understand the difference between policy and law? It appears not.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 01:30:22 PM
Your whole premise is bogus. Law enforcement officers have more liability, both civil and criminal than anyone else in society. Law enforcement officers are also empowered to do things like ""running code 3" than others are not. Why are you an ignorant cop-hater?

Really? That's not true. Rampart ring a bell? How many years did that go on with their partners knowing?

Ignorant cop hater? I don't hate cops. I train with some. I hate people that take a vow and then break it as well as people that tolerate it.

What is ignorant about expecting people to abide by the oath that they took? They're even worse than criminals. The criminals never took any such oath, and yes, I'm talking about even something as ridiculous as talking on a cell phone while driving. You either respect your oath or you don't and if you don't, you're even worse than the criminals that you're going after.

Is there a problem with that?

No. I understand both completely.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 01:36:56 PM
So, you bash cops in general because of the actions of a few? I don't know if CA's cell phone law exempts the use of cell phones for official purposes, do you?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 01:38:06 PM
Official uses? I know police here and let's pull the logs while they're on duty. See what we find, added to which, if they can do it safely, "officially," why can't I or anyone else?

You're not very good at answering questions, are you?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 01:41:48 PM
Gosh, i'm sorry Mr. "Should society forgive criminal convictions?" What question don't you have answered?

You know the police there? Really? Tell us how you know the police.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 01:46:54 PM
Let's start with why police officers have carte Blanche when it comes to breaking the laws. They are after all, the ones that took an oath.

Who I know is none of your business and certainly not for public knowledge. You're avoiding the question.

Your assertion that it is only the actions of a few is false and I will respond with a list of which that proves it in a couple of hours.

You think that I'm anti-police, when in fact, I'm anti-police that think that they're above the law. Your writings here demonstrate that it is indeed a systemic problem.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 01:50:10 PM
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23123.htm

V C Section 23123 Hand Held Wireless Telephone Prohibited Use
Hand-Held Wireless Telephone: Prohibited Use

23123.  (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.

(b) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.

(c) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.

(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.

(e) This section does not apply to a person when using a digital two-way radio that utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by depressing a push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate proximity to the ear of the user, and the person is driving one of the following vehicles:
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 01:54:33 PM
"In the course and scope."

Let's pull the records and see how many were personal phone calls, especially when many of the conversations are conducted via radio, shall we?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 01:57:10 PM
Let's start with why police officers have carte Blanche when it comes to breaking the laws. They are after all, the ones that took an oath.

**Ok, as I've already explained to you, sworn officers are empowered to do things, like high speed pursuits that others cannot. If an officer does something criminal, then that's a different issue.

Who I know is none of your business and certainly not for public knowledge. You're avoiding the question.

**Gee, you assert you "know things". I call BS. You accuse me of not answering a question.

Your assertion that it is only the actions of a few is false and I will respond with a list of which that proves it in a couple of hours.

**Oh wow. A list of bad cops. Name a profession, I'll show you members that did criminal acts.

You think that I'm anti-police, when in fact, I'm anti-police that think that they're above the law. Your writings here demonstrate that it is indeed a systemic problem.

The systemic problem is scumbags such you. Tell us how the bad ol' police were mean to you and got sand in your vagina.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 01:58:05 PM
Get a court order and see.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 02:08:10 PM
I have a question.

I have been respectful, haven't called anyone any names, but you have to resort to name calling.

I respect you. I don't find it wise to tolerate people that are supposed to be enforcing the law, breaking the law.

Sand in my vagina? For what? Expecting everyone to abide by the law? What is criminal or feminine about that?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 09, 2010, 02:10:44 PM
I have just floated home in a beautific grooviness trance from my Bikram Yoga class to find this  :-P  This is not the tone of conversation that we look to have around here.  :x Let's all take a deep breath, sing kumbaya, and have a group hug please.  
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 02:18:32 PM
I have just floated home in a beautific grooviness trance from my Bikram Yoga class to find this  :-P  This is not the tone of conversation that we look to have around here.  :x Let's all take a deep breath, sing kumbaya, and have a group hug please.  

My bad Guro. Will do Sir.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 09, 2010, 02:34:18 PM
GM?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 02:50:03 PM
Forgive me. I'm tired of seeing a very large, diverse group of people, the vast majority of whom do a very difficult job ethically and honorably, getting smeared by those who couldn't and wouldn't do the job, and are ignorant of it's realities.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 03:12:34 PM
For the record, nothing would make me happier than serving in uniform, busting scum that give drugs to children or hurt people. That's what I think about police work.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 03:29:36 PM
LAPD is hiring. After 3 years on patrol, you can put in for Internal Affairs.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 03:39:49 PM
No... I'd rather be in Mexico shooting drug cartel. I've been writing the PGR, with mixed results. It's truly where I would like to serve as people that would just kill people that way need to be dealt with.

I apologize if I offended you somehow. I was screwed up on drugs since my early teens and went on to organized crime. I've changed to a law abiding person for some 20 years now, and I realize that many like me don't go that route.

If you're going to take an oath, honour it to the letter. That's all I'm saying. Nothing more, nothing less. I wish with my whole heart that I was allowed to serve and to be honest, doing your very best, in every single thing that you do, only to always have people look down on you is disheartening, but I won't give in, nor will I quit demanding the best from myself. That's a personal issue I know, but nonetheless, it would be nice to be able to serve my people. I would do it with honour.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 03:55:11 PM
The oath is to the constitution, not to never talk on a cell phone. Still, I will agree that if it isn't official business, it shouldn't happen. I'll be willing to bet that were an officer to be involved in an accident, IA would subpoena the cell records and if the officer was on a call that wasn't official, it would potentially result in internal discipline and/or charges.

BTW, if IA interviews a cop, the officer does NOT have the right to remain silent or have legal council present.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 09, 2010, 06:08:25 PM
PGR= Procuraduria General de la Republica?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 06:49:18 PM
PGR= Procuraduria General de la Republica?

Yes Guro.

I speak Spanish fluently and I have someone there that I converse with. I've been very upfront with them about my past. Currently, the primary issue is that I'm not a naturally born Mexican citizen, and they haven't told me no, just that I'm not able to this current moment.

I wrote them back in regard to the almost one hundred people that were beaten to death with bats, many of whom were women and asked them that even though I'm not a Mexican citizen, perhaps I could have saved some of their lives, in addition to which, I'm not asking to make a fortune as a LEO, but really to just help people in a place where the reality is, if they catch you, they are going to torture you. We'll see what happens. Psycho? Maybe, but it needs to be addressed. Ultimately, it would only do good here in the U.S. too and I have a personal axe to grind with people that help children get drugs as that is by and large, how my life to become so screwed up at such an early age, and I will forever hate them for it. Anyhow...

Evil only wins when good people do nothing.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on December 09, 2010, 06:51:39 PM

BTW, if IA interviews a cop, the officer does NOT have the right to remain silent or have legal council present.

I have the upmost respect for police officers and the difficulty of their work especially in the inner city.

Also, in the spirit of full disclosure I was once arrested at age 17 for an open beer container, but since then
I have never been arrested.  I have no criminal record.    :-)

That said, while I don't know about your jurisdiction, in Los Angeles, the LAPD and officer DOES have the right to have
legal counsel.  The Police Union is very proactive.

Further it is my understanding that in ALL jurisdictions a police officer has the same constitutional rights that any
normal citizen has; perhaps more so here since the LAPD Union is quite strong.  He may of course be fired for not responding to IA,
but then so would I be possibly fired by my boss for not answering questions.  But I do NOT, NOR does a police officer
have to incriminate himself.

Regarding yours and Zen's comments, I think the exchange got a little out of hand.  I think what he was driving at
is that some/many police officers take advantage of their uniform.  I've rode along and listened to officers in their cars talk to their wives,
or speed if they are late for a staff meeting.  I've watched numerous times officers park in red zones to go buy a hamburger.  I've seem them ask for free food.
I've had friends (cute) being asked out for a date when they are being given a traffic ticket; i.e. give the number and no ticket.  
Heck, I have had cute friends have their ticket erased for a date. I've had police officers butt in line and say, "I'm a police officer" when they are with a
date or their wife, etc. etc.  At my old house my neighbor was a LAPD police captain.  His dog barked all night
long.  I complained and he basically said, "What are you going to do about it" and he laughed at me.  Happy ending,
I bought him lots of imported beer and he quieted the dog.  But again, he used his authority....

A big deal? No.  Nothing "criminal" about it.  But it shouldn't happen. No.  I too like to think an officer should obey
the law equal to me and/or even greater than me since he is an officer in a position of trust and authority.  
I "trust" policemen like teachers and doctors, and I am disappointed if they do not live up to my trust.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on December 09, 2010, 06:53:05 PM
ps... if one is thinking about a career with a Mexican agency, outside of AFI (their version of the CIA), PGR is the way to go. There are several other agencies, but these two are by far the most potent.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 07:10:49 PM
Garrity and additional caselaw have clarified that a law enforcement agency investigating an officer for misconduct that may be criminal in nature can interview that officer without legal representation and the officer must answer all questions truthfully or face departmental discipline, up to and including termination. A criminal investigation of the same incident cannot use the compelled statements, UNLESS the officer chooses to testify on his or her behalf in the criminal trial, then the internal investigation, including the compelled statements can be admitted into trial. There isn't much like that for those not employed by a law enforcement agency.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on December 09, 2010, 08:04:45 PM
Since you did not address the issue, then obviously you agree that case law entitles a police officer to legal counsel at ALL times.  Basic rule; you first
call is to your Union.

Garrity merely gives a police officer ADDITIONAL benefits that I don't have.  In the private sector in CA (CA is basically an at will state) I too may be required to answer to my boss without legal representation, but if I don't answer the questions satisfactorily, or if I irritate him or demand an attorney, I too may face discipline or termination for not answering his questions.  AND whether I chose to testify in my behalf in a criminal trial or NOT, these statements (as I try to honestly explain my actions to my boss) CAN be AND probably WILL be used against me in criminal court.  You are right, "there isn't much like this for those not employed by a law enforcement agency".  I and all private citizens are JEALOUS of the EXTRA protection given TO law enforcement personnel. 
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 08:13:38 PM
You may call your union, however there is no requirement that an internal affairs investigator allow representation to be present for the interview related to an internal investigation. In an internal investigation (Unless there is an agreement between the employer and the union). In my state. unions have no legal standing. In an internal investigation, there is no right to remain silent and no right to an attorney.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 09, 2010, 08:37:40 PM
"In an internal investigation, there is no right to remain silent and no right to an attorney."

Which makes sense to me.

@ZG:  I'm sorry, I am not clear.  You are a naturalized Mexican citizen?  Ay you no doubt know very well, from well before the narco wars the law down there has been and is VERY harsh concerning foreigners and guns.  Additionally, as noted on the US-Mexico thread, the Mex Army is getting concerned about the US military getting involved in Mexico.  Given the conspiracy minded nature of Mexican political thought about the US (not without raw material one might add!) it would be very easy to get caught in the crossfire of these politics-- especially any person of other than native born citizenship as I understand you to be.

I am not unfamiliar with Mexico (e.g. I train the SWAT team for the State Penitentiary for el Estado de Mexico every time I go down there for a seminar.  The situation there is very complicated right now and the narcos have penetrated to very, very high levels.  For example IIRC last year the man who schedules the President's itinerary was caught accepting the equivalent of $400,000 US a month!  Having no personal knowledge of your teammates and their environs upon arrival, I caution you that you would be a pigeon flying with eagles.  This is said with love and respect.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 09:10:35 PM
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2008-pdfs/may08leb.pdf

Double
Exposure
Civil Liability
and Criminal
Prosecution
in Federal
Court for
Police
Misconduct
By RICHARD G. SCHOTT, J.D.
The law enforcement
profession comes with
many risks, most of
which are knowingly accepted
by its members. As in many
other occupations, lesser known,
more subtle risks also
are inherent in law enforcement.
When officers are involved in a
physical struggle or violent confrontation,
they run the risk of
sustaining injury or even death
to accomplish their law enforcement
mission. They may be
called upon to meet force with
force, sometimes having to use
deadly force. All uses of force
by law enforcement are subject
to review; none subject to more
scrutiny than the use of deadly
force. Officers can quickly
become familiar with internal
review boards, citizen review
boards, presentations of cases to
local grand juries to determine
whether state criminal charges
are appropriate,1 and civil lawsuits
brought in state courts by
alleged victims against individual
officers (or their employing
agency) that allege wrongdoing
on the part of the officer
(or entity).2 Under federal law,
there are two additional and
distinct causes of action that
officers may find themselves
encountering —a civil civil
rights lawsuit3 and a criminal
civil rights prosecution.4 Familiarity
with these federal actions
will help officers navigate
the potential minefield of
consequences that may result
from one single action.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 09:30:40 PM
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2002-pdfs/june02leb.pdf

The Supreme Court has subsequently
held that a police officer
can be threatened with job loss for
failure to answer questions or otherwise
cooperate with investigators.
However, any answers given under
such circumstances cannot be used
against the officer in a criminal
trial.4 This ruling has led to the creation
of the so-called “Garrity
warning” used in internal investigations.
This warning, in various
forms, advises law enforcement
employees that they must answer
questions posed by investigators or
face the possibility of administrative
sanction, including job loss.
The warning also advises that answers
provided by the employees
cannot be used against them in a
criminal proceeding. In cases where
criminal prosecution against law
enforcement employees is contemplated,
the employees are advised
that they do not have to answer
questions but that any answers can
be used against the employee in a
criminal proceeding.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 09, 2010, 09:58:12 PM
http://apbweb.com/featured-articles/202-police-force-in-living-color.html

Use of force by police in this country for the past 17 years has been judged by Graham v. Connor [490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989)]. Very few citizens have had the opportunity to sit in judgment, whether criminal or civil, in police use of force cases. There aren't that many criminal cases brought (cops, after all, are the only ones that society gives authority to use force proactively), and the civil suits are most often settled or dismissed before trial.

When there is a trial, what jurors wrestle with are the requirements set forth by the Graham case. When police must use force, the Court says, the force must be "objectively reasonable" with respect to the facts and circumstances the officer is facing, and without 20/20 hindsight.

The court decided that, "The ‘reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation." Also what must be considered are the severity of the crime, the immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, whether the suspect is resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

The list of facts to be considered is lengthy, but its highlights include: the number of suspects and officers involved; the size, age and condition of the suspect; the known or perceived fighting ability of the suspect; the duration of the action; the experience level of the officers; the distance from the officers to the suspect; and the weapons (including the officers weapons) in the immediate vicinity of the suspect.

Law enforcement officers are unique in society because they are permitted by law to use physical force to compel others to do their bidding. Officers intervene in a variety of urgent, unpredictable situations, and their mission is to keep the peace or to restore it. This awesome power must be wielded sparingly in a democratic society. The public rightly holds public administrators, including police officials, responsive to public preferences and demands. When officers use force they must do so to control a situation, not to punish an offender.

Use of force by police naturally upsets onlookers across the street as well as viewers of the six o'clock news. Conditioned by fictional media depictions of sanitized violence on one hand and fantastic "megaviolence" on the other, most people have no frame of reference other than personal emotions to evaluate an incident. The average viewer has little or no experience with real violence and the chaos that typically surrounds it.

People tend not to understand even legitimate use-of-force incident dynamics; people are repulsed when they see force applied to a fellow human being. But force is used in relatively small percentages of police confrontations, and people should not be surprised or offended that police must occasionally use force.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on December 10, 2010, 07:26:02 AM
"In an internal investigation, there is no right to remain silent and no right to an attorney."

Which makes sense to me.

:?

Perhaps it "makes sense" but it is not true.  A Police Officer DOES have the absolute right to remain silent AND demand
an attorney.  He has the SAME constitutional rights that you and I do working for our private employer.  Frankly, the police officer has
MORE rights and protection!

Let's say you work for IBM in LA.  Let's say that their internal audit department thinks you have been
stealing and they want to interview you.  You are ordered to appear; you have the the choice to attend and answer their questions
honestly and forthrightly without and attorney present or refuse.  Hopefully, since you are honest person you will attend and that will be the
end of that.  But maybe you did do something wrong?  Or maybe you don't like how the flow is going?
At all times you have the absolute right to remain silent and ask for an attorney, to leave the building and the 5th
amendment right to refuse to answer any further questions.  However, if you do, IBM may threaten you with
job loss and subsequently will probably terminate your employment.  That makes sense to me.

As a police officer anywhere in America you have the same constitutional rights; you have the absolute right to remain
silent and demand an attorney in an internal investigation.

Garrity, as GM posted above never stated that a police officer cannot refuse to answer questions or demand an attorney.
It only advises law enforcement employees that they must answer questions posed by investigators or face the possibility of administrative
sanction, including job loss.  The exact same situation as our fictitious IBM employee who will probably face sanctions or lose his job if he
refuses to answer questions.  However if there is any concern of criminal culpability the police officer may at any time constitutionally
refuse to answer questions and demand and attorney.

In fact, to facilitate compliance, Garrity protects and gives rights/benefits to police officers MORE than the common citizen.  In my analogy above,
if after the IBM internal audit interview it was determined by the IBM internal audit investigator that you had committed a crime, your
testimony and comments to audit WOULD be discoverable and could be admitted at trial whether you chose to testify or not.  A thorough internal
investigation could be damning but Garrity uniquely PROTECTS police officer from their testimony and comments being discoverable. 
"The warning also advises that answers provided by the employees cannot be used against them in a criminal proceeding"





Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 10, 2010, 08:24:34 AM
Garrity and other caselaw says there has to be a wall between an IA (administrative investigation) and a criminal investigation. The administrative investigation does not allow for you to seek legal council or refuse to answer questions, unless there is a prior agreement between the employing entity and a union, which does not apply in most law enforcement jobs across the country. In my neck of the woods, the unions have no legal standing, you have no right to a lawyer or union rep in any investigative questioning for an IA.

As I said before, the "wall" between the IA and any criminal investigation can be breached if in going to trial, the accused officer wishes to testify in her/her defense.

How is this different from the IBM scenario? The bosses at IBM don't have powers of arrest.  As I'm sure you know, JDN, companies sometimes eat losses from internal theft rather than have bad press from a criminal trial.

Not only does an officer face jeopardy from an IA, state level criminal charges and potential state level civil litigation, but federal actions, both civil and criminal

The LAPD officers in the Rodney King case were cleared internally, then aquitted on the state charges, then after the riots, convicted on the federal civil rights violation charges. Nobody at IBM faces anything like that.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 10, 2010, 09:18:07 AM
http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/1747434-P1-Exclusive-Infamous-killer-cops-case-has-lessons-for-the-street-today/

Things people at IBM don't have to worry about.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on December 10, 2010, 09:51:07 AM
Private employees too can be and often are sued in civil court (and probably will have to pay out of their own pocket versus public funds)
as well as being exposed to criminal charges for their actions.  And private citizens do not have the protection of Garrity.  Also, private citizen/employees
are subject to both State and Federal charges and penalties.

GM, that being said, it is not my intent to second guess or criticize after the fact police officer's decisions in the field.  I and I think everyone
agrees it is a very stressful and difficult job.


The two leading Supreme Court decisions that apply to IA interviews of public
employees are Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) and NLRB v. Weingarten (1975).

Police officers who are interviewed in a disciplinary setting should be warned that they
are under investigation for violation of departmental rules, that they are obligated to give
statements for internal purposes, and their answers may not be used against them in a
criminal proceeding. (added by me; private employees do NOT have this protection.)

Absent a statute on point, a warning is technically unnecessary unless the employee
declines to answer a question. However, state Bill of Rights laws, where applicable,
might require a written warning. For example, 50 Illinois Compiled Statutes 725/3.8(a)
reads:
“No officer shall be interrogated without first being advised in writing that
admissions made in the course of the interrogation may be used as evidence of
misconduct or as the basis for charges seeking suspension, removal, or discharge;
and without first being advised in writing that he or she has the right to counsel of
his or her choosing who may be present to advise him or her at any stage of any
interrogation.”


Constitutionally, the warning is essential before any disciplinary action can be taken for a
refusal to cooperate in the interview. Lybarger v. Los Angeles (1985).


Reciting a disciplinary warning is also a good practice, because it clarifies the purpose of
the interview and delineates rights and responsibilities. A typical “Garrity Warning”
follows:
Employee Disciplinary Interview – Advice of Rights
“You are being questioned as part of an administrative investigation of the Police
Department. You will be asked questions that are specifically directed and
narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office.
You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the
constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States, including the
right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. You also have the have right to
an attorney of your choice, to be present during questioning.

“If you refuse to answer questions relating to the performance of your official
duties or fitness for duty, you will be subject to disciplinary charges which would
result in your dismissal from the Police Department. (note added by me; again it
is the same as private industry; the employee may be terminated for non compliance.)

“If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence which
is gained by reason of such statements can be used against you in any subsequent
criminal proceeding. (note added by me; in the case of a private employee to his disadvantage, 
such statements and information or evidence which is gained can and probably will be used against you
in any subsequent criminal proceeding
.) However, these statements may be used against you in
relation to subsequent departmental charges.” 
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 10, 2010, 10:49:39 AM

Private employees too can be and often are sued in civil court (and probably will have to pay out of their own pocket versus public funds)

**Private employees do NOT face federal and civil liability in addition to state criminal and civil liability for a single act. In addition, any monetary penalty for a civil rights violation lawsuit CANNOT avoided through bankruptcy. Any lawsuit against an officer as an individual is not covered by one's employer. An officer only has protection if the act was in good faith and within the scope of his/her employment. If you step outside laws, policies and ethical behavior, there is no protection against personal liability. Most litigation is focused on the employing agency, as that's where the deep pockets are.**

as well as being exposed to criminal charges for their actions.  And private citizens do not have the protection of Garrity.  Also, private citizen/employees
are subject to both State and Federal charges and penalties.

**Where would a private citizen face both civil and criminal charges at the state and federal levels for a single act? Example please.**


GM, that being said, it is not my intent to second guess or criticize after the fact police officer's decisions in the field.  I and I think everyone
agrees it is a very stressful and difficult job.


The two leading Supreme Court decisions that apply to IA interviews of public
employees are Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) and NLRB v. Weingarten (1975).

Police officers who are interviewed in a disciplinary setting should be warned that they
are under investigation for violation of departmental rules, that they are obligated to give
statements for internal purposes, and their answers may not be used against them in a
criminal proceeding. (added by me; private employees do NOT have this protection.)

**Do you think that a private employer could interview an employee with a LEO present and have any statement made by the suspect under the duress presented by the employer admitted into a criminal trial? I'd tend to think not. Can you cite a case where that was allowed?**


Absent a statute on point, a warning is technically unnecessary unless the employee
declines to answer a question. However, state Bill of Rights laws, where applicable,
might require a written warning. For example, 50 Illinois Compiled Statutes 725/3.8(a)
reads:
“No officer shall be interrogated without first being advised in writing that
admissions made in the course of the interrogation may be used as evidence of
misconduct or as the basis for charges seeking suspension, removal, or discharge;
and without first being advised in writing that he or she has the right to counsel of
his or her choosing who may be present to advise him or her at any stage of any
interrogation.”


Constitutionally, the warning is essential before any disciplinary action can be taken for a
refusal to cooperate in the interview. Lybarger v. Los Angeles (1985).


Reciting a disciplinary warning is also a good practice, because it clarifies the purpose of
the interview and delineates rights and responsibilities. A typical “Garrity Warning”
follows:
Employee Disciplinary Interview – Advice of Rights
“You are being questioned as part of an administrative investigation of the Police
Department. You will be asked questions that are specifically directed and
narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office.
You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the
constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States, including the
right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. You also have the have right to
an attorney of your choice, to be present during questioning.

“If you refuse to answer questions relating to the performance of your official
duties or fitness for duty, you will be subject to disciplinary charges which would
result in your dismissal from the Police Department. (note added by me; again it
is the same as private industry; the employee may be terminated for non compliance.)

“If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence which
is gained by reason of such statements can be used against you in any subsequent
criminal proceeding. (note added by me; in the case of a private employee to his disadvantage, 
such statements and information or evidence which is gained can and probably will be used against you
in any subsequent criminal proceeding
.) However, these statements may be used against you in
relation to subsequent departmental charges.” 
Title: Pulled over by the police last night
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 20, 2010, 10:55:21 AM
Woof All:

Coming home from Pappy Dog's 40th birthday party last night I was pulled over by the police for speeding on a big, wide open boulevard in a low populations density area.  It was raining heavily.  The flashing lights went on as I entered a busy intersection. 

I finished crossing the intersection and pulled into the very empty parking lot of a Del Taco and parked.  The officer parked behind me so I had no exit.  I rolled down my window and stuck out both my hands as he approached.  "Why were you doing 55 on a rainy night?" he asked.  Not wanting to contradict him, yet not wanting to admit to my speed I said "55?  It did not seem like that."

"Why were you driving so fast?"
"I grew up in NYC."
"Have you been drinking?"
"Not at all."  At this point I vigorously exhaled in his face to show my confidence that my breath was non-alcholic.  :lol:
"Where are you coming from?"
"A party."
"Were you drinking there?"
"No sir.  I don't drink at all."
Then he did a "Watch my finger" test which apparently I passed.
"Alright then.  Slow down your driving."
"Thank you sir."
And that was it.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 20, 2010, 11:12:24 AM
Horizontal gaze nystagmus. It's an involuntary "bouncing" of the eyes as they move on a horizontal plane. Often caused by alcohol consumption. That's the "finger" test.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 20, 2010, 11:54:46 AM
Stopping in a well lit parking lot is good. Turning on your dome light is also good. As Crafty did, keeping hands visible is very good, though just keeping them visible on the steering wheel is fine.

Don't frantically dig for your documents. The officer can't tell if you are digging for a weapon or trying to stash something you shouldn't have. The less stressful you make the stop for the officer, the better your chances for avoiding a summons.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 20, 2010, 02:07:20 PM
Dome light?  Good idea.

"Horizontal gaze nystagmus": another fascinating datum to add to my repertoire :-)
Title: Interesting discussion
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2010, 07:16:09 AM


http://www.aele.org/law/2011all01/2011-01MLJ101.pdf
Title: Re: Interesting discussion
Post by: G M on December 30, 2010, 10:15:01 AM


http://www.aele.org/law/2011all01/2011-01MLJ101.pdf

I'm reminded of good advice from my police academy "The black robe that covers the judge's ass can cover yours". Meaning, if possible, always get a warrant first. Then you are protected from liability, having acted in good faith.
Title: Video - Young Guy Giving Cop Finger
Post by: Spartan Dog on January 02, 2011, 02:07:20 AM
Posted on behalf of Crafty Dog...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je126Nf3ZHs[/youtube]
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on January 02, 2011, 02:19:21 PM
Anyone know the backstory here? Is this real?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on January 02, 2011, 02:27:19 PM
As I go through this frame by frame, I'm thinking B.S.
Title: A dose of reality
Post by: G M on January 02, 2011, 02:57:19 PM
(http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/wabc/cms_exf_2007/news/national_world/7875821_448x252.jpg)

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=7875818

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Scurvy Dog on January 02, 2011, 07:10:15 PM
RIP
 :-(
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: The Tao on January 11, 2011, 01:51:38 PM
I just had my head pulled out in a major way by a friend of mine that is a cop. He had made a point that I couldn’t refute.
People judge me all of the time because I look a certain way, with my tattoos and my past, and I take such great issue with it because I have had to fight so hard to escape that and leave it behind, and then...I so easily judge every man that wears a badge by the same standards that I hate so much when used against me.

I don’t even know what to say, I am so wrong. I don’t know how to respond to this. It never even occurred to me, and I think that I am so smart. I know so little.

More than that, it doesn’t matter if they (or you) judge me, treat me badly, or are wholly unfair to me. What matters is my behavior, how I conduct myself. It is my failure that brings me shame.

If I have offended you (and I know that I have some), I apologize sincerely. That is the best that I can do.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on January 24, 2011, 01:39:42 PM
A difficult job.  And this is a difficult time.  We should all say a prayer of gratitude to the Men in Blue and their families.....



As police in Florida prepared for the funeral of two Miami-Dade County police officers gunned down in the line of duty, shots rang out Monday in St. Petersburg, on the other side of the state. Two other officers fell dead and a federal marshal was wounded. Follow updates on CNN and affiliate WFTS-TV.

On any given day, such violence against police officers would be disturbing. But the fatalities capped a particularly violent 24 hours in the United States for the men and women in blue. Eleven police officers were shot.

“It is a very disturbing trend for all of us,” said Hal Johnson, general counsel for the Florida Police Benevolent Association. “Florida has never seen a streak like this. I don’t think anybody has.”

It is natural to search for answers, Johnson said, even if there aren’t any. The shootings do not appear to be related, and the motives may never be known. Declaring it to be open season against police officers seems dangerously simplistic, he added.

He sees the shootings more as acts of desperation.

“They are shooting at people they know have guns,” Johnson said. “I don’t know what’s going on out there, but I’ve never seen it like this. I do see the developing of a callousness. It’s almost as if shooting a police officer has lost its shock effect.”

Consider:

– On Sunday, four officers were shot in a Detroit police station by a man who walked in, firing randomly. Lamar Deshea Moore was shot to death by police so his motive may never be known, but local reports say a relative was awaiting sentencing for double murder. Two of the police officers remain hospitalized. For more, read CNN’s update and affiliate reports from the scene: WXYZ-TV and WDIV-TV.


Two deputies were shot outside a Walmart in Port Orchard, Washington, near Seattle, on Sunday. Check out
CNN,  KIRO-TV and KOMO-TV for the latest updates.


– A police officer is in a coma and in critical condition after being shot during a traffic stop early Sunday in Indianapolis. Check out WTHR-TV and WISH-TV for updates.

– In Lincoln City, Oregon, a police officer was shot Sunday night during a traffic stop. The officer is in critical condition. Check out affiliate KOIN-TV for more information.

Although they do not appear to be related, the weekend shootings follow two other violent incidents last week involving police officers, including the Miami killings and a slaying in Lakewood, New Jersey.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on January 24, 2011, 01:49:32 PM
Don't forget the women in blue.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on January 24, 2011, 01:52:56 PM
I don't; it was meant gender neutral.  But you are right; the women in blue as well as the men put their life on the line for us.
I am grateful for their service...
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on January 24, 2011, 02:03:56 PM
Not trying to be PC, but as my wife got hired recently to work as a police officer and is now in a stress academy, I'm even more aware of the prices paid.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 24, 2011, 08:48:04 PM
Either we need to go back to the old days where "men" meant "men" or "men and women" or we need some new fg pronouns to avoid the tediousness of "his or her" e.g. the Chinese third person singular pronoun is "ta" and simply means "he" or "she" without specifying which.

The irritation for me for example is that a phrase such as "our fighting men and women" gives equal billing as if women were equal in numbers and danger, whereas "our fighting men" can be seen as excluding those women who do serve in harm's way, albeit not in tip of the spear combat units.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on January 25, 2011, 05:01:27 AM
In the case of the military, "the troops" covers both genders and all branches, for law enforcement, "Law Enforcement Officers" covers everyone.
Title: A sad howl
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 27, 2011, 08:57:43 PM
A sad howl of love, respect, and gratitude for all the officers who have fallen in the last few days.  What is the number?  11 in 5 states?   :cry: :cry: :cry:
Title: AELE
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 01, 2011, 07:51:15 AM
You can view this bulletin in color, with live links, at http://www.aele.org/alert-email.html

You are welcome to forward this information; please encourage your colleagues to sign up for periodic mailings at http://www.aele.org/e-signup.html  We don't insert commercial messages or sell your e-addresses.

AELE is a unique resource, with free publications and online back issues since 2000. AELE has a searchable library of more than 30,000 case digests organized into 700 + indexed topics. There are no advertisements, tracking "cookies" or popups on our website. Users do not have to preregister and there is no time limit on research sessions. Contents of our online law library may be copied & pasted, saved or printed (except for commercial purposes).

1. The March 2011 issue of the AELE Monthly Law Journal is online, with four new articles.

Persons interested in contributing an article should contact AELE. Lawyers: Some states will credit law articles as MCLE hours, and the hours also may be counted as pro bono activity. (AELE is a Sec. 501C3 tax-exempt educational organization).

* No-Knock Home Searches

The U.S. Supreme Court mandates a case-by-case review to determine when there is a reasonable suspicion that there are exigent circumstances present justifying a no-knock entry. View at http://www.aele.org/law/2011-03MLJ101.html

* Rights of Nursing Public Employees

Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which provides statutory protection for women in the workplace who wish to express breast milk. Twenty-four states also have enacted legislation.
View at http://www.aele.org/law/2011-03MLJ201.html

* Avoiding Liability for Antibiotic Resistant Infections in Prisoners

Those at heightened risk for MRSA infection include persons with weak immune systems, such as persons with HIV/AIDS or cancer, diabetics, IV drug users, and those living in confined spaces with others, including prisoners.
View at http://www.aele.org/law/2011-03MLJ301.html

* No Warrant Needed to Search a Cell Phone Found on an Arrestee

The article, written by Martin Mayer and Chris Neumeyer, focuses on an important California decision.

View at http://www.aele.org/law/2011-03MLJ401.html

2. The March 2011 issues of AELE's three periodicals have been uploaded.

The current issues, back issues since 2000, three 35-year case digests, and a search engine are FREE. Everyone is welcome to read, print or download AELE publications without charge. The main menu is at: http://www.aele.org/law

Among the 75 new cases, summarized under more than 50 different topics, are several that warrant mention here.

*** Law Enforcement Liability Reporter ***

* False Arrest/Imprisonment

An African-American electric meter reader was charged with obstructing an officer. She was using binoculars to see if house gates were open so she could read meters, or whether dogs were in a yard, etc.

The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, as they could not identify any single circumstance about her actions that could have supported a reasonable belief that she was engaged in a criminal activity. Jones v. Clark, #09-3574, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 707 (7th Cir.).

View at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1552591.html

*** Fire, Police & Corrections Personnel Reporter ***

* E-Mail/Internet

Seventh Circuit affirms the conviction of an IRS officer for wiretapping. He secretly arranged to have his supervisor's e-mails forwarded to him. The Wiretap Act's definition of "interception" comprises packet-switch technology as well as circuit-switch technology. U.S. v. Szymuszkiewicz, #10-1347, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 18815 (7th Cir.).

View at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1537734.html

* Vehicle Related

An Illinois public employer's policy that its employees must reimburse fines paid by the employer due to red light camera violations is a disciplinary penalty "because it imposes a monetary sanction on the employee." In dismissing a lawsuit brought by a union, an appellate court panel concludes that the grievance mechanism provided in the bargaining agreement is the sole remedy of a public employee. Amalgamated Transit Workers Union v. Pace, #1-10-0631, 2011 Ill. App. Lexis 5.

View at http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2011/1stDistrict/January/1100631.pdf

*** Jail and Prisoner Law Bulletin ***

* Work Program

A prisoner's claim that he was compelled to work outdoors uprooting tree stumps in freezing cold weather without safety instructions, protective gear, or gloves was sufficient to state a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Smith v. Peters, #10-1013, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 955 (7th Cir.).

View at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1552840.html     

AELE has a free search tool covering our database of more than 30,000 case summaries, since 1975.
http://www.aele.org/htdig/common/search.html

We also have three menus of the more than 30,000 case summaries, divided into 700 + topics.

1. Law enforcement civil liability at http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/civilmenu.html
2. Employment law and discipline at http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/emplmenu.html
3. Jail and prisoner legal issues at http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/jailmenu.html
Title: Mass murder stopped by killing man?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 03, 2011, 12:37:51 PM
By FRANK ELTMAN
Associated Press

http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/NY-Police--Gunman-Had-Planned-Mass-Murder/1$57108
GARDEN CITY, N.Y. --

A heavily armed man who crashed his pickup truck, then shot an EMT responding to the accident before being killed by police appeared to be on his way to carry out a mass killing, police said Wednesday.

The man, who was not identified by police, had a rifle strapped to his chest, and extra ammunition inserted in elongated wristbands on his arms, Nassau County Police Commissioner Lawrence Mulvey told reporters. He had six weapons in his possession, including a Tec-9 automatic pistol.

"It is clear to us that this man was out to commit mayhem in this county," Mulvey said of the suspect, whom he described as about 31. Police believe he moved to Long Island from Florida in the past year. The Ford pickup truck he was driving had Florida license plates.

"There may have been some turmoil in his personal life," Mulvey said, but he would not elaborate. The suspect had an arrest record for petty larceny, but there were no arrests for any violence, police said.

The EMT, identified as 20-year-old Justin Angell of Bellmore, was in stable condition at Nassau University Medical Center. He posted a message on his Facebook page saying he was getting better.

"To everyone ... thank u so much for the calls concerns and visits ... just got up and walked a bit," said part of the message.

Shooting erupted at about 10 p.m. Tuesday in Bellmore after the man hit a utility pole with his truck. When the volunteer ambulance crew arrived, he fired at least eight shots at them from an assault rifle, wounding Angell.

Police responding to the crash then shot the man when he threatened them; the rifle the gunman was carrying had a laser scope and two officers realized they were being targeted. Mulvey said the fatal shot came from a third officer with the K-9 unit, who believed he was assisting with the car crash.

"None of us expect when they come upon the scene of an accident to be fired on," Mulvey said.

It was not clear whom the gunman may have been targeting, but Mulvey was convinced had the crash not occurred, a mass shooting was imminent.

"He has strapped to his chest a firearm with a scope. He has in his lap a long barreled revolver, and in his pocket a semiautomatic pistol," Mulvey said. "He's utilizing an assault weapon with a laser scope and there's a Tec-9 behind the passenger seat within easy arm reach of his hand, and another weapon in the car.

"It all evokes to me evidence that had he not been stopped by police, there very well could have been mayhem committed in this community."

Nassau County, located just east of New York City, is often considered America's first suburb. About 1.5 million people live in the county, which has been described as one of the wealthiest in the U.S.

Title: Kalamazoo MI
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2011, 02:42:16 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfXGvXW2NSY

Tough place to be a cop alone , , ,  :-o
Title: Cop Killer captured
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 06, 2011, 10:07:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZfHZtI_dls&feature=player_embedded
Title: Indiana: No right to resist illegal police entry
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 15, 2011, 07:16:33 AM


http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
Story Discussion By Dan Carden dan.carden@nwi.com, (317) 637-9078 | Posted: Friday, May 13, 2011 3:56 pm | (239) Comments

PDF: Supreme Court ruling in Barnes v. State

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.


Copyright 2011 nwitimes.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on May 15, 2011, 07:44:08 AM
A reasonable ruling from the court.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on May 15, 2011, 08:28:50 AM
Hmmm I don't claim to be the legal scholar here, but the phrase

"incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence"

bothers me.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 15, 2011, 08:42:17 AM
No surprise that GM would see this as he does  :-D

As best as I can tell with the facts here (domestic dispute, only husband spoke up that all was alright) a good case can be made for legal entry, so the court's apparent holding seems unnecessary and perhaps overbroad.

Readily granted, the exercise of this right presents profound risks and serious problems in the real world.

That said, on the whole, there have gotten to be a rather extraordinary amount of people's home being forcefully entered by the police in our society, often by no-knock warrants, SWAT teams and so forth.  There were and are good reasons for the Common Law being as it has been for 900 years.  The theoretical remedy proferred seems , , , theoretical indeed and rather contrary to the spirit of a free people.

Perhaps we can begin the conversation by asking if there is a right to self-defense when being assaulted by a policeman?  GM?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on May 15, 2011, 10:03:53 AM
Do you want theory or pragmatic answers here? In theory, there is the right to self defense in most places. In reality, do you think that violent resistance will turn out well in that scenario? Were I the victim of police misconduct, I'd document everything, file IA complaints, file a civil rights complaint with the USDOJ and retain a lawyer who specializes in tort claims against law enforcement.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 15, 2011, 10:20:04 AM
Yes.

Of course the practical course of action will often be exactly as you describe, but the conceptual foundations must be those of a free people.  So, the question remains:  Do you recognize the RIGHT to self-defense against authority?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on May 15, 2011, 10:22:21 AM
Are we talking "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising" scenario or America in 2011?
Title: Internal PD discipline
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 27, 2011, 11:48:10 AM


http://www.officer.com/news/10277334/nypd-fires-cops-cleared-of-rape-charges
Title: NYTimes: Fake police
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 29, 2011, 07:47:22 AM
In Florida, Criminals Pose as Police More Frequently and for More Violent Ends
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
 
MIAMI — A black BMW flashing red and blue lights suddenly filled Alexandria Armeley’s rearview mirror one evening last month. At a stoplight, the BMW’s driver pulled up next to her, waved a gold badge and told her “I’m a cop.”

 
But Ms. Armeley was suspicious. Before she pulled over, she called her stepfather, Alex Hernandez, a police detective in Biscayne Park, Fla., who warned her that the man was probably not a police officer. Speed away, he told her.

A terrified Ms. Armeley took off and was chased by the BMW for several miles through southern Miami-Dade County. Detective Hernandez had jumped in his car to help and eventually caught up to them.

So the real officer arrested the fake officer, whose name is Daniel A. Barros. Asked why he had tried to pull over Ms. Armeley, a 23-year-old college student, Mr. Barros, 22, told officers, “She was speeding.”

The BMW 7 Series car, outfitted with police lights and a siren, was “lit up like a Christmas tree,” Detective Hernandez recalled about the midnight encounter. “There are a lot of guys walking around with phony badges, but this guy had the whole works. Who knows what he would have done if he had gotten my stepdaughter to stop?”

Mr. Barros is facing several charges in the case, including impersonating an officer.

As long as police officers have worn uniforms and carried badges, criminals have dressed like them to try to win the trust of potential victims. Now the impersonators are far more sophisticated, according to nearly a dozen city police chiefs and detectives across the country.

In South Florida, seemingly an incubator of law-breaking innovation, police impersonators have become better organized and, most troubling to law enforcement officials, more violent. The practice is so common that the Miami-Dade Police Department has a Police Impersonator Unit.

Since the unit was established in 2007, it has arrested or had encounters with more than 80 phony officers in Miami-Dade County, and the frequency has increased in recent months, said Lt. Daniel Villanueva, who heads the unit.

“It’s definitely a trend,” Lieutenant Villanueva said. “They use the guise of being a police officer to knock on a door, and the victim lowers their guard for just a second. At that point, it’s too late.”

He added that part of the problem was that it was easy for civilians to buy “police products,” like fake badges, handcuffs and uniforms. “The states need to lock this down and make impersonating a police officer a more serious crime because we’re seeing more people using these types of these things to commit more serious crimes,” he said.

Detective Javier J. Baez of the Miami-Dade Police Department said, “These types of crimes here in Miami typically have a nexus to drugs.”

Increasingly, fake police officers are pulling off crimes together, the authorities say.

One evening three weeks ago, three men in police uniforms knocked on the door of a home in southwest Miami-Dade County.

When the home’s owner, Jose Montoya, opened the door, the men barged in and yelled, “Police, police! Get down, get down!” The men tied up Mr. Montoya, his wife and their toddler and then spent hours ransacking the house, the authorities said. They beat up Mr. Montoya, who was treated at a nearby hospital, and stole cash, jewelry and several weapons, the police said.

Before leaving, the robbers warned Mr. Montoya and his family not to call the police, the authorities said, or they would return and kill them.

Some police impersonators commit violent crimes like home invasions, car-jackings, rapes and, rarely, murders.

Last summer, a Tampa man impersonating an undercover officer used a badge and a siren to pull over a 28-year-old woman and rape her. In January, the man, Luis Harris, 31, was convicted of sexual battery, grand theft, kidnapping and impersonating a police officer, among other charges. A judge sentenced Mr. Harris to life in prison

==============

Page 2 of 2)



Other police impersonators, police chiefs and detectives say, masquerade as officers for more benign reasons, like trying to scare or impress someone. “Usually,” Detective Baez said, “the wannabe cop outfits their vehicles with police lights and fake insignias to fulfill some psychological need.”

This happened in Chicago when a 14-year-old boy named Vincent Richardson donned police garb and walked into the Third District precinct during morning roll call in January 2009. Officers handed him a radio and told him to ride along with a female officer. The teenager even helped make an arrest.

“After four or five hours, she asks, ‘Who is this guy?’ ” recalled Jody P. Weis, who was the Chicago police superintendent at the time. “He’s in a uniform, he has a goofy badge, he doesn’t have a weapon and he’s a high school kid. It was so embarrassing.” (The embarrassment did not end there for Mr. Weis, who said he had recommended against punishing the teenager in juvenile court because no harm had been done. Three months later, the boy was arrested and charged with stealing a car. Last week, he was arrested on several weapons charges.)

Impersonating an officer is a misdemeanor in some states, though it is a felony in Florida. The charge’s severity, and punishment, increases if a criminal charged with posing as a police officer commits a felony. Several chiefs and detectives say the crime is not taken seriously enough by the justice system and the public. Often, the crime goes unreported, the police say.

“Unfortunately, there is not a lot of downside for a criminal to impersonate a police officer,” said Commissioner Edward Davis of the Boston Police Department. “You can charge them with impersonating a police officer, but that’s not a very serious crime. The way the law views this crime, it’s as an innocent or silly prank. But it has become a much more serious crime than it is perceived by the public.”

Detective Hernandez, of Biscayne Park, Fla., said: “People minimize it. They just let it go. They won’t think about how dangerous this potentially can be. They just don’t see it.”

Some law enforcement officials said the public did not take these types of episodes seriously because of the types of cases often highlighted by the news media. People charged with impersonating police officers are often portrayed as befuddled, hapless and harmless.

In March, a motocross champion was arrested in Orlando, Fla., and charged with impersonating a police officer. The man, James Stewart Jr., 25, tried to stop another car using red and blue lights, the Florida Highway Patrol said. The car that he tried to stop contained two off-duty troopers.

Last October in Boca Raton, Fla., Andrew Novotak, in his white Crown Victoria with flashing green lights, pulled over motorists and quizzed them about whether they had been drinking alcohol, the police said.

When the police questioned him, Mr. Novotak was wearing a police badge and carrying a loaded gun. He also had a German shepherd in his back seat, which he insisted was a police-trained dog. After arresting him, officers said they smelled alcohol on his breath. He was charged with impersonating an officer and driving under the influence.
Title: Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles
Post by: G M on June 27, 2011, 11:05:05 AM
Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
 
Title: Filming the Police
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 31, 2011, 08:51:25 PM
Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir.)

http://volokh.com/2011/08/29/first-a...ers-in-public/


Quote:
Originally Posted by from the decision:
To be sure, the right to film is not without limitations. It may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. We have no occasion to explore those limitations here, however. On the facts alleged in the complaint, Glik’s exercise of his First Amendment rights fell well within the bounds of the Constitution’s protections. Glik filmed the defendant police officers in the Boston Common, the oldest city park in the United States and the apotheosis of a public forum. In such traditional public spaces, the rights of the state to limit the exercise of First Amendment activity are “sharply circumscribed.” Moreover, ... the complaint indicates that Glik “filmed [the officers] from a comfortable remove” and “neither spoke to nor molested them in any way” (except in directly responding to the officers when they addressed him). Such peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers’ performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation.

Title: Citizen-Police interactions and bestiality
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 02, 2011, 07:44:09 PM


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/08/31/tsr.moos.cop.car.sex.pkg.cnn?hpt=hp_t2
Title: NYPD cop kills ex-pro wrestler
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 09, 2011, 12:24:51 PM
NYPD Cop Kills Ex-Pro Wrestler Who Had Him in Chokehold

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_c...cops_dies.html

More in the story, but this stood out;


Quote:
A former pro wrestler shot by a Manhattan narcotics cop has died, police said.

John Collado, 43, who police say had a plainclothes detective in a chokehold, was shot on Post Ave. in Inwood about 5 p.m. Tuesday. Collado died 12 hours later at Harlem Hospital.

A police source said Collado lifted the cop more than a foot off the ground, but was still able to grab a gun and fire backwards into Collado's lower chest.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_c...#ixzz1XNteeAEb 
Title: Mumia Abu-Jamal off death row?
Post by: bigdog on October 11, 2011, 04:28:08 PM
Not sure this is an "interaction," per se

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/11/justice/scotus-officer-killing/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Title: Just a reminder.....
Post by: G M on October 31, 2011, 02:09:54 PM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
Title: jury duty
Post by: Stickgrappler on November 03, 2011, 10:20:09 PM
Woof all:

*bows deeply*

Not sure where to post this, figured this is the most appropriate thread.

This week I was summoned for Jury Duty in NYC. IIRC it used to be you get summoned every 6 yrs, but they changed it to 4 yrs and many previous exemptions are now not exempt (which includes clergy, LEO's, lawyers, judges, etc). 4 yrs ago, I was summoned, got on one panel, but before the lawyers went through the process of picking jurors, we were told the parties settled. We were sent back to the Juror Pool. Was not called the next 2 days, was dismissed and informed I had served my Jury Duty.

Many coworkers told me to try to get out of it by indicating I would not be a good juror. I just told the truth in answering the lawyers' questions during (if I have this French term correct) voir dire. I figured if they don't want me, at least my conscience is clear, I didn't shirk my civic duty by lying.

Anyway, some observations:

1) Courthouse opens at 9am. There was a long line waiting to get in. Although there were 4 or 5 metal detectors, the Court Officers used 2. Anyone on line outside that had a visible disability such as walking with a cane, or in a wheelchair, were allowed in without waiting.


2) I have an official Dog Brothers Keychain. The first day, perhaps it was hectic in the morning, I was allowed to keep it. When I came back from lunch, one of the officers noticed it was a Kubotan and held onto it. I was given a receipt and told to pick it up before I left for the day. I'm thinking the officers confiscated the keychain, and yet, jurors were allowed in with canes! Truly an example of the Walking Cane being the last of the legal self-defense implements. Wonder if I showed up with a Cold Steel City Stick and effected a limp... would the cane be held? LOL

The second day in the morning, the officer looked at the keychain and asked me, "Do you know what this is?"... I replied, "It's a keychain." He retorted, "It's a kubotan." He asked his supervisor "Should we let him keep it? If he has one, he must know how to use it." I said, "Huh? It's a keychain, it was a gift." Supervisor gave me a receipt for it.


3) The case I ended up getting picked for happened in May of 2004... ~7.5 yrs later, case finally makes it to court. Wow, Justice system is slooow. LOL This was a Civil court, not a Criminal Court. The plaintiff was suing the City of NY as well as the officer for injuries, alleging, the officer used excessive force and caused damage to his neck and other parts of the body. In the back of my mind, how is it not a conflict of interest as I'm a NYC taxpayer, I'm thinking if I find for the Plaintiff, I end up paying him. I was the first juror picked on the first day (this Monday 10/31). It took the lawyers all of the 2nd day to pick 7 more jurors (6 jurors and 2 alternates for a civil case). We were told to come back in 2 days at 10am which was today.

We waited for about 90 mins before a court officer escorted us to the court we were assigned to. We waited almost an hour before the court officer came back informing us that the lawyers didn't finish setting up. We could break for lunch, come back at 2pm. Also, as luck would have it, there was a fire drill scheduled for today. We get sworn in, sitting in the jury box, the judge gives us instructions and sure enough the fire alarm went off. This was 2:15.

We go downstairs and about 15 mins waiting time, we went back upstairs. The judge finishes his instructions. He informed us they will take a recess. We go back into the waiting room for jurors only. It's about 3pm before we go back into the court. The judge informs us that both parties decided to settle. Judge and lawyers thanked us.

On the one hand, I thought this case may take a few days and was worried about missing work (I am an equities trader and monday and tuesday market plummeted), but on the other hand, I was curious what the plaintiff would say, what the defendants would say, what the medical experts would say regarding this incident, what were the details of the incident. We didn't get that many details during voir dire and it was over before it began. We jurors saw and spoke to the Defense Attorney afterwards and got more details. Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle with his 2 kids, 13 and 10. Driver was told to pull over as the Officers checked on xyz (forgot the reason the carf was pulled over). It was 2 am or so. Officers run the license and checking for any outstanding warrants etc. when the plaintiff flipped out. He got belligerent and then was arrested for disorderly conduct I think. At no time did the officers attack him. While the plaintiff was being put into the cell, he attacked one of the 2 officers. Plaintiff is a big dude, the officer kept punching him. Defense attorney said, most officers don't want to lose their job and wouldn't admit to hitting anyone. This officer admitted he punched him, '...many times to get him off of me.'

Bottom line:  plaintiff settled for $40,000. This irks me somewhat, we live in a litigious society where it seems you could sue the City and get a gift by accepting the settlement instead of have the case go to the jury for deliberation. I believe if we listened to evidence we would find for the Defense so Plaintiff got a gift and settled. Do not know the amount he was suing for, guessing it was multi-million, but could be wrong. As a law-abiding citizen, really peeved that grifters exist and get away with stuff like this.




4) Lots and lots of mental toughness training for me. Despite having a book and a laptop with me, it was a tough 3 days. So much waiting, so much of the time, seemed wasted... I'm sure there are stuff going on that we, as jurors, were not privvy to, but it really seemed like wasted time. Everyone involved with the case semed to take their time with everything.



If you've read this far, thank you.

Very truly yours in the Martial Arts and Self-Defense,

~sg





edit:  my post is in no way attacking the Court Officers or the Justice System.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on November 04, 2011, 03:55:52 PM
2) I have an official Dog Brothers Keychain. The first day, perhaps it was hectic in the morning, I was allowed to keep it. When I came back from lunch, one of the officers noticed it was a Kubotan and held onto it. I was given a receipt and told to pick it up before I left for the day. I'm thinking the officers confiscated the keychain, and yet, jurors were allowed in with canes! Truly an example of the Walking Cane being the last of the legal self-defense implements. Wonder if I showed up with a Cold Steel City Stick and effected a limp... would the cane be held? LOL

(http://www.maglite.com/images/AALED-main_.jpg)

Not a Kubotan!    :wink:
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 04, 2011, 05:42:14 PM
Concerning canes:  My thought is this:  You may be able to have one BEFORE an incident, but AFTER the incident, my hunch is that the authorities (and plaintiff's attorney) will want to verify that you NEEDED it.  If you cannot show this, then it would seem to me that a rather troublesome claim that you came armed can be made.

BE CAREFUL.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Stickgrappler on November 05, 2011, 11:44:07 AM
Woof Guro C,

although my thought about the cane was in jest, point well-taken! thank you.



G M,

LOL - yeah, i used to carry a mini-maglite with me, even had the koppo wrap (thank you for the idea Don Rearic!) on one, but it seemed out-of-place on me so i stopped. As the weather is getting colder now in nyc, may start again, and just leave in my coat pocket.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on November 05, 2011, 12:49:20 PM
SG,

Every mini-maglite I've seen has an attachment point for a key ring. It might not have the coolness factor of a DBMA Kubotan, but I assure you it'll work the same while going under the radar.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Cranewings on November 05, 2011, 01:00:14 PM
    DPD says officers used “non-lethal agents,” like pepper spray and paintball-like balls full of tear gas, to subdue the crowd.

    “We did have an officer who was pushed off his motorcycle and we had two officers who were kicked,” Murray said. “When it escalated to that point, we made a city-wide call [for backup].”

    After police converged and started making arrests, officers say the crowd started to push in on them. They say the crowd even more agitated, spurring Denver Police to bring in more officers in riot gear.

    Some protesters say police escalated the situation unnecessarily.

    “They asked us to take a tent down. Some kid was standing too close to them. They just started attacking everybody. Spraying people with mace, arresting them. We did nothing. This is supposed to be a peaceful protest, and, they’re attacking us,” Sean Drigger, a protester said.

    What is clear is that the standoff is tense, ugly, and ongoing. The protesters want to be able to set up their tents and camp out, while the police seem determined to break up this protest tonight.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/occupy-denver

____________________________________________________________________________

I wonder if the protestors get that cops are mostly the kinds of people that don't mind hurting people and have a strong history of violence. They need to be more careful with these cops / clowns.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on November 05, 2011, 01:14:26 PM
I know that the cops and the public know that the OWS are violent scum, busy raping and stealing when they aren't rioting or committing other felonies.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on November 05, 2011, 01:20:46 PM
Zuccotti protesters put up women-only tent to prevent sexual assaults
 
By HELEN FREUND and TODD VENEZIA
 
Last Updated: 12:15 PM, November 5, 2011
 
Posted: 12:50 AM, November 5, 2011
 

It’s a safe house from the sex fiends.
 
Zuccotti Park has become so overrun by sexual predators attacking women in the night that organizers felt compelled to set up a female-only sleeping tent yesterday to keep the sickos away.
 
The large, metal-framed “safety tent” -- which will be guarded by an all-female patrol -- can accommodate as many as 18 people and will be used during the day for women-only meetings, said Occupy Wall Street organizers.
 
“This is all about safety in numbers,” said Becky Wartell, 24, a protester from Portland, Maine.

$KINNING FAT CAT MOORE
 


Andrew Kelly
 
NO MAN’S LAND: Occupy Wall Street participants set up a women-only “safety tent” in Zuccotti Park yesterday as a protection against pervs who have been prowling the park.
 



PROTESTER THROWS FIT IN McDONALD'S WHEN HE CAN'T GET FREE FOOD
 
BUSTED TEACH: I PROTEST
 
“When you’re in a large group of people sleeping, you will, of course, feel a lot safer than if you were by yourself,” she added.
 
“It will also keep away people that might feel more inclined to prey on two- and three-people tents.”
 
The safety measure comes amid a terrifying spree of sexual assaults -- including an alleged rape -- in the Zuccotti Park camp.

Kitchen worker Tonye Iketubosin, 26, was arrested Wednesday for allegedly groping an 18-year-old woman after offering to help set up her tent. He is also a suspect in a rape at the park.
 
The grope victims include Kara Demetropoulos, who told The Post she was fondled in a tent last Saturday night after accepting a man’s offer of a place to sleep.
 
Most protesters have not been reporting all the incidents to police -- instead preferring to settle things on their own.
 
The tent and its all-female security detail is the latest crime-fighting measure, and it is already garnering much interest.
 
“I’m gonna be staying here,” said Olivia Chitayat, 23, who was helping to put up the tent. “It’s partially because of the recent attacks that have been happening.
 
“I think that this will help bring more women to the movement as well. I think a lot of women have been hesitant and especially for those that are new and don’t know a lot of people it’s hard to find a safe place to stay.”

Demetropoulos thought the safety tent was a good idea, though she doesn’t plan on using it even after her own unhappy experience.
 
“I feel safe in my tent, but I bet this will help a lot of other women feel a lot safer than they have been,” said the 20-year-old native of Alabama.
 
Some of the male OWS protesters remained in denial over the growing number of sex attacks.
 
“Sexual harassment gets called rape, and it’s not,” one scoffed when told of the women’s tent.

“There’s no way that it’s happening as much as people are saying it has. It’s just word spreading and getting misunderstood.”
 
One woman was also against the structure, saying the protesters who put it up took her tent down without notice to make room.
 
“I’m pissed! I pretty much just got evicted,” fumed Angelina Isfreed, 32, after returning to find her tent taken down. “I won’t be staying there.”
 
More people may have to move. The protest organizers plan to put up seven more large tents, including ones for gay and transgender people, co-ed tents and a medical tent.
 
Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg said on his WOR radio show that he wasn’t going to tolerate lawlessness in Zuccotti Park.
 
“People have the right to protest; they don’t have a right to destroy a neighborhood,” he said. “Anybody that thinks we’re going to tolerate behavior that’s not protected is wrong.”
 
Yesterday, former Mayor Giuliani said President Obama must take responsibility for the “very dangerous” OWS movement.
 
“Barack Obama owns the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement; it would not have happened but for his class warfare,” Giuliani told the conservative Americans for Prosperity Foundation summit in DC.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_park_big_top_ilBy4VfYIwDGt2I1rM33vL
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on November 05, 2011, 01:29:45 PM
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20111105/NEWS01/111050345/Old-Town-arson-suspect-addressed-Fort-Collins-City-Council-support-Occupy-protest?odyssey=mod_sectionstories

Benjamin David Gilmore, who has been arrested on suspicion of arson in the Oct. 24 Old Town fire, appeared before the Fort Collins City Council on Tuesday during the public comment portion of the meeting.

In his comments, Gilmore asked that the city find a way to accommodate the Occupy Fort Collins movement and allow it to stay where protesters have been gathering the past few weeks. He compared it to a special event that could be permitted by the city.

"Please, we are asking: let us continue, let us be free," he said.

Gilmore also criticized the country's banking system and the two-party political system during his remarks, comparing them to playing a game with a 5-year-old who changes the rules in order to win.

"Normally, I am very reserved and very quiet, but tonight I feel compelled that I need to address you," Gilmore told the council.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Stickgrappler on November 05, 2011, 01:34:52 PM
SG,

Every mini-maglite I've seen has an attachment point for a key ring. It might not have the coolness factor of a DBMA Kubotan, but I assure you it'll work the same while going under the radar.

Woof G M,

doh! you are right but of course, i overlooked that little hole! excellent, thank you for the wake-up call!

~sg
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on November 05, 2011, 01:41:46 PM
SG,

Every mini-maglite I've seen has an attachment point for a key ring. It might not have the coolness factor of a DBMA Kubotan, but I assure you it'll work the same while going under the radar.

Woof G M,

doh! you are right but of course, i overlooked that little hole! excellent, thank you for the wake-up call!

~sg

See! You can even use it as a light, if needed.  :-D

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on November 05, 2011, 02:07:17 PM
http://www.punditpress.com/2011/11/fear-of-violence-spreading-to-occupy.html

Saturday, November 5, 2011
Fear of Violence Spreading to Occupy Seattle

Posted by Thomas Ferdousi at 4:15 PM

With violence breaking out among members of Occupy Oakland and Denver, there is a growing concern that the movement may break out into mob storms. With the protesters losing members and even positive press coverage, there is a further concern of outright attacks beginning.

This brings us to Seattle, where these is a very real atmosphere of tensions building in the city. In 1999 the city, known for its hippy and hipster populations, saw violent protests against the World Trade Organization.

Now, it has gotten so tense that parents are even cordoning the Occupy protesters from their children. The occupiers had even squatted on a playground, creating an unsafe environment:


“He likes going out in the sandbox and playing and he can’t do that anymore,” Crawford says.

Crawford says he walked around the area near the playground and saw empty beer cans and smelled marijuana.

Just as in Oakland, tensions between the police and the protesters are increasing, so much so that violence may begin in the Northwest city.


Reports of Occupy Seattle's protestors animosity towards police has been noted in confrontations since they took up encampment in Seattle's Westlake Park.

Just several weeks ago came arrests in the city as the protesters refused to move. They were met with arrests:


Those who refused are being arrested and their tents are being moved.

KOMO Radio reports there have been a half-dozen arrests for obstruction.

The costs of all of these protests for Seattle? Over $100k so far. And that's not even counting lost business and possibly lost jobs. With those factors included, the number could be much, much higher.

Please bookmark!
Title: More on OWS criminals
Post by: G M on November 05, 2011, 02:12:15 PM
OWS Protester Arrested At McDonald's
 
Updated: Saturday, 05 Nov 2011, 3:31 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 04 Nov 2011, 9:32 AM EDT
 
MYFOXNY.COM STAFF REPORT
 


MYFOXNY.COM - An Occupy Wall Street protestor was arrested early Friday after a violent rampage at a McDonald's that refused to offer him free food.

The NYPD says it happened at about 2:45 a.m. at a McDonald's near the make-shift tent city in Zuccotti Park.

Fisika Bezabeh, 27, went into the world's largest restaurant chain and demanded free food, apparently craving a burger over the gourmet food being served in the park.

The people behind the counter, who are working instead of protesting, were not about to offer the man free food.

Bezabeh then turned violent, ripped a credit-card reader from a counter and threw it at workers before police arrived and arrested the protester.

There have been growing concerns about security and lawlessness among the protesters.  Earlier this week, a cook at the camp was arrested on sex charges.

And video surfaced Friday morning showing two of the protesters having a fist fight inside of the park.

Mayor Bloomberg noted Thursday that instead of going to the police, the group is simply kicking law-breakers out of the park and allowing them to go free into the city.

Bezabeh was charged with criminal mischief.

Cheryll Forsatz, a McDonald’s spokeswoman, said, “It’s still an ongoing police investigation, and we’re cooperating with the police.”
 


Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/ows-protester-arrested-at-mcdonalds-20111104-lgf
Title: Good news: OWS sets up women-only tent to help cut down on rapes
Post by: G M on November 05, 2011, 02:20:51 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/05/good-news-ows-sets-up-women-only-tent-to-help-cut-down-on-rapes/

Good news: OWS sets up women-only tent to help cut down on rapes
 
posted at 4:16 pm on November 5, 2011 by Allahpundit

Grim perfection from Glenn Reynolds: “I guess they really are taking Tahrir Square as their model.”
 
Let it sink in: Their protests now need rape shelters. This is actually happening. And New York City lets it go on.
 

Zuccotti Park has become so overrun by sexual predators attacking women in the night that organizers felt compelled to set up a female-only sleeping tent yesterday to keep the sickos away.
 
The large, metal-framed “safety tent” — which will be guarded by an all-female patrol — can accommodate as many as 18 people and will be used during the day for women-only meetings, said Occupy Wall Street organizers.
 
“This is all about safety in numbers,” said Becky Wartell, 24, a protester from Portland, Maine…
 
Some of the male OWS protesters remained in denial over the growing number of sex attacks.
 
“Sexual harassment gets called rape, and it’s not,” one scoffed when told of the women’s tent.
 
This can’t be repeated enough: With a few exceptions, foremost among them the New York Post, the coverage of OWS protests compared to the coverage of tea-party protests is the worst media double standard in recent history. Nothing compares, because nothing else involves this much distortion on both ends of the coverage. It’s not just that most press outlets (like the protesters themselves) look the other way at depravity happening inside Obamaville, it’s that for years they treated the tea-party movement as some sort of feral mob that was forever on the brink of rampaging through the streets — like, say, Occupy Oakland just did. If you missed it when I posted it last week, go watch the ad the DNC ran in August 2009 when tea partiers first started showing up to town halls on ObamaCare. That set the tone. We began the year with tea-party pols being smeared as killers over a shooting they had nothing to do with and we end it with actual rapes being shrugged off by the press because they’re bad PR for a movement they support. Disgrace.
 
Via the Daily Caller, watch the not-at-all feral or mobbish revolutionary heroes of Occupy D.C. do their thing last night outside AFP. The video doesn’t capture the extent of the menace, either. For that, read R.S. McCain’s interview with D.C. reporter Michelle Fields, who at one point found herself surrounded by a group of men screaming “F*** Michelle Fields.” No wonder she doesn’t want to go back. Tahrir Square indeed.

Title: Occupy Boston crack dealers arrested
Post by: G M on November 05, 2011, 05:07:14 PM
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_1105hub_to_occupy_shape_up_or_ship_out/srvc=home&position=2

City officials are vowing to keep the heat on derelict protest-crashers at Occupy Boston, while some demonstrators are calling for drug dealers and lawbreakers to hit the road.
 
“We are looking to get our act together,” said Mike Ippolito, an Occupier who has lived in the makeshift camp since its first day. “Actions are being taken to tighten up. ... I believe weapons, drugs and alcohol have no place here.”
 
Just this week, cops have made two drug busts, including one yesterday in which three men were nabbed for allegedly peddling crack cocaine.

 

Undercover cops probing reports of drug dealing in the tent city busted Atu Austin, 31, of Roxbury and Lamont Daughtery, 21, and Thomas McLaughlin, 29, both of Hyde Park, on charges of selling crack. The alleged drug deal began in the encampment and culminated near the Pine Street Inn homeless shelter, authorities said.
 
“As is evident by our recent drug arrests, we continue to send a very clear message to those individuals that drug distribution will not be tolerated,” Boston police spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said.
 
In addition to the drug busts, several unruly homeless people have been removed from the site, including one who allegedly menaced Occupiers with a knife. Police are also probing Occupy-related vandalism downtown and expect arrests soon, Driscoll said.
Title: Rampaging Occupiers Attack 78-Year-Old Woman
Post by: G M on November 05, 2011, 07:00:19 PM

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/11/rampaging-occupiers-attack-78-year-old-woman.php

Rampaging Occupiers Attack 78-Year-Old Woman


We posted video last night in which degenerates from Occupy D.C. stormed the Washington Convention Center where Americans For Prosperity was holding a dinner. In the course of their riot, the Occupiers attacked a 78-year-old woman who had been attending the dinner, and pushed her down a flight of stairs. You see her at around the 3:20 mark of this video, shot by the Daily Caller:





The woman’s name is Dolores Broderson. Small Dead Animals got this email:


Ray Patnaude emails: “My wife and I were at the AFP dinner. Some info on the AFP member who was pushed down the stairs by the protestors… she is the second woman the police are helping up in the Daily Caller video. Her name is Dolores Broderson, age 78. She rode on a bus for 11 hours from Detroit to get there. She went to the emergency room with a bloody nose and bruises on her hand and leg.”

She rode from Detroit for 11 hours because AFP is a genuine grass-roots movement, unlike the Occupiers and their sugar daddies. But that is a relatively minor point. The Occupier movement stands for riot, assault, rape, vandalism, sexual harassment, public urination, public defecation and public masturbation. And Barack Obama owns it lock, stock and barrel. He has endorsed the Occupiers and never uttered a single word to distance himself from them. Their disgusting behavior should be hung around his neck like an anvil when he runs for reelection next year.
Title: More on OWS criminals
Post by: G M on November 06, 2011, 04:57:37 PM
**At least there is no gender bias when raping with OWS.

Post reporter spends an in‘tents’ night amid anarchy in Zuccotti Park
By CANDICE M. GIOVE

Last Updated: 12:02 PM, November 6, 2011

Posted: 1:46 AM, November 6, 2011

The cheap walkie-talkie crackles inside a crowded downtown McDonald’s, stopping the gathered mass mid-sip from their Kombucha bottles and cups of corporate coffee.

“There’s a situation,” a vagabond gumshoe dubbed “Conscience” tells me after the static-filled communique arrives over the air at around 3 a.m.

Cornered on the other side of the fast-food joint is Fisika Bezabeh, 27, a Zuccotti squatter who inexplicably returned to the eatery after allegedly clobbering a manager with a credit-card reader earlier in the night.

“We can’t take him in by ourselves,” yells another OWS security-force member.

COPS NETTING COURT JESTERS

B'KLYN TEACHER AMONG DEMONSTRATORS WHO CLASHED WITH COPS OUTSIDE MANHATTAN SUPREME COURT

The Zuccotti “cops” had just spent an hour and a half tracking Bezabeh through goat paths in the park armed with a description from the manager.

“We cannot take him in by ourselves, the cops have to come!” reiterates the OWS security force member.

They call the NYPD -- and it becomes abundantly clear that the cops down there are sick of the antics.

“Every single night it’s the same thing. I mean, some guy was a victim of rape!” an officer snarls. “There comes a time when it’s over. This is a disaster. It’s all we’re doing, every two seconds, is locking somebody up every time. It’s done.

“It’s done,” he repeats. “Occupy Wall Street is no longer a protest.”

Scenes like this -- and far worse -- have been playing out since the Zuccotti Park “occupation” began on Sept. 17.

The parcel is now a sliver of madness, rife with sex attacks, robberies and vigilante justice.

It’s a leaderless bazaar that’s been divided into state-like camps -- with tents packed together so densely that the only way to add more would be to stack them.

And despite an NYPD watchtower overhead and the entire north side of Zuccotti lined with police vehicles, it is quickly becoming one of the most dangerous places in New York City.
I arrive in the Financial District after dark on Thursday lugging a backpack, a sleeping bag and layers upon layers of clothes.

It’s 8 p.m., and the suits and ties fill the bars. They glare at my overstuffed bag as I walk from the E train to a 7-Eleven for a few last-minute items for my night in Zuccotti Park.

The anti-bacterial soap and powder are nearly out. Naturally, the condoms are fully stocked.

Outside, an old-man Occupier in a plaid earflap hat is screaming at people in the crosswalk at Church and Barclay.

“Why are you afraid of bunny rabbits? Whyyyyy?”

As I cautiously walk the Zuccotti perimeter, picking up photocopied literature on anarchy, there is a poster on a tent bearing a set of park rules that includes: “If you want to hook up, go to a singles bar.”

There is literally no space to unfold my sleeping bag. I ask around for help.

Out of nowhere, a man pushing a shopping cart with his friend inside rammed the thing “Jackass”-style into a police barrier and walked off laughing like a hyena.

A woman emerges from a makeshift tent that looks more like a layer cake -- a clear tarp draped over a sleeping bag that is on top of a filthy mattress. It even has a welcome mat missing the “m” and the stench of a vagrant.

“There’s not much space left,” she said and walked off into the darkness.

Every camp tent is like its own state. There is “Camp Anonymous,” the group best known for anti-Scientology protests.

It’s neighbored by a tent full of vampires, the “Class War” tent and the “Occupy Paw Street” tent, whose residents hand out treats to occupying pets.

There’s also “Camp France” and the “Nic at Night” tent, which supplies the protest with smokes.

I settle on a sliver near Broadway by an OWS library -- which frighteningly has a children’s section. On a bulletin board, there are personal messages like, “Call your sister!”

I’m wedged between a newbie from Brooklyn and some guy from Toronto, who preferred the experience of urban camping to his buddy’s couch or a hotel.

“My knees will crush you,” a hulking squatter shouts. “I don’t want to hurt you.

“You’re in my doorway. I’m going to crush you.”

Someone takes offense and yells, “Manners!”

He’s much kinder when he emerges later from his green tent and hands me a shiny Mylar blanket for extra warmth. “It’s going to get cold,” he said.

This spirit of generosity and the naivete of the original OWS protesters is devolving into a state of distrust and paranoia, however.

They speak of theft, about government infiltrators and tales of Rikers Island castoffs being dropped off to roam and ravage the site.

From underneath my blanket, I hear allegations of financial corruption and intimidation over sexual orientation.

“I’m in a tent that keeps getting flooded, ransacked and robbed,” fumes a transgender group leader -- a female who identifies as a male.

He said that the transgender group would create its own police force for transgender protesters and females, since an immense distrust loomed over the OWS-created authority.

That group is also demanding financial transparency amid growing concern over the use of the $750,000 war chest.

They have a point. I notice supply-station cupboards are dangerously lacking any blankets, tents, tarps or Mylar.

“Someone forgot to get that stuff out of storage,” an attendant claimed.

“We have three-quarters of a million dollars in the bank and all these f--king people are not doing financial accounting while we’re calling for it from the larger corporations,” says the transgender leader. “A lot of good people are quitting.”

A day later, a female-only “safety tent” would be erected to shield women from predators.

Organizers plan to add a medical tent, as well as others designed to provide safe sleeping for gay, transgender and co-ed groups.

The threat of rape is very real here -- for women and men.

Sitting in the McDonald’s just moments after Bezabeh was hauled off in cuffs, Lauren DiGioia, 26, tells me about how she became one of the growing number of victims on her very first night in the park.

“I was forced into a very tight space,” she says. “He kind of moved up against me.

“ ‘Oh, let me warm you up. It’s cold out here,’ ” the creep told her, she said. “He kept pursuing me, and he started becoming aroused, and I could tell that he was becoming aroused,” she said. “I just tried to shield myself.”

He allegedly groped her, pulled her and tried to get on top of her.

“I kept thinking to myself, ‘In the morning, I am going to get this guy arrested,’ but in the morning, he was gone,” she said.

DiGioia, who is from Clifton, NJ, was shocked to see her alleged attacker’s image in The Post about a week later -- and she identified him to the police.

She is now offering counsel to other victims, as new ones crop up every day.

“I just talked to two gentlemen who were raped last night, and they don’t want to press charges because [authorities] wanted to take them in an ambulance and . . . do a rape kit,” she said.

She passed on their account to the security force, while encouraging them to press charges.

“There was another girl raped by the same man,” she said from a table in the McDonald’s, which has become the headquarters of the revolution.

It’s a place to meet, to get warm, to scarf down dollar-menu grub and to use the bathroom that becomes increasingly vile as the night goes on.

I’m ultimately invited to spend the night in a Camp Anonymous tent instead of solo in a sleeping bag.

I spend the rest of the night awake against the wall of a tent built for four -- but packed with six.

My bunkmates include an anarchist, a sexual-assault victim, two security-force members, a girl dressed like the devil and her kitten -- the “Anarkitty.”

“We are a microcosm of all of society’s defects and the failing economy,” DiGioia said. “Just because we’re here under a microscope, everybody’s going to come and throw up their arms and say we have to shut this place down.”

cgiove@nypost.com



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/my_in_tents_night_amid_anarchy_of_ush5s5NscUZincUN0tF0yO
Title: Police respond to hostage threat
Post by: G M on November 11, 2011, 04:20:22 PM
http://www.abc17news.com/news.php?id=3699

How to end a foot pursuit.
Title: One gun, no hands: the Marcus Young incident
Post by: G M on November 11, 2011, 04:45:32 PM
**Crafty wanted this story told.

One gun, no hands: the Marcus Young incident

by Massad Ayoob

 Situation: The criminal emptied a .38 into you, leaving your gun arm paralyzed and your other hand torn apart--and now, he's reaching for a machine gun.

 Lesson: Never give up. Be resourceful. Focus on neutralizing the threat and worry about how badly hurt you are after it's over.

 March 7, 2003. Sgt. Marcus Young is midway through an evening shift, working patrol for the Ukiah, California Police Department. He's a Navy vet, second-degree black belt in Shorinryu karate, 18 years on the force. With him is a 17-year-old police cadet named Julian Covella. Young likes the kid. A devoted husband and father, the 40-year-old sergeant serves as president of a local school board. His own young son is thinking about going the police cadet route and Marcus is particularly interested in how it's working out for Julian. Then comes the seemingly routine call: a shoplifter at the Wal-Mart Superstore. Young wheels the patrol car in that direction.

 In the next few minutes, he and his young cadet ride-along will save each other's lives.

 The Incident

 2148 hours, 9:48 PM.

 As the cadet watches, Sgt. Young takes custody of the wan-looking suspect. Monica Winnie is only 18, but she could pass for 10 or 15 years older. Wal-Mart security guard Brett Schott watches as Young politely escorts her to the patrol car and puts her into the back seat.

 Now comes a medium-sized man who moves rapidly and purposefully toward them through the darkened parking lot, his hands ominously thrust into his jacket pockets. He wears the face of Satan and it's not a trick of the light.



 Neal Beckman, Winnie's companion, is a 35-year-old Caucasian with a long, bad history. He is a member of a gang called the Nazi Low Riders and is wanted in connection with a $100,000 home invasion robbery. He has carefully cultivated the Satanic image, his sculpted mustache and goatee set off by small devil horns tattooed on his forehead. Unseen by the cop is his full backpack tattoo of the devil himself. In his pockets, also unseen by Young, are a fixed-blade hunting knife in his left hand and a late Smith & Wesson Model 637 stainless Airweight in his right, all five chambers loaded.

 Beckman has made it to close range when Young says in command voice, "Take your hands out of your pockets." There is no response. Young repeats the command and Beckman answers, "I have a knife."

 The blade comes out, held as if its wielder means business. Young reacts instantly in accordance with his training as both policeman and martial artist. He grabs the knife-hand and pivots off mid-line, wrenching the suspect's arm into the double-ninety-degree configuration known in California police circles as a twist-lock. He can feel something snapping and popping in the arm, but the knife-wielder does not let go. Both of them slam into the side of the car.

 And suddenly, there is a bright flash and a searing heat and Sgt. Marcus Young realizes he has just been shot in the face at close range.

 Near-Fatal Flurry

 In the swirl of movement that follows, things happen fast even though it seems to the cop as if everything has gone into slow motion. More bullets hammer into him. The burning sensations tear through his right arm and his back, and something smashes into his left side as if he has been struck in the rib cage with an aluminum baseball bat. Through it all, the sergeant is aware of the young woman screaming wordlessly in the back seat of the patrol unit.

 Brett Schott, the unarmed security guard, leaps into the fight. He barrels into Beckman, grabs the revolver and wrenches it away. He does not realize he is holding an empty gun. Beckman has fired all five shots and four of them have struck the cop.

 The man with the face that mimics Satan shifts the hunting knife from his left hand to his right and sinks it viciously into the side of the security guard. The blade plunges deep into the left side of the guard's chest, almost immediately collapsing the lung and opening a wound so big that lung tissue is visible. He levers the blade and tears the wound wider, completely severing the deltoid muscle.

 Schott disengages, instantly weakened by the massive wound, realizing he is hemorrhaging massively and perhaps fatally. He tries to make his way to another car for cover.

 Meanwhile, Young has regained his feet and reached for his own gun. Yet it does not rise into line of sight in the movement he has practiced so many times. He tries again and realizes his right arm is not responding to his mental command. The humerus has been shattered and there is nerve damage. His gun arm is paralyzed.

 The Ukiah PD firearms instructors are thorough. They have taught Young how to draw weak-handed if his gun arm is taken out. He makes the attempt but his left hand isn't working right, either. Glancing down, he sees that it has been ripped open, literally torn apart, its separated ten dons visible through the opened skin.

 And now, the suspect is on his feet, tearing open the right front door of the patrol car and closing it behind him as he jumps in. He's not trying to drive away. Instead, he drops down on the seat on his left side as he claws for the switch he knows is hidden there somewhere. The switch that will release into his murderous hands a fresh weapon and a deadlier one.

 Ukiah PD keeps two loaded long guns in each patrol car. One is a Remington 870 pump shotgun, loaded with 12 gauge 00 buckshot. The other, secured to the ceiling of the front seat, is an HK33. It's not just a .223 autoloading rifle. It has a selector switch. The man who has just attempted to murder two uniformed officials is about to access a true assault rifle, literally a machine gun, and the price of poker has just gone up.

 Where There's A Will ...

 Through it all, the young cadet, Julian Covella, has stood nearby, torn between obedience and his own strong sense of duty. Police cadets are told that under no circumstances are they to join in fights involving sworn officers, and this training has held him in check, yet every fiber of his being has been telling him, do something!

 Now, his chance comes.

 As Beckman tries furiously to free the heavy weapons and turn them on his victims, Young turns to the boy and says, "Take my gun out and put it in my hand." Julian fumbles, but only for a moment, releasing the thumb-break safety strap of the Level One duty holster. He carefully withdraws the pistol, a Beretta 96G, and places it into the bloody left hand that the wounded lawman extends to him.

 It's the "G" model, decocker only, no safety to disengage. Young will later thank God his firearms instructors drilled him intensively in weak hand only shooting. Kneeling to steady himself, he raises the gun to eye level, not trying for a sight picture, just visually superimposing the gun over where he knows he has to shoot. The center mass of his antagonist's body is shielded by the car door, but Young has been told that .40 caliber service pistol bullets can punch through auto bodies, so he fires. The first shot goes double action and he sees it strike where he aimed it. No reaction. The gun has cocked itself and he squeezes off a second shot single action. Again, the bullet goes where aimed, and again, the jacketed hollow point .40 bullet fails to make it through the door.

 Time for Plan B. He raises the pistol higher. Startled by the first return fire, the man who tried to kill him turns and looks at the officer, and he is staring down the gun barrel when the first shot smashes through the closed window of the car and into his face. He jerks and moves violently, Young fires a fourth time and now the attacker goes limp and still.

 Young keeps him covered for what seems to him a very long time before he realizes it's over. He knows he has been shot multiple times, in the torso and the head and doesn't know how long he will remain conscious. He can see the guard is down, bleeding profusely. Only young Julian remains able-bodied on the side of the good guys.

 Knowing both his hands are badly disabled and the cocked gun is covered with blood, Young decides not to try to decock his privately owned, department approved Beretta. He doesn't want to hold a cocked pistol in an injured hand, or drop one if he passes out, so he sets it gently on the ground where he can keep an eye on it.

 He tells Julian to get on the radio and call in. Then, remembering what he had learned in classes he had taken from Col. Dave Grossman, Young begins deliberate controlled breathing exercises to keep calm, conscious and alive.

 Aftermath And Lessons

 Emergency Medical Service response was swift, but the receiving hospital was only equipped to perform emergency surgery on one patient at a time. The heroic guard who had jumped into the fight unarmed to save the embattled officer was near death and went onto the table first. He had lost about half of his blood and it took three hours for the surgeons to stabilize him and save his life.

 During that time, Sgt. Young waited without pain-killer, because he had lost two pints of blood and his blood pressure was low; doctors didn't dare give him depressants. The pain didn't really hit him until 45 to 60 minutes after the shooting.

 The first .38 Special slug had struck Young in the left cheek and exited the back of his neck, fortunately missing the brain. He had never lost consciousness. He does not remember the exact sequence of the following hits, but one had smashed the right arm. Another had gone past his armor and punched into his back, causing serious injuries which, like the right arm wound, have required multiple surgeries since and will probably need more. The blow to his right side had been a bullet stopping in his Point Blank Level III-A bullet-resistant vest. It left a massive bruise, but caused no serious damage. Doctors said this projectile, had it not been stopped by the Kevlar, would have killed the policeman. They determined that he had not been shot in the left hand, but it had been so badly mangled during the fight it took hours of surgery to repair the tendon damage.

 The would-be cop-killer was DOA. Young's third shot had caught him square in the forehead. Because Beckman was down on the seat with the head back the ogive of the bullet had caused it to skid off the skull beneath the scalp, emerging at the crown with a big, ugly exit wound, but inflicting no life-threatening damage. As he convulsed and twisted to get away from the return fire, he had presented his buttocks toward the policeman. Young's final shot, the officer's visibility impaired by the broken glass of the door window, had struck Beckman there and ranged up deep inside him, piercing the liver and lodging in his neck. This had been the fatal shot.



 Both men had been shot in the face and head and actually sustained fairly minor wounds. The "fatal" hits--potentially on the good guy, decisively on the bad--had struck each in the trunk of the body.

 On that fateful night, the sergeant had not been wearing a backup gun. He realizes now a second weapon carried in a manner readily accessible to the non-dominant hand might have allowed him to neutralize his lethal attacker more swiftly.

 Young wore his concealed body armor religiously and it saved his life. Some 700 of us watched as Young was inducted into the Kevlar Survivors' Club in January '04, at the American Society for Law Enforcement Training annual conference in St. Louis. He joined more than 2,500 brother and sister officers who owe their lives to that technology. Young was officially pronounced Save Number 2,751.

 He credits the training he received from his department and from outside resources, ranging from Col. Grossman to his various sensei in the martial arts, for his ability to endure incredible punishment and be able to think creatively and respond when the terrifying curve ball of seeming helplessness in the face of death came at him. The ability to stay calm and keep thinking served him well. At the same ASLET conference, giving a talk on the FBI/Miami shooting in 1986, Dr. French Anderson made a telling statement which applied directly to Young's incident: "If you can think and if you can move, you can still fight."

 Be Prepared

 The order Sgt. Young gave to the man who was planning to murder him--"Take your hands out of your pockets"--was intuitive for any cop in the same situation, yet it resulted in what the medical community euphemistically calls "a negative outcome." I suspect the next time Young confronts a hostile man with hands concealed, he will take him at gunpoint and specifically order him to let go of anything in his pockets, and then very slowly withdraw his empty right hand and then his empty left hand. The weapons Neal Beckman held in each of his hands each almost ended the life of a protector of the public on the night of March 7, 2003 in that dimly-lit Wal-Mart parking lot.

More departments are carrying their long guns up front these days where they belong and more are using patrol rifles, even select-fire .223s as issued by Ukiah PD. This is all to the good. Care must be taken, however, not to cut corners and to make sure each such weapon is secured in such a manner it's readily accessible to authorized personnel, but relatively inaccessible to perpetrators such as Beckman. Fortunately, Ukiah PD kept its long guns securely locked in overhead racks, the means of instant release known to the officers but not immediately apparent to an invader in the patrol car. The potential of a machine gun in the hands of someone like Beckman does not require much imagination.

 Be prepared to deal with distorted perceptions during the fight and other phenomena later. With one of the nation's leading experts on "post shooting trauma," psychologist Alexis Artwohl, at his side, Young told ASLET attendees of what he had experienced. Things went into slow motion early. At times he fought "on auto pilot." He experienced some memory loss, such as the sequence of the wounds he sustained subsequent to the first.

 Interestingly, it was the third time in his career a criminal had put a gun to his head. From the time of those incidents through March 2003, he had suffered occasional nightmares in which he relived the incidents, or in which he fired his gun and it didn't work.

 Since the night in question, when he survived a gunshot wound to the head and then killed his attacker with a perfectly functioning Beretta, those nightmares have stopped.

 Epilog

 In the vehicle occupied earlier by the shoplifting suspect and the would-be cop-killer were several pipe bombs. Case investigators suspect the suspects had planned to use the explosives in a robbery. She pled guilty to misdemeanor theft, possession of explosives and grand theft, the latter on a subsequently discovered outstanding warrant.



 The heroic security guard Brett Schatt, and the courageous young police cadet Julian Covella, received numerous awards for valor. These included heroism citations from the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, and dual Citizen of the Year awards from the California Narcotics Officers' Association. Covella has since been accepted as a cadet at the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis.

 Sgt. Young, now 41, is on light duty at the department, still recovering from his severe physical injuries and facing more surgery. A NRA member, he was awarded the National Rifle Association's honors as Police Officer of the Year for 2003, and the Mayor's Medal of Valor. He has also been nominated for the Presidential Medal of Valor and that of the California Attorney General's Office. Marcus Young's incident will be included in the curriculum of a new course from the California Police Standards and Training council devoted to the management of fear and anger in crisis.

 Young himself feels he owes his survival not only to Julian and Brett, but to the many instructors who trained him over the years. "They taught me to shoot from awkward positions if I was wounded," he says, "and they taught me to be resourceful and keep thinking and keep fighting no matter how I might be injured. They taught me to never give up. And I want to thank them publicly for that."

 There have been death threats against Marcus Young. He is concerned. But he is not afraid.

Title: More OWS criminals
Post by: G M on November 13, 2011, 02:51:43 PM


Police say 2 officers cut by Occupy SF protesters
 



Saturday, November 12, 2011


(11-12) 22:07 PST San Francisco (AP) --
 
Police say Occupy San Francisco protesters attacked two officers in separate incidents during a march.
 
Police spokesman Carlos Manfredi tells the Los Angeles Times officers were trying to keep marchers out of the middle of an intersection where trains were running when a woman came out of the crowd, slashed an officer's hand with a pen knife or razor blade, then disappeared back into the crowd before he realized he'd been cut.
 
Later at the same location, police say a man came out of the crowd and grabbed an officer's radio, and when the officer chased him another protester pushed the officer, cut his face and tore his uniform.
 
Police could not find the attackers and no one has been arrested.
 
Both officers were treated at the scene and released.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/12/national/a220734S06.DTL
Title: UC Davis pepper spray with the prelude
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 04, 2011, 05:04:11 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y&feature=share
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on December 05, 2011, 07:36:08 AM
What is left out of the tape is that a DIRECT ORDER was given to the campus police to do it peacefully.  The campus police disobeyed.  Therefore the perpetrator and the chief of police have been suspended (with full pay) for disobeying an order and may be fired.  Discipline and following orders IS important.

"We told the police to remove the tents or the equipment," she (their boss - the Chancellor) told the paper. "We told them very specifically to do it peacefully, and if there were too many of them, not to do it, if the students were aggressive, not to do it."  That seems very clear; if you meet resistance, you back off, you do not escalate.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: DougMacG on December 05, 2011, 09:41:36 AM
Question for GM or others with law enforcement familiarity:

I am seeing police reports (in Minneapolis) that come just from officers performing a lookup on license plates.  It occurs to me that it is an automated process where they shoot a picture of the plate and the computer checks it for warrants, expired plates, current license, good or bad driving record etc. These are on the fly situations without any indication of any other lawbreaking.  Do you know if that is so?

Example: Received in my email today from police regarding a former tenant still claiming to live at our address:

"While doing directed patrol in the xth Pct, I observed listed vehicle, license xxxxx, being operated in the above area.  I did a routine check on the license plate, and this showed the registered owner was shown to have a suspended Mn driver's license.  Arrested Party: xxxx xxxxxx - 27/ Address: xxx xxxxx.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 05, 2011, 10:23:16 AM
Doug,

It's commonplace for patrol officers to run plates looking for "hits" while on patrol. It's a good way to snag warrants/stolen vehicles and other things. Sometimes you find a stolen plate on a vehicle, which tends to lead to other interesting things.
Title: Tased but not dazed, so he's shot
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 11, 2011, 01:58:56 PM
Comments by a USMS service friend:
============

No shortage of dynamics in this story.

It must really be shocking to learn that all the defensive tactics you learned in the academy simply didn't do you one bit of good against a street thug who apparently was not at all impressed with, or affected by, said defensive tactics training.

--------------------

Takoma Park officer fatally shoots suspect
By Matt Schudel
 
A suspect in a carjacking attempt in Takoma Park was fatally shot by police Saturday as he struggled with an officer after a chase, authorities said.  Takoma Park police said the incident began about 3:50 p.m. with an attempt to take a car at a gas station in the 6700 block of New Hampshire Avenue.  Police said a man drove to the station and tried to take a Porsche from its owner. The owner resisted and was stabbed with what appeared to be a steak knife, police said.
 
The Porsche owner was taken to a hospital in critical condition.
 
A suspect was pursued by police to Metzerott and Riggs roads in Prince George’s County. On the way, police said, the suspect’s car struck three occupied vehicles. At Metzerott and Riggs, the suspect’s car flipped over, and he began to run.
A Takoma Park officer followed him and tried to subdue him with a Taser. They struggled, and he beat her as she lay on the ground , police said.
 
Police said a second Takoma Park officer arrived and fatally shot the suspect. Names were not available.
Title: He fought the law and the law won
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 11, 2011, 04:09:09 PM
second post:

By PoliceOne Staff
LAFAYETTE, Ind. — Newly-released video shows a suspect lunge at a police officer moments before responding officers shot him after slashing a fellow cop’s face with a knife.
Arson suspect Paul Spencer, 39, was pursued by Officer Jeff Webb for almost four miles in October, according to WLFI. Spencer's car left the roadway and Webb pulled up behind him, along with assisting officers Ron Dombkowski and Joe Fisher.
In the video, Spencer lunges out of his car at Dombkowski. Moments later, Spencer stabbed Dombkowski in the face using a large knife, according to Lafayette Police Chief Don Roush.

About 22 feet stood between Spencer and Dombkowski, a 13-year veteran of the department. Autopsy results determined that police shot Spencer seven times after the knife attack.
People in the neighborhood commented on the incident, which could be heard from nearby homes.
"I heard five to six rapid fire rounds, clearly gun shots, and I was like...that's not good. That's what I woke up to this morning," local resident John Blichmann said.

Spencer died at the hospital a few hours later, and Dombkowski was admitted for treatment.
Officers began their pursuit after receiving a call about a vehicle that matched one connected to a duplex set on fire.

Per departmental policy, all three officers were placed on paid administrative leave following the shooting
Title: It sure can get expensive
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 25, 2011, 12:46:09 PM
John Brumbaugh, whom I happen to know from Machado JJ many years ago, posted the following on his FB page:

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_19614472?IADID=Search-www.dailybreeze.com-www.dailybreeze.com
Title: Off duty deputy shoots man (allegedly)
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 02:41:30 PM
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-deputy-murrieta-bar-shooting,0,4182153.story
Title: Off duty officer allegedly shoots a man.
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 02:45:20 PM
http://www.wbaltv.com/r/23810790/detail.html
Title: Downey PD shoots wrong man
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 02:52:00 PM
http://downeybeat.com/2011/10/for-second-time-this-month-downey-officers-fatally-shoot-suspect-10697/
Title: Re: Downey PD shoots wrong man
Post by: G M on December 27, 2011, 03:02:06 PM
http://downeybeat.com/2011/10/for-second-time-this-month-downey-officers-fatally-shoot-suspect-10697/

Lessons to be learned:

1.Don't run from the police.

2. If you are stupid enough to run from the police, don't make a furtive movement that indicates you are drawing a weapon.

3. Don't bring a stick and a knife to a gunfight.

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on December 27, 2011, 03:07:43 PM
I think those are all good lessons, but in this instance he didn't even have a weapon according to the article.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 03:09:29 PM
Maybe the police could consider not shooting some of these people.

Also, let me get this out of the way.  I am not a cop.
I am a paramedic.
I have been with lone cops and fought alongside them till their backup showed.
I have been in situations where we did the fighting till the police showed (not the plan, I assure you)
I know the job is dangerous and stressful.
I have witnessed extremely sketchy behavior from some officers.

Just some part of who I am.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 27, 2011, 03:09:47 PM
I think those are all good lessons, but in this instance he didn't even have a weapon according to the article.

If the officer reasonably believed that he was drawing a weapon at that moment, it's a legal shoot.

Graham v. Connor

Reasonable officer's perception.

Stupid should hurt, sometimes it's fatal.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 27, 2011, 03:13:22 PM
Maybe the police could consider not shooting some of these people.

Also, let me get this out of the way.  I am not a cop.
I am a paramedic.
I have been with lone cops and fought alongside them till their backup showed.
I have been in situations where we did the fighting till the police showed (not the plan, I assure you)
I know the job is dangerous and stressful.
I have witnessed extremely sketchy behavior from some officers.

Just some part of who I am.

And there are some officers that are sketchy, just like there are EMTs/Paramedics that "lose" narcs on runs and have all the cash and valuables "disappear" on the patients they transport to the ER.

I don't think either is but a small minority of those that do the jobs in question.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 03:16:21 PM
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=8163016

Don't know the law about cell phones so I don't know if the police are allowed to snatch them.  I think they should not be if they are.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 03:18:57 PM
And there are some officers that are sketchy, just like there are EMTs/Paramedics that "lose" narcs on runs and have all the cash and valuables "disappear" on the patients they transport to the ER.

I don't think either is but a small minority of those that do the jobs in question.


I put that out there lest you think I am just a cop basher with a criminal record who has never taken a risk in the street in order to do his job, not to say that my profession has nothing but clean people.  In fact, you can go ahead and post a million links regard medic misconduct and I will probably not defend them.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 27, 2011, 03:20:37 PM
So then what's your point?

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 03:29:18 PM
My point was in what I said.  To provide some background so anyone that decides to answer does not think I am randomly bashing cops.  I do have questions about how many violent encounters are handled and so I bring them up.

Let me ask you a different question, what do you consider the role of the police to be?  I know what I think, but it is likely different from what you think.  I am not trying to be combative, here.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 27, 2011, 03:32:56 PM
To enforce the law, to act as a "community caretaker", to work with other agencies to protect the public at large.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 03:34:39 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28112637/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/nyc-police-officers-charged-sodomy-attack/#.TvpVNPL7aSo
(I know they were acquitted but something happened)

And I am sure that no one has forgotten Abner Louima.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 03:39:25 PM
Sounds fairly close to what I have always thought.  Then, how have we arrived at a place where we often have hostile relationships between the police and citizens?  I can completely understand why it goes poorly when you are being arrested.
Do you think there is an us against them mentality?
What advice would you give to people with clean records that feel like they are being profiled.  Not just a simple traffic stop, but a better dose, complete with cuffs?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 27, 2011, 03:39:43 PM
Again, what's your point? Want me to post all the EMS popped from stealing and groping patients? Just google "EMT arrested".
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 03:44:59 PM
I suppose you can if you like.  There are a lot of links up regarding people doing bad things and getting jammed.  I added some links, too.

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 27, 2011, 03:51:58 PM
Sounds fairly close to what I have always thought.  Then, how have we arrived at a place where we often have hostile relationships between the police and citizens? 

**Most law abiding citizens have a positive relationship with police.

I can completely understand why it goes poorly when you are being arrested.
Do you think there is an us against them mentality?

**Sure, and the typical cop bashing poster here is a perfect example of why there is such a thing. The public at large is all for the law being enforced, except when it's their kid getting arrested, or them getting stopped for speeding, then things get hypocritical sometimes. Also, despite the endless stream of police shows/movies, very few capture the reality of the job. Thus the public often thinks they understand how things work, which is usually based on a screenwriter's imagination and has very little to do with reality.

What advice would you give to people with clean records that feel like they are being profiled.  Not just a simple traffic stop, but a better dose, complete with cuffs?

**If you believe that you have been mistreated by a LEO, you can file a complaint with his/her agency. You can file a civil rights complaint with the Dept. of Justice, you can seek out attorneys for civil litigation at both the state and federal levels (The are law firms that specialize in just suing law enforcement agencies).
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 03:55:11 PM
Additionally, I will say that a good part of my concern with police power is that, in a worst case scenario, 2 problems arise:

1. Police officers are people, just like all of us.
2. They are a group of people that I cannot defend myself against, if I were ever to feel that I needed to.

And believe me, I do my level best to avoid those things.  I don't speed.  Got the necessary stickers, am polite when stopped and avoid parts of town where they might not want to see me.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 27, 2011, 03:59:32 PM
Additionally, I will say that a good part of my concern with police power is that, in a worst case scenario, 2 problems arise:

1. Police officers are people, just like all of us.
2. They are a group of people that I cannot defend myself against, if I were ever to feel that I needed to.

And believe me, I do my level best to avoid those things.  I don't speed.  Got the necessary stickers, am polite when stopped and avoid parts of town where they might not want to see me.

Ok, so your solution is?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 04:03:20 PM

**Most law abiding citizens have a positive relationship with police.

Not a LEO, but from my perspective, there is a lot of fear in that, because you can't manage an unpleasant conversation the way you would with someone else.


**Sure, and the typical cop bashing poster here is a perfect example of why there is such a thing. The public at large is all for the law being enforced, except when it's their kid getting arrested, or them getting stopped for speeding, then things get hypocritical sometimes. Also, despite the endless stream of police shows/movies, very few capture the reality of the job. Thus the public often thinks they understand how things work, which is usually based on a screenwriter's imagination and has very little to do with reality.


Do you think police should strive to be better than other people?  I have a few friends that are former Marines and a common theme is that the standard for them is supposedly higher than the standard that the average man deals with.  Is it like that for police?  Are they taught to not buy into the idea that they are part of society not us against them?  Heck, is that even a legitimate question?  Are police part of society at large?  Just guys and gals with a job to do?

Are you a cop?  It might not even be appropriate to get into this with you if you are not.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 04:12:31 PM
Solution?  That has to come from law enforcement.  I have no power, so in general life, I just avoid as much as possible.  The police have an incredible amount of power.  The police face an incredible amount of danger.  Nothing in my life mirrors that.  I will say that the job is voluntary, though and some of the hostility that comes out during the occasional traffic stop or random encounter goes a long way towards bad relationships.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 27, 2011, 04:20:23 PM
Do you think police should strive to be better than other people?  

**There are extensive writings on the topic of law enforcement ethics. In a nutshell, yes, the LEO is and should be held to a higher standard than the public at large.

I have a few friends that are former Marines and a common theme is that the standard for them is supposedly higher than the standard that the average man deals with.  Is it like that for police?  

**Yes.

Are they taught to not buy into the idea that they are part of society not us against them?  

**Yes. Especially today, there is an extensive amount of training in the pre-service academy as well as in-service training on ethics, community partnerships and communications skills, sometime to the detriment of other skillsets.

Heck, is that even a legitimate question?  Are police part of society at large?  Just guys and gals with a job to do?

**Sure. Just like any group that lives outside the mainstream, they tend to flock together. Just like Nurses, Firefighters, EMS and others tend to do. Can you sit down with a group of people that live normal 9-5 jobs and tell them about the junkie who was flatlining until you hit him with narcan, then he tried to kill you for it? Or tell them about the SIDS call you went to, or the single vehicle rollover with multiple fatals?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 27, 2011, 04:22:20 PM
Solution?  That has to come from law enforcement.  I have no power, so in general life, I just avoid as much as possible.  The police have an incredible amount of power.  The police face an incredible amount of danger.  Nothing in my life mirrors that.  I will say that the job is voluntary, though and some of the hostility that comes out during the occasional traffic stop or random encounter goes a long way towards bad relationships.

In the US, the public shapes how law enforcement does it's job.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 04:32:23 PM
**Sure. Just like any group that lives outside the mainstream, they tend to flock together. Just like Nurses, Firefighters, EMS and others tend to do. Can you sit down with a group of people that live normal 9-5 jobs and tell them about the junkie who was flatlining until you hit him with narcan, then he tried to kill you for it? Or tell them about the SIDS call you went to, or the single vehicle rollover with multiple fatals?

Of course not. 

In the US, the public shapes how law enforcement does it's job.

I live in Tx so maybe it is different here.  Many things happen by policy.  Sometimes, the public can get them shot down, if you have some vulnerable politicians.  Sometimes the policies are not widely publicized and until someone with juice is irritated, nothing happens.  Again, I live here so it may be different. (of course the government can negatively affect cops and that is not handled unless there are some vulnerable politicians)



Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 27, 2011, 05:02:18 PM
Police chiefs are appointed by elected mayors, County Sheriffs are directly elected by the public. State level LE answers to the Gov./state legislature. Texas cops tend to have a different culture than California cops, or cops from the Northeast. Why? The reflect the populations and laws of those places.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 05:29:08 PM
My interest is sparked and I have emailed the PR office about how the police chief is hired.  Austin is a place with a powerful city manager and that person is not elected.  Sheriffs tend to be more responsive to the people (around here) because they answer directly to the electorate.  You can see this in the differences in how the deputies in neighboring counties act.  I will know more about the police chief soon enough.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 27, 2011, 06:13:11 PM
"  , , ,My point was in what I said.  To provide some background so anyone that decides to answer does not think I am randomly bashing cops."

Well, I got this point.  I think it is tres cool that you have stood side by side with LEOs in moments of trouble.  My respect and appreciation.  I'm sure if he were to pause a moment it would occur to GM to say the same , , , :-D
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 27, 2011, 06:26:16 PM
"  , , ,My point was in what I said.  To provide some background so anyone that decides to answer does not think I am randomly bashing cops."

Well, I got this point.  I think it is tres cool that you have stood side by side with LEOs in moments of trouble.  My respect and appreciation.  I'm sure if he were to pause a moment it would occur to GM to say the same , , , :-D

Well, where I'm from, Police/Fire/EMS always is expected to be looking out for the others in the "Emergency Services" field. That does not mean overlooking ethical violations.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 08:33:44 PM
These conversations are hard.  I really am trying to talk about this without starting a fight.  I also wanted to express that I have supported the police with the only thing I truly own, which is my body.  But, by the same token, I do want to express the distrust I feel when I am not in uniform.  When I am not in uniform, I make it a point to not mention anything because it changes the encounter and I want to be treated like everyone else.  That sometimes makes me unhappy.  My hope is that some LEOs will see that even someone that is almost totally on their side still has a great deal of heartburn over what they see happening between the police and citizens.  Dunno if I have done a good job, but I have made my feelings known.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 08:38:40 PM
And Guro Marc, I will call you Guro since others do and I am new to all this, thanks for the kind words and helping me feel like I am not crazy!
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 27, 2011, 08:46:21 PM
These conversations are hard.  I really am trying to talk about this without starting a fight.  I also wanted to express that I have supported the police with the only thing I truly own, which is my body.  But, by the same token, I do want to express the distrust I feel when I am not in uniform.  When I am not in uniform, I make it a point to not mention anything because it changes the encounter and I want to be treated like everyone else.  That sometimes makes me unhappy.  My hope is that some LEOs will see that even someone that is almost totally on their side still has a great deal of heartburn over what they see happening between the police and citizens.  Dunno if I have done a good job, but I have made my feelings known.

Ah, so you demonstrate not wanting to start a fight by posting the articles you did to start things off?  :roll:
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 09:07:58 PM
Don't want to fight but don't want to fake my position either.

In fairness, you posted a few links, as well.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on December 27, 2011, 09:08:41 PM
And I have tried to be very polite.  I hope I have succeeded.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 27, 2011, 10:07:26 PM
Dreatx:

As you hang here longer you will see that GM really has thought about and experienced these issues quite a bit more than most people.

However, to even things out in the conversation (a self-imposed handicap as it were) and led by the temptation of his genuine skills in the Art of Snark,  he has selected the distinctive approach to the Art of Persuasion you see on display here.

Perhaps it is a rough and tumble stationhouse humor with which he communicates?  Or an irritated world- weariness in dealing for the hundredth time what is relatively fresh to you?  Who knows?

Anyway, may I suggest you just ignore the snark and stick around for the merit lurking behind it?  He may miss some of what you bring, but , , , so what? 

 :lol:

TAC!
Marc

 
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 28, 2011, 05:31:45 AM
Hopefully not a victim of budget cuts.

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Police/cpa_application_fall2010.pdf

AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITIZEN POLICE ACADEMY
EST. JANUARY 1987
72 COMPLETED SESSIONS
1,850 GRADUATES
(As of September 2010)
“UNDERSTANDING THROUGH EDUCATION”
The Citizen's Police Academy was established in January 1987.
The Citizen’s Police Academy is a fourteen-week (that includes graduation) program designed to give
the public a working knowledge of the Austin Police Department. Each session consists of fourteen
consecutive Tuesday night classes at City of Austin facilities. The instruction is comprehensive and
each week separate areas of the department are covered.
As of September 7, 2010, 1,850 citizens will have graduated from 72 classes. Classes are hosted
two times a year at APD Headquarters.
• Class 74 Spring of 2011; Evening classes February 15 -May 24 with hours; 5:30p – 9:30 p.
• Class 75 Fall of 2011 Evening classes September 13- December 13 with hours; 5:30p- 9:30p.
Cadet Training, Bomb Squad, Robbery, Homicide, Use of Force, Internal Affairs, Vehicular Homicide,
S.W.A.T., Forensics, Recruiting and meeting the Chief are examples of some of the topics that are
covered. Instruction consists of lectures, demonstrations, tours, and riding with a police officer on a
ten-hour shift.
The slogan of the Citizen’s Police Academy is “Understanding through Education”. The goal is to
educate the public about the Austin Police Department and to increase the rapport between citizens
and police officers.
We hope the graduates of the Citizen’s Police Academy become more aware and better informed
about how the Police Department operates, and will encourage friends, coworkers and families to join
the Austin Police Department in this rewarding program.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the purpose of conducting a Citizen’s Police Academy?
To give the public information on how the Police Department works and its policies and procedures,
through a series of classes involving instruction by police officers.
Where did the concept originate?
The program originated in Orlando, Florida in 1984. Orlando was the first city in the United States to
start a Citizen’s Police Academy.
What was the Austin Police Department’s incentive for starting a Citizen’s Police
Academy?
We feel the more information the public has about the police department, less fears and
misconceptions will exist.
When does the class meet?
There are three Citizen’s Police Academy sessions per year. Students meet at Austin Police
Department facilities. There will be a total of approximately thirty-nine (45) hours of instruction by
police officers. All classes are free.
Who attends the Citizen’s Police Academy?
Students range from 18 years of age and above. We have architects, bankers, homemakers,
students, retirees, teachers, neighborhood groups and professionals attending the classes.
How do you apply?
You must be at least 18 years old and live or work in the Austin area. Complete the Citizen’s
Police Academy application and mail it to the address below. If you have any questions or need more
information, call SPO Dennis Farris, at (512) 974-5941
When are classes?
The Citizens Police Academy is offered three times a year at APD Headquarters.
You can choose from the following:
• Class 74 Spring of 2011; Evening classes February 15 -May 24 with hours; 5:30p – 9:30 p.
• Class 75 Fall of 2011 Evening classes September 13- December 13 with hours; 5:30p- 9:30p.
Mailing Address:
SPO Dennis Farris
Citizen’s Police Academy
P.O. 689001
Austin, Texas 78768-9001
Title: RIP Ranger Anderson
Post by: bigdog on January 01, 2012, 04:54:35 PM
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/01/9875731-ranger-fatally-shot-at-mount-rainier-national-park
Title: Contempt of Cop
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 02, 2012, 05:48:21 AM
* Contempt of Cop: Verbal Challenges, Disrespect, Arrests, and the First Amendment

Under what circumstances, if at all, can police officers arrest citizens for "contempt of cop," verbal challenges, profanity, or disrespect? Under what circumstances is criticism of police, even if couched in abusive or profane terms, constitutionally protected free speech?

View at http://www.aele.org/law/2011-10MLJ101.html
Title: Some additional cases
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 02, 2012, 05:53:13 AM
Second post of morning

*** Law Enforcement Liability Reporter ***

* Baton and O.C.

An officer's use of pepper spray and a baton against a motorist who disobeyed orders to get back in his vehicle was an "intermediate" use of force that "while less severe than deadly force, nonetheless present a significant intrusion upon an individual's liberty interests." The motorist did not resist, but merely sat on the curb, so he could proceed with his excessive force claim. Young v. County of Los Angeles, #09-56372, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17829 (9th Cir.).

View at http://courtlistener.com/ca9/4987/mark-young-v-county-of-los-angeles/

* Weapon confusion

A police officer who claimed that she intended to use her Taser on a handcuffed detainee, but instead shot him in the chest with a semiautomatic pistol, was not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit over his death.

A jury could also possibly find the officer's mistake reasonable, but the trial court should not have reached that conclusion on summary judgment. Torres v. City of Madera, #09-16573, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17459 (9th Cir.).

View at http://courtlistener.com/ca9/29v9/maria-torres-v-city-of-madera/

*** Fire, Police & Corrections Personnel Reporter ***

* Retaliatory Personnel Actions

A jury awarded a total of $10 million in damages to three Caucasian officers who allegedly faced retaliatory actions because they opposed discriminatory treatment of minority officers. The trial court reduced the damage awards to $300,000 per plaintiff. A review board hearing did not absolve the city of liability for the supervisor's retaliatory actions. McKenna v. City of Philadelphia, #09-3567, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17199 (3rd Cir.).

View at http://courtlistener.com/ca3/29q5/michael-mckenna-v-city-of-philadelphia/

View at

*** Jail and Prisoner Law Bulletin ***

* Medical care

An HIV-positive prisoner who allegedly did not receive his medication during a 167-day period of incarceration at a county jail stated a viable claim for liability against a jail employee who allegedly said that "we don't give away" HIV medications "here at this jail." Leavitt v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., #10-1432, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 13269 (1st Cir.).

View at http://courtlistener.com/ca1/28oV/leavitt-v-correctional-medical-services/

* Transsexual inmates

A Wisconsin state statute that flatly prohibits providing hormone therapy or sex reassignment surgery to transsexual prisoners regardless of their medical needs is in violation of the Eighth Amendment.  "Refusing to provide effective treatment for a serious medical condition serves no valid penological purpose and amounts to torture." Fields v. Smith, #10-2339, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 16152 (7th Cir.).

View at http://courtlistener.com/ca7/29be/andrea-fields-v-judy-smith/

3. Selected criminal law and procedure cases are at another free website.

View at http://www.kenwallentine.com/Xiphos.html

You are welcome to forward this information; please encourage your colleagues to sign up for periodic mailings at http://www.aele.org/e-signup.html  We don't insert commercial messages or sell your e-addresses.


Title: You know it ain't easy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 05, 2012, 08:46:29 AM
http://www.policeone.com/close-quarters-combat/articles/4923231-Video-of-attack-on-Md-cop-goes-viral/
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: bigdog on January 05, 2012, 04:10:58 PM
Death threat for LEOs after shooting armed student:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/05/9978619-texas-police-receive-death-threats-after-shooting-teen
Title: Cop involved shooting
Post by: prentice crawford on January 06, 2012, 04:00:47 PM
Woof,
 Brave little lady here boys.

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8xM_PiWZN-E?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

                                             P.C.
Title: Police shoot citizen
Post by: JDN on February 11, 2012, 07:14:15 AM
"Sgt. Manuel Loggins Jr. was shot early Tuesday as he started to get into the SUV where his two daughters -- 9 and 14.

Amormino said Loggins was not armed and that it doesn’t appear the incident was alcohol- or drug-related.

A former commanding officer said Loggins routinely went to the school with his daughters during the early-morning hours to walk the track and read the Bible."

What did he do to deserve to be shot dead?



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/marine-shot-.html

Title: Re: Police shoot citizen
Post by: G M on February 11, 2012, 08:18:52 AM
"Sgt. Manuel Loggins Jr. was shot early Tuesday as he started to get into the SUV where his two daughters -- 9 and 14.

Amormino said Loggins was not armed and that it doesn’t appear the incident was alcohol- or drug-related.

A former commanding officer said Loggins routinely went to the school with his daughters during the early-morning hours to walk the track and read the Bible."

What did he do to deserve to be shot dead?



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/marine-shot-.html



I don't know, but I'm sure that won't stop you from some ignorant speculation.
Title: This one is sure to irritate our GM
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 14, 2012, 12:41:54 PM
I don't know if the many URLs embedded as citations for the assertions in this email to me will reproduce here:

February 13, 2012 by Bob Livingston 
 
PHOTOS.COM
Many, if not most, patrol cars now carry dashcams.
Law-abiding citizens are no longer safe from police. Once the motto for police officers was “To protect and serve,” but now it seems to be “To harass, assault and attack.”
Across the country, police officers are increasingly militarized and increasingly militant. They make up laws out of thin air, claiming that innocuous activities like watching or videotaping police activities — including arrests on public streets,  walking in certain neighborhoods, parking on certain streets and putting trash in trash cans — are crimes.
While the vilest offenders are SWAT teams, even regular patrol officers become violent at the least provocation. Thanks to YouTube and similar content-sharing sites, more of these incidents are coming to light. However, capturing video of these incidents has put the videographer at risk from the police, who often unlawfully and forcibly take the phone or camera and erase its contents or remove its memory card. It’s not unusual for the videographer to be roughed up and/or threatened with arrest in the process. A list of recent incidences of police brutality and other police misconduct can be read at Injustice Everywhere.
Cops have come to think of themselves as gods above the law whose commands are to be obeyed immediately and without question. Any hesitation often leads to the “suspect” being left bleeding and broken or quivering from electricity introduced by a TASER. It doesn’t matter if the person was unable to understand the command because of a language barrier, or if the person was unable to comply due to disability or defect. Officers expect immediate and complete compliance with no questions asked.
They are shooting dogs for barking, Tasing (see here and here) and pepper spraying children in schools and shooting wheelchair-bound men in the streets. They apparently feel they operate above the law.
Many, if not most, patrol cars now carry dash cams. Sometimes, dash cam videos are preserved, which allows abused citizens — if they are persistent and dogged enough — to get justice and restitution occasionally. Such was the case shown here, where the officer threatened to shoot a suspect in the head for not revealing he had a concealed weapon in the car. Often, though, the dash cam video mysteriously disappears before trial.
According to a report by the CATO Institute, tens of thousands of raids are conducted by SWAT teams each year. The report claimed:
These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.
The so-called War on Drugs is undoubtedly the casus belli for the increased militarization of the police. SWAT officers are armed and armored as well as, if not better than, soldiers. Drug task forces receive Federal funding to purchase assault weapons, armor and armored vehicles to use in drug raids. They no longer serve warrants by knocking on doors or by picking up suspects on the streets. Instead, they bash down doors or use chain saws to gain entry.
SWAT teams argue their safety requires they swarm into homes. But that doesn’t negate the fact that they create an explosive situation that often leads to innocent people being harmed or killed. Sadly, they often force their way into the wrong residence.
The instance in Tucson, Ariz., in which Iraq veteran Jose Guerena was shot 60 times by SWAT officers in his home is prima facie evidence of the danger these situations create.
In the early morning hours Guerena’s wife, Vanessa, saw a man pointing a gun at her through the window. She awakened her husband, who was asleep after working the night shift. Thinking a home invasion was in progress, Guerena told his wife to get into a closet and grabbed his gun.
The SWAT team forced open the door and opened fire on Guerena, then stood by and watched him bleed for an hour before letting paramedics treat him. By then, he was dead. SWAT officers then lied about who shot first. The safety was still on Guerena’s gun, indicating he never fired. Nothing illegal was found in Guerena’s home.
It is grounded in conservative American psyche to defend oneself and one’s home. Yet responding to an unannounced and violent intrusion by police will leave you as dead as it left Guerena.
And even if you aren’t shot dead, the police have no qualms about destroying your residence. They claim it is police procedure to gas the house, tear up floor boards, kick in doors and walls, and strew contents of cabinets and furniture to the winds. Requests for compensation are ignored, even if nothing was ever found.
But it’s not just suspected drug dealers who feel the wrath of police officers. Just ask Marianne Godboldo of Detroit. Police thugs forcibly removed her daughter for the crime of Godboldo not giving her daughter a pill prescribed by a physician.
Most people dismiss claims of an increasingly violent and aggressive police force as either conspiracy theory or sour grapes by criminals. Minorities have long seen their claims of police brutality dismissed out of hand by white America. Many people naively believe that if they don’t commit a crime, they won’t have anything to worry about from police. But it’s high time that people see this for what it is and connect the dots on the news stories of today.
Congress has just authorized having as many as 30,000 unmanned drones patrolling the U.S. skies. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security are greatly expanding the definition of extremist and terrorist to include people performing normal activities or objecting to paying taxes. The USA Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act have given government carte blanche to detain Americans without charge and without trial and ship them to the Guantanamo Bay prison resort.
In a series of debates on socialism in 1914, John Basil Barnhill said, “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.” The government fears the people and the coming conflagration it has sparked. By tightening its grasp on liberty through the militarization of the police force, the pendulum is swinging to where the people are now beginning to fear their government.
Where this will lead is anybody’s guess, but I predict it won’t be pretty.


--
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free -- Goethe
Title: Citizen rights to record
Post by: JDN on February 14, 2012, 10:16:28 PM
http://www.wbaltv.com/r/30451217/detail.html
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on February 17, 2012, 08:08:30 AM
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/02/subaru-portland-couple-arrested-valentines-day.html
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 17, 2012, 09:01:14 AM
Please make use of the subject line so as to faciliate Search commands and please put in a sentence or three describing the contents to help people decide whether they want to click on it.

TIA
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on February 17, 2012, 09:16:17 AM
I usually do; note my previous post subject line "Citizen's right to record".

But this post was more for entertainment.   :-)  I doubt if anyone will be doing research on the subject.   :-)

That said, I will always try to summarize; I agree it really does help.
Title: Mountain Man hunt
Post by: prentice crawford on February 17, 2012, 08:18:12 PM
By BRIAN SKOLOFF, PAUL FOY
 
updated 2/17/2012 3:06:00 PM ET 2012-02-17T20:06:00
Print Font: +-SALT LAKE CITY — He's eluded authorities for more than five years, a mountain man who roams the wilderness of southern Utah, breaking into remote cabins in winter, living in luxury off hot food, alcohol and coffee before stealing provisions and vanishing into the woods.

Investigators have clawed for clues, scouring cabins for fingerprints that match no one and chasing reports of brief encounters only to come up short, always a step behind the mysterious recluse.

They've found abandoned camps, dozens of guns, high-end outdoor gear stolen from the homes and trash strewn around the forest floor.

But the man authorities say is armed and dangerous and responsible for more than two dozen burglaries has continued to outrun the law across a swath of mountains not far from Zion National Park. He's roamed across 1,000 square miles of rugged wilderness where snow can pile 10 feet deep in winter.

And while there have been no violent confrontations, detectives say he's a time bomb. Lately he has been leaving the cabins in disarray and riddled with bullets after defacing religious icons, and a recent note left behind in one cabin warned, "Get off my mountain."

"You wouldn't want to come across that guy," said Iron County Det. Jody Edwards, who has been working the case since 2007.

Theories about his identity have ranged from two separate men on the FBI's Most Wanted List — one sought for the 2004 killing of an armored-truck guard in Phoenix, another for killing his wife and two children in Arizona. Some have also speculated the man may be a castaway from the nearby compounds of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the polygamous sect run by jailed leader Warren Jeffs.


 AP
This undated photo provided by the Iron County Sheriff's Office shows a remote camp littered with supplies and trash in the southern Utah wildness near Zion National Park. Authorities believe the camp was left behind by a suspect in more than two dozen burglaries of mountain cabins over an area of roughly 1,000 square miles for the past five years.
 
The FBI recently discounted the theory that the man was the fugitive sought in the armored-truck guard killing after authorities got the first pictures of him from a motion-triggered surveillance camera outside a cabin. The photos showing a sandy-haired man in camouflage on snowshoes, a rifle slung over his shoulder, were taken sometime in December.

"We believe that is not Jason Derek Brown," FBI special agent Manuel Johnson told The Associated Press.

Edwards wasn't so quick to rule out the possibility, given the close resemblance to the 42-year-old Brown, who was raised Mormon and is a highly educated, well-traveled avid outdoorsman.

Johnson said the FBI has considered the possibility that the cabin burglar may be Robert William Fisher, described as a survivalist, hunter and angler who authorities say killed his family then blew up their house in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 2001. However, at 50 years old, Johnson is doubtful it's the man in the surveillance photos, who appears much younger.

..So while detectives believe they are getting close, buoyed by the recent photos, the shadowy survivalist remains an enigma. No missing person report appears to fit, and fingerprints lifted from cabins have yielded no match.

'I don't think this guy is normal'
Meanwhile, cabin owners are growing more frightened by the day and are left wondering who might be sleeping in their beds this winter.

"He's scaring the daylights out of cabin owners. Now everyone's packing guns," said Jud Hendrickson, a 62-year-old mortgage advisor from nearby St. George who keeps a trailer in the area.

In November 2010, Bruce Stucki, another cabin owner, said a burglar broke into his cabin through a narrow window, pried open a gun case with a crowbar and laid out the weapons but took none. At a nearby cabin, the man reportedly took only the grips from gun handles.

"He could stand in the trees and pop you off and no one would know who killed you," Stucki said.

Some cabins he has left tidy and clean, while others he has practically destroyed, even defecating in one in a pan on the floor.

"He should know he's being followed, but I don't think this guy is normal in any way," said Stucki, who, like many cabin owners, has a lot of his own theories.

"He's anti-religious, waiting for the mothership to come in," Stucki speculated.

.Investigators say they have found several of the man's unattended summer camps, what they initially thought were left behind by "doomsday" believers preparing for some sort of apocalypse because of the remote locations and supplies like weapons, radios, batteries, dehydrated food and camping gear.

Stocked with guns
Edwards said two camps found a few years ago were stocked with 19 guns. One of the camps also had a copy of Jon Krakauer's "Into the Wild," a book about a young man who died after wandering into the Alaskan wilderness to live alone off the land.

The cabin burglar has managed to avoid being seen all but twice over the years, each time retreating into the forest.

In recent weeks, it took detectives an entire day to reach a remote cabin after getting a report that lights had been seen on inside overnight. It turned out they were solar-powered lights on the porch, and the cabin was empty — another dead-end.

The coffee and alcohol the survivalist favors plays into some cabin owners' assessment that he could be a castaway from the nearby twin towns of Hildale or Colorado City on the Utah-Arizona border. The so-called lost boys are said to be regularly booted from the polygamous sect there by elders looking to increase their marriage opportunities with young women.

Unlike members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which discourages consumption of alcohol and coffee, many of the Mormon fundamentalists imbibe.

Detectives aren't sharing their latest assessments but "we've got a lot of leads" from the surveillance photos, Edwards said. "I would say we're very close to making a positive ID on him. We just got to catch this guy."

To cabin owners in southern Utah, he remains a spooky and menacing figure.

"We feel like we're being subject to terrorism by this guy," Hendrickson said. "My wife says flat-out she's not going back to our trailer until they catch him."

                                                          P.c.
Title: Follow up to Marine shot dead by police in San Clemente
Post by: JDN on February 18, 2012, 05:23:49 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marine-shot-20120218,0,1108296.story
Title: Tragedy: Father shot in front of son
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 27, 2012, 04:48:45 PM
stopthedrugwar.org

Very odd that no traces of marijuana were found in his system.

============================================

Michigan Father Killed in Marijuana Child Removal Incident
Post to:TwitterFacebookDiggStumbleUponRedditby Phillip Smith, March 24, 2012, 04:30pm
 
Posted in: 2012 Drug War Killings, Families, Marijuana -- Personal Use, News Brief, Police-Community Tensions, Police/Suspect Altercations
A prosecutor in northern Michigan has cleared the police officer who shot and killed a Grayling man as police and Child Protective Services (CPS) employees attempted to seize his three-year-old. The attempted removal of the minor child came after a police officer who came to the scene on a call earlier that same day reported that he smelled marijuana and reported the incident to CPS authorities, who decided the child needed to be removed. The dead man, William Reddie, 32, becomes the 17th person killed in US domestic drug law enforcement operations so far this year.




William Reddie [Editor's Note: This case illustrates the difficulties that arise in determining which deaths qualify as being a direct result of drug law enforcement. Police here were enforcing child protections laws, not drug laws, but the only reason CPS was called in was because of the allegation of marijuana use. There was no allegation of crazed behavior due to marijuana use; only the allegation of use. For Michigan CPS authorities, that was enough to remove the child. Bottom line: This guy died because the state tried to take his kid because he was accused of smoking pot, so he merits inclusion. That doesn't mean his own actions didn't contribute to his death.]

Reddie's killing took place on February 3, but we only became aware of it when news broke this week that prosecutors had decided that the police officer's use of deadly force in the incident was justified.

According to the Crawford County Avalanche, Grayling police Officer Alan Somero was called to Reddie's apartment for an alleged domestic disturbance. Somero made no arrests, but believed he smelled marijuana and reported it to CPS. Two CPS employees went to Reddie's apartment to check on the situation. They then got a court order to remove Reddie's 3-year-old son, Cameron, and asked police to escort them to the apartment to serve the court order.

The Gaylord Herald-Times, which obtained the CPS removal order, added more detail. It reported that Reddie had been accused of smoking marijuana in front of his son, and that Reddie had become "agitated" and threatened police when confronted by that accusation earlier in the day.

The court order gave the following reason for removing the child: “There are reasonable grounds for this court to remove the child(ren) from the parent ... because conditions or surroundings of the child(ren), and is contrary to the welfare of the child(ren) to remain in the home because: It is alleged that the father used marijuana in the home in the presence of the child. In addition, there is concern for the safety of the child due to a domestic disturbance and threats made toward law enforcement by the father.”

Returning to the Avalanche's narrative, when police and CPS workers arrived to seize the child, Reddie then reportedly displayed a pcoketknife and lunged at them. Crawford County Deputy John Klepadlo shot and killed him. Police had been deploying Tasers, but holstered them and grabbed their guns when Reddie displayed the knife.

Crawford County Sheriff Kirk Wakefield then asked the Michigan State Police to investigate his deputy's use of deadly force. The Michigan Attorney General's Office referred the case to the neighboring Roscommon County Prosecutor's Office. After receiving a report from the State Police, Roscommon County DA Mark Jernigan determined that the use of deadly force was justified and that Klepadlo would not be charged with any crime.

"The deceased was in possession of an edged weapon," Jernigan said. "The deceased pulled a knife and hid it behind his back. At the point where he pulls his hand forward and lunges at the officer, he is in such close proximity, and presents a clear danger of deadly force, the officer is left with no option other than to use deadly force to protect himself, the other officer and the three civilians that were present. The use of deadly force is completely justified and therefore, the homicide was justified."

Toxicology reports, which were included in the final investigation, showed there was no marijuana or alcohol in Reddie's system when he was killed.

Reddie had been seeking permanent custody of his son and was due in court for a hearing on that matter three days after he was killed.

"They took the only thing he ever loved," Reddie's mother, Michelle VanBuren, told the Avalanche after the prosecutor's announcement.

VanBuren said she was baffled by the conduct of authorities, especially since no evidence or alcohol or marijuana use was found. She said she had been in contact with her son throughout that day.

"I was on the phone with my son all day, and that cop was bullying him and harassing him so badly," she said. "Where was protect and serve?" VanBuren asked. "The officers always have to stick together and for them to do this is just totally uncalled for."

VanBuren said the family would continue to fight to ensure that CPS and law enforcement are held accountable for their actions. "They need to be held accountable and they will be held accountable believe you me," she said.

Reddie's family is not alone in questioning police and CPS actions. “I can’t believe they (police) could not subdue Will without killing him, and over what, marijuana,” said Joanne Michal, who knew Reddie for half of his life. “Why didn’t police just arrest him or cite him for marijuana instead of removing his child?” she told the Herald-Times.

“It is particularly sad that Will was shot to death right in front of his son,” Michal continued. “Why not use a Taser? Even if he (Will) had a knife and lunged at police, they didn’t have to kill him. Instead of using a Taser, you shoot him in front of his child. It is just totally unjustified. They didn’t have to kill him. I think it’s very sad that his life was taken during the removal of his son. And the smell of marijuana shouldn’t have been a reason for an emergency order. Just a few days before he was killed, Will was visiting, and he was so excited because a hearing was coming up for custody. And it seemed to give him hope of getting permanent custody. His son was everything to him.”

Crawford County Clerk Sandra Moore said she also knew Reddie. “It’s truly a shame,”Moore said. “He was a good guy and very fond of his son. He had been very excited just days before” about gaining permanent custody.

Cameron Reddie is now in foster care. His father's family is seeking visitation rights.

Meanwhile, Deputy Klepadlo, who had been on administrative leave after the shooting, is back on the job.

Grayling, MI
United States
Title: Re: Tragedy: Father shot in front of son
Post by: G M on March 27, 2012, 05:22:50 PM
I'm reminded of a traffic stop where a DUI suspect tried pulling a knife from concealment and narrowly avoided getting shot. Would that have been a casualty of the war on drunk driving?

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 27, 2012, 08:58:24 PM
Very odd that the man had no traces of marijuana when that was the foundation of taking his son away from him , , ,  Instead you offer a  , , , very predictable response.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on March 27, 2012, 09:11:42 PM
Very odd that the man had no traces of marijuana when that was the foundation of taking his son away from him , , ,  Instead you offer a  , , , very predictable response.

Predictable, as in pointing out the flaw in the post decrying the "war on drugs"?

He got shot, not because of marijuana or the lack thereof, but by threatening officers with deadly force.

So, again, if a subject was shot after being stopped for DUI, would that be a casualty of the "war on drunk driving" ?

If then, is the answer to legalize drunk driving?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2012, 08:14:58 AM
Forgive me, but I think you are missing my point.

They say they are taking the man's child away because he smoked pot in front of the child, yet there are no traces of pot in his system.  As both of us know, pot takes months to clear out of someone's system, so how can this be?

Does this not strike you as very odd?

Furthermore, it is hard to think of something more emotionally explosive than taking a child away from a parent.  Imaging the thought for either of my children and me, (especially when there has been serious litigation and I would be the only parent!) and my heart gets to racing.  Of course I get your point, but it sure is hard to keep from wondering if things could have been handled better. 

Do you have no tears for the tragedy here?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on March 28, 2012, 06:13:04 PM
Forgive me, but I think you are missing my point.

They say they are taking the man's child away because he smoked pot in front of the child, yet there are no traces of pot in his system.  As both of us know, pot takes months to clear out of someone's system, so how can this be?

Does this not strike you as very odd?


[b**]"The attempted removal of the minor child came after a police officer who came to the scene on a call earlier that same day reported that he smelled marijuana and reported the incident to CPS authorities, who decided the child needed to be removed."

So, reading the line from above, I'm guessing there was an odor that the officer detected from the residence. Perhaps the source wasn't the father in the case, but another person in the residence at the time. [/b]

Furthermore, it is hard to think of something more emotionally explosive than taking a child away from a parent.  Imaging the thought for either of my children and me, (especially when there has been serious litigation and I would be the only parent!) and my heart gets to racing.  Of course I get your point, but it sure is hard to keep from wondering if things could have been handled better. 

*It's very explosive and I've done standbys while children were removed by court order for abuse/neglect. I've seen children who lived like feral children in homes with no food and weeks of tears marked on the embedded dirt on their faces who still screamed and fought to stay with the parents who beat and starved them. I've done many joint investigations with what I call "social circuses", and found very few who I had much respect for as professionals. Many mean well, but know nothing about conducting a fair and impartial investigations. "Social Circuses" seems to wreak havok on decent parents while letting real abuse cases slide through the cracks at the same time. I had a role in a case where an abusive father under the supervision of "Socialist Workers" murdered his 8 year old daughter by cutting her throat ear to ear. So, yes I grasp the gravity of such things.

Do you have no tears for the tragedy here?

Sure. I wish it hadn't played out that way. I'll bet that deputy wishes the same thing. I've pointed guns at people for real and I'm glad circumstances haven't required me to press the trigger thus far, though I've been on the razor's edge of doing so more than once. Though if someone brings out a knife, it will be a gunfight in very short order becuse I understand quite well the potential lethality in any edged weapon.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2012, 07:35:40 PM


They say they are taking the man's child away because he smoked pot in front of the child, yet there are no traces of pot in his system.  As both of us know, pot takes months to clear out of someone's system, so how can this be?

Does this not strike you as very odd?

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on March 28, 2012, 07:38:17 PM


They say they are taking the man's child away because he smoked pot in front of the child, yet there are no traces of pot in his system.  As both of us know, pot takes months to clear out of someone's system, so how can this be?

Does this not strike you as very odd?


"The attempted removal of the minor child came after a police officer who came to the scene on a call earlier that same day reported that he smelled marijuana and reported the incident to CPS authorities, who decided the child needed to be removed."

So, reading the line from above, I'm guessing there was an odor that the officer detected from the residence. Perhaps the source wasn't the father in the case, but another person in the residence at the time.

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on March 28, 2012, 07:50:05 PM
In my experience, and related to my state's laws, I can't imagine that marijuana use alone would justify removing a child from a home. As far as Michigan, I don't know. In my state, "social workers" have no legal authority to remove a child and if a peace officer does so it's reviewed by a judge. Generally, the officer will seek an emergency protection order from a judge when he/she reasonable believes that a child is in immediate and present danger.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2012, 09:03:07 PM
FWIW lets review the relevant passage of my original post on this matter:

"There was no allegation of crazed behavior due to marijuana use; only the allegation of use. For Michigan CPS authorities, that was enough to remove the child. Bottom line: This guy died because the state tried to take his kid because he was accused of smoking pot, so he merits inclusion. That doesn't mean his own actions didn't contribute to his death.]

, , ,

"According to the Crawford County Avalanche, Grayling police Officer Alan Somero was called to Reddie's apartment for an alleged domestic disturbance. Somero made no arrests, but believed he smelled marijuana and reported it to CPS. Two CPS employees went to Reddie's apartment to check on the situation. They then got a court order to remove Reddie's 3-year-old son, Cameron, and asked police to escort them to the apartment to serve the court order.

"The Gaylord Herald-Times, which obtained the CPS removal order, added more detail. It reported that Reddie had been accused of smoking marijuana in front of his son, and that Reddie had become "agitated" and threatened police when confronted by that accusation earlier in the day.

MARC:  Accused by whom?  The mother who was losing the custody battle?  I too would become agitated at a false (remember, when tested he came up clean) accusation of pot as a basis for taking away my child!!!  I'm guessing that he might have guessed the mother was behind it too , , ,

The court order gave the following reason for removing the child: “There are reasonable grounds for this court to remove the child(ren) from the parent ... because conditions or surroundings of the child(ren), and is contrary to the welfare of the child(ren) to remain in the home because: It is alleged that the father used marijuana in the home in the presence of the child. In addition, there is concern for the safety of the child due to a domestic disturbance (OK, but is it standard practice to remove children for domestic disturbance calls?) and threats made toward law enforcement by the father.”

MARC:  Without knowing more we don't , , , know more, but it occurs to me a passionate statement in the emotion of the moment could have been made.  Some people might make allowance.

Returning to the Avalanche's narrative, when police and CPS workers arrived to seize the child, Reddie then reportedly displayed a pcoketknife and lunged at them. Crawford County Deputy John Klepadlo shot and killed him. Police had been deploying Tasers, but holstered them and grabbed their guns when Reddie displayed the knife.

MARC:  I've been tased, so I feel entitled to an opinion here.  "Police had been deploying tasers (plural!) and HOLSTERED them (THEN) grabbed their guns"   This strikes me as quite odd.  One taser, let alone multiple tasers (2? 3? or?) should be enough to stop someone long enough for a team of police to keep themselves safe and effectuate an arrest!!!  If they had the time to holster their tasers and draw their guns, then they would seem to have more time than a mad bum rush by the now deceased father.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on March 28, 2012, 09:26:22 PM
MARC:  I've been tased, so I feel entitled to an opinion here.  "Police had been deploying tasers (plural!) and HOLSTERED them (THEN) grabbed their guns"   This strikes me as quite odd.  One taser, let alone multiple tasers (2? 3? or?) should be enough to stop someone long enough for a team of police to keep themselves safe and effectuate an arrest!!!  If they had the time to holster their tasers and draw their guns, then they would seem to have more time than a mad bum rush by the now deceased father.

Graham V. Connor is the ultimate standard for police use of force, I can tell you that tasers are NOT appropriate when facing a deadly force threat, which a knife certainly is. Tasers are not phasers from Star Trek and a motivated person w/ a knife can render you maimed or dead in seconds, imagine what a highly trained person can do.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on March 28, 2012, 09:44:35 PM
http://www.policeone.com/news_internal.asp?view=113907

In Part 1 of this special series we reported on how the 21-Foot Rule, one of the core training components of edged-weapon defense, stands up when assessed against landmark findings about action-reaction times documented by the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato. We explained:
 
1. Because of misinterpretation, the 21-Foot Rule has been dangerously corrupted, but
 
2. When properly understood, the Rule is still valid in certain circumstances.

Now in this final installment of our 2-part series we discuss additional conclusions regarding edged-weapon defense, namely:
 
3. For many officers and situations, a 21-foot reactionary gap is not sufficient.
 
4. Weapons that officers often think they can depend on to defeat knife attacks can't be relied upon to protect them in many cases.

 
5. Training in edged-weapon defense should by no means be abandoned.
 
Here's what FSRC's executive director and selected members of the Center's National and Technical Advisory Boards have to say on these topics:
 
3. MORE DISTANCE. "In reality, the 21-Foot Rule--by itself--may not provide officers with an adequate margin of protection," says Dr. Bill Lewinski, FSRC's executive director. "It's easily possible for suspects in some circumstances to launch a successful fatal attack from a distance greater than 21 feet."

Among other police instructors, John Delgado, retired training officer for the Miami-Dade (FL) PD, has extended the 21-Foot Rule to 30 feet. "Twenty-one feet doesn't really give many officers time to get their gun out and fire accurately," he says. "Higher-security holsters complicate the situation, for one thing. Some manufacturers recommend 3,000 pulls to develop proficiency with a holster. Most cops don't do that, so it takes them longer to get their gun out than what's ideal. Also shooting proficiency tends to deteriorate under stress. Their initial rounds may not even hit."

Beyond that, there's the well-established fact that a suspect often can keep going from momentum, adrenalin, chemicals and sheer determination, even after being shot. "Experience informs us that people who are shot with a handgun do not fall down instantly nor does the energy of a handgun round stop their forward movement," states Chris Lawrence, team leader of DT training at the Ontario (Canada) Police College and an FSRC Technical Advisory Board member. Says Lewinski: "Certain arterial or spinal hits may drop an attacker instantly. But otherwise a wounded but committed suspect may have the capacity to continue on to the officer's location and complete his deadly intentions."

That's one reason why tactical distractions, which we'll discuss in a moment, should play an important role in defeating an edged-weapon attack, even when you are able to shoot to defend yourself.
 
"When working with bare-minimum margins, any delay in an officer responding to a deadly threat can equate to injury or death," reinforces attorney and use-of-force trainer Bill Everett, an FSRC National Advisory Board member. "So the officer must key his or her reaction to the first overt act indicating that a lethal attack is coming.
 
"More distance and time give the officer not only more tactical options but also more opportunity to confirm the attacker's lethal intention before selecting a deadly force response."
 
4. MISPLACED CONFIDENCE. Relying on OC or a Taser for defeating a charging suspect is probably a serious mistake. Gary Klugiewicz, a leading edged-weapon instructor and a member of FSRC's National Advisory Board, points out that firing out Taser barbs may be an effective option in dealing with a threatening but STATIONARY subject. But depending on this force choice to stop a charging suspect could be disastrous.

With fast, on-rushing movement, "there's a real chance of not hitting the subject effectively and of not having sufficient time" for the electrical charge--or for a blast of OC--to take effect before he is on you, Klugiewicz says.

Lewinski agrees, adding: "A rapid charge at an officer is a common characteristic of someone high on chemicals or severely emotionally disturbed. More research is needed, but it appears that when a Taser isn't effective it is most often with these types of suspects."
 
Smug remarks about offenders foolishly "bringing a knife to a gunfight" betray dangerous thinking about the ultimate force option, too. Some officers are cockily confident they'll defeat any sharp-edged threat because they carry a superior weapon: their service sidearm. This belief may be subtly reinforced by fixating on distances of 21 or 30 feet, as if this is the typical reaction space you'll have in an edged-weapon encounter.
 
The truth is that where edged-weapon attacks are concerned, "close-up confrontations are actually the norm," points out Sgt. Craig Stapp, a firearms trainer with the Tempe (AZ) P.D. and a member of FSRC's Technical Advisory Board. "A suspect who knows how to effectively deploy a knife can be extremely dangerous in these circumstances. Even those who are not highly trained can be deadly, given the close proximity of the contact, the injury knives are capable of, and the time it takes officers to process and react to an assault.

"At close distances, standing still and drawing are usually not the best tactics to employ and may not even be possible." At a distance of 10 feet, a subject is less than half a second away from making the first cut on an officer, Lewinski's research shows. Therefore, rather than relying on a holstered gun, officers must be trained in hands-on techniques to deflect or delay the use of the knife, to control it and/or to remove it from the attacker's grasp, or to buy time to get their gun out. These methods have to be simple enough to be learned by the average officer.

**Use techniques to "Die less often", to use a phrase I've heard before.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on March 28, 2012, 09:58:43 PM
In addition, there is concern for the safety of the child due to a domestic disturbance (OK, but is it standard practice to remove children for domestic disturbance calls?) and threats made toward law enforcement by the father.”

It can be, and a judge issued an order to remove the child. What more do you want when you have a court order? It appears that a judge found there it was reasonable to remove the child and if the father wished, he could have pursued this issue in court. It's a temporary order and these days, it's damn near impossible to terminate parential rights for almost any reason, including parents who have raped their children and been convicted for the sexual abuse in criminal court.
Title: Somehow it's funnier because it's an Aussie
Post by: G M on March 28, 2012, 10:24:18 PM
http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2011/10/04/taser-fails-on-aggressive-patron/

Taser fails on aggressive patron
 

Melissa Grant | 4th October 2011 12:00 AM


POLICE thought deploying a taser gun at Matthew Bierton's chest would be enough to stop him behaving in a threatening manner, but they were wrong.
 
The two officers would have realised this when Bierton said: "Is that the best you (expletives) have got?"
 
Bierton said he didn't feel anything when a police officer tasered him at a Slade Point tavern on May 12. The 33-year-old was tasered because he behaved in a threatening manner towards police when they tried to question him about a domestic dispute at a Slade Point residence.
 
Prosecutor Constable Janelle Young said police went to a tavern on Pacific Esplanade to talk to Bierton about the dispute in which he damaged a vehicle. When they approached him he told them to "(expletive) off".
 
At this point, Bierton turned around on the bar stool and stood up.
 
He adopted a fighting stance and because there was glass nearby one officer produced and deployed his taser gun, Const Young said.
 
Bierton pleaded guilty to obstructing a police officer, wilful damage and breaching a domestic violence order in the Mackay Magistrates Court yesterday.
 
Duty lawyer John Aberdeen, of Legal Aid Queensland, said Bierton could remember wearing handcuffs and being tasered that evening but couldn't recall threatening police.
 
"The taser shot at him - apparently it didn't work," he said.
 
"My client didn't feel anything."
 
Mr Aberdeen said Bierton was unemployed and stressed at the time and had issues with relationships, anger management and alcohol. In court Bierton said he was on prescribed medication at the time of the incident.
 
Magistrate Athol Kennedy said there was no excuse for Bierton's actions.
 
"Police are not there to be abused. None of us are," he said. Bierton was sentenced to 12 months' probation and ordered to pay $300 compensation to the police officer he kicked in the chest during the dispute.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 29, 2012, 10:26:33 AM
GM, of course I get the point about knives, distance, time, etc.  Duh.  However in that time is precisely what is in question here, how is it that the police had the time to holster their taserS and then draw their guns?  Tis curious , , ,

Also, you continue to avoid the matter of there NOT being marijuana in his system though I have presented it to you point blank a number of times.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions- Child Protective Services
Post by: DougMacG on March 29, 2012, 01:34:42 PM
"There was no allegation of crazed behavior due to marijuana use; only the allegation of use. For Michigan CPS authorities, that was enough to remove the child...."

In MN it is a temporary 72 hour hold with an emergency court hearing set right away.  The criteria I don't know exactly but basically the the LEO must believe, have some verification and sign that the 'child is need of protective services' (a CHiPS petition).  Assuming there is some truth and verification to what the LEO wrote, the judge takes control and starts ordering the social services investigations  and the county attorney's office prosecutes the case.  If found guilty or true, the parent files a re-unite plan and the speed of that depends on all the factors.  Like GM says, they would re-unite with almost anyone.  Terminating parental rights has a statute, but they don't go there.

I'm sure it is simplest if you are guilty.  They find the parent a program, they get clean, got tested a few times and the state is not going to want to keep spending money on the case.  Proving yourself innocent is a whole different matter.  You would have a trial or hearing similar to a criminal hearing plus a criminal trial - I would assume it would take a simultaneous criminal charge, child endangerment etc. for this to continue.  If you are accused but innocent in all that, think how long that process could take.  They can hold your kid for all that time until you are cleared, because you are presumed guilty.

Yes, that would be a stresser for them to come for your kid for the wrong reasons but not a good time to commit a higher crime, threaten the police for example. 

Just my 2 cents, I agree with Crafty, this is outrageous IF it started over a false and fairly minor accusation. My guess was the whiff of pot was on top of the domestic threat which could have been significant, and the threat to police added another incident plus credibility toi the domestic threat. 

The domestic threat is another presumed guilty situation in this state, depending on gender.

On the other side, it is amazing in what lousy circumstances for a kid that they will not take action to protect the children.  This jurisdiction is Michigan so the precedent of what circumstances they will act on includes the insides of some homes in the inner city of Detroit with some pretty bad conditions (my opinion from an inner city landlord perspective).  I am quite a bit skeptical that this began over a reported whiff of pot. 
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on March 30, 2012, 01:33:35 PM
GM, of course I get the point about knives, distance, time, etc.  Duh.  However in that time is precisely what is in question here, how is it that the police had the time to holster their taserS and then draw their guns?  Tis curious , , ,

Also, you continue to avoid the matter of there NOT being marijuana in his system though I have presented it to you point blank a number of times.
And I responded.Quote from: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2012, 07:35:40 PM


They say they are taking the man's child away because he smoked pot in front of the child, yet there are no traces of pot in his system.  As both of us know, pot takes months to clear out of someone's system, so how can this be?

Does this not strike you as very odd?



"The attempted removal of the minor child came after a police officer who came to the scene on a call earlier that same day reported that he smelled marijuana and reported the incident to CPS authorities, who decided the child needed to be removed."

So, reading the line from above, I'm guessing there was an odor that the officer detected from the residence. Perhaps the source wasn't the father in the case, but another person in the residence at the time.

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 30, 2012, 01:38:04 PM
OK, I glitched on that.

So, the father was not tested prior to the order of the removal of his child?  Is this how things are done?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on March 30, 2012, 01:52:34 PM
I'm not sure how they might do it in MI., but if a child/parent were under the supervision of "Social Circuses", they might require the parent to take a pee test. Again, this is normally worked out through family court.
Title: Unintended consequences
Post by: JDN on April 06, 2012, 08:51:20 AM
An award to a gangster

The city's payment of $4.5 million to a gangbanger would be a reminder that the actions of police officers are sometimes costly. It would also serve to remind us that police need incentives to perform well.

April 6, 2012

It is natural that some members of the Los Angeles City Council are flinching at being asked to pay $4.5 million to Robert Contreras, a gang member who committed a drive-by shooting, then fled police in a failed attempt to elude capture, only to end up shot and crippled. In a city that is scraping to preserve services through this economic downturn, it is a bitter pill indeed to pay off a gangster.

Yet pay him off the council should. This is ground the city has covered many times before, and though it's never pleasant, it's a reminder that the actions of police officers are sometimes costly, and there's no way to avoid paying that price.

Contreras was a gang member up to no good on a September night in 2005 when he ran from the police, but the officers that night failed as well, shooting Contreras when they believed he was turning on them with a gun. It turned out to be a cellphone, and Contreras ended up paralyzed.

Yes, it is Contreras' actions that started the chain of events that left him crippled. For those criminal actions, Contreras went to prison, as he deserved to. But a separate jury ruled that the officers were wrong to shoot him, and it awarded him $4.5 million for his injuries. The city can settle now for that amount or appeal and risk paying him much more.

Critics of the payout are irritated that the jury was not told of Contreras' crimes before it decided whether he deserved compensation. But those facts were not germane. His arrest and prison term were the consequences of his crimes; his lifetime of paralysis is the consequence of the officers' mistakes, at least in the eyes of the jury.

The understandable reluctance to reward Contreras in one sense parallels the unsatisfying resolution that occurs when police officers conduct an improper search, rifling a house, for instance, without a warrant. They may find guns or drugs that amply implicate a suspect in a crime but be forced to let the suspect go when the search proves inadmissible in court. Why should society be forced to see a guilty suspect go free just because police officers misbehaved?

The answer is that police need incentives to perform well. If they can violate a suspect's rights or shoot an unarmed man, there must be a price to pay. If not, they'll do so with impunity. Sadly, it's the city that pays the bill.

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times
Title: Re: Unintended consequences
Post by: G M on April 06, 2012, 10:08:26 AM
A sign of how our society has lost contact with reality. California being the leading edge, of course.
Title: Rome police vs. Centurions
Post by: bigdog on April 13, 2012, 04:19:25 PM
http://now.msn.com/now/0413-rome-police-centurion-battle.aspx
Title: NJ Troopers High Speed Escort Service
Post by: bigdog on April 23, 2012, 11:06:47 AM
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/nj_state_troopers_face_probe_f.html

The State Police are investigating complaints that two troopers escorted a caravan of luxury sports cars at speeds in excess of 100 mph down the Garden State Parkway to Atlantic City last month. The occupants included former Giants running back and sports car enthusiast Brandon Jacobs, according to a source with knowledge of the trip.

In the complaints, obtained by The Star-Ledger, witnesses said that in the early afternoon March 30, they saw two State Police patrol cars with their emergency lights flashing driving in front of and behind the southbound caravan, which included dozens of Porsches, Lamborghinis, Ferraris and other vehicles, all with their license plates covered with tape.

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on April 23, 2012, 01:34:33 PM
Ugggg.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/nj_state_troopers_face_probe_f.html

The State Police are investigating complaints that two troopers escorted a caravan of luxury sports cars at speeds in excess of 100 mph down the Garden State Parkway to Atlantic City last month. The occupants included former Giants running back and sports car enthusiast Brandon Jacobs, according to a source with knowledge of the trip.

In the complaints, obtained by The Star-Ledger, witnesses said that in the early afternoon March 30, they saw two State Police patrol cars with their emergency lights flashing driving in front of and behind the southbound caravan, which included dozens of Porsches, Lamborghinis, Ferraris and other vehicles, all with their license plates covered with tape.


Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 23, 2012, 03:01:31 PM
BD:

On your behalf I have put in a subject line that someone could use to find this post in the future.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on April 23, 2012, 03:09:13 PM
BD:

On your behalf I have put in a subject line that someone could use to find this post in the future.

NJ Troopers High Speed Escort Service

Wait, I thought the Secret Service had the escort scandal.....  :evil:
Title: Cops Lie Too
Post by: JDN on May 08, 2012, 06:38:55 AM
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bait-car-show-20120508,0,818573.story
Title: Bad Cops are no better than criminals
Post by: JDN on May 08, 2012, 08:48:23 AM
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-kelly-thomas-20120508,0,5787840.story
Title: Millions paid out for incompetency
Post by: JDN on May 16, 2012, 06:54:12 AM
Maybe they should make the Officers personally liable for gross negligence just like any other citizen.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0516-kelly-thomas-settlement-20120516,0,5351009.story
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 16, 2012, 08:22:43 AM
You are aware that the employer, the city of Fullerton here, would remain liable, yes?

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on May 16, 2012, 08:40:41 AM
You are aware that the employer, the city of Fullerton here, would remain liable, yes?



Of course, just like a hospital would also remain liable for a grossly negligent staff doctor.  But that doctor would probably end up being responsible personally as well.  Police, government employees in general seem exempt from responsibility.

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on May 16, 2012, 11:34:52 AM
Most on this site like/want government to be run like a business.  In many respects I agree.

What private business would give full pay to incompetent employees to stay home?  These four were not as of today criminally charged, but no one doubts their culpability. 
Simply put, if this was a private corporation, they would have been fired without severance a long time ago.  And everyone would say good riddance. 

_____

"Wolfe is the first officer seen in the video using physical force against Kelly Thomas, striking him with a baton.

"Why is Officer Wolfe still on paid administrative leave?" one resident asked. "Why is he on a holiday at our taxpayer expense? That's horrible, unconscionable and it needs to change yesterday."

Wolfe was one of four officers -- including Officer Kenton Hampton, Sgt. Kevin Craig and Cpl. James Blatney -- who were not charged in connection with the beating.

All four officers are currently on paid administrative leave.

Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas has not ruled out additional charges in the case.

The City Council also announced that it had approved a $1-million settlement resolving Cathy Thomas' legal claims in the death of her son. Ron Thomas has a separate claim that remains unresolved. The couple is divorced.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/kelly-thomas-case-angry-fullerton-residents-want-cops-fired.html
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 16, 2012, 11:51:41 AM
There are these things that you may have heard of called "unions" and "contracts". 

I'm guessing the contract with the union specifies what is being done now.

As far as personal liability goes, are you saying that this will lessen bad behavior? or lessen the number of people willing to be policemen?  or that the plaintiffs get to collect from the officer in question on top of the police department? or?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on May 16, 2012, 12:03:41 PM
Oddly enough it's not a matter of "unions" and "contracts" although I'm sure, like any private business, that would enter into the discussion.  Rather it is a matter of "due process".  Something I don't honestly understand.  Unlike a private citizen, public employees simply cannot be terminated for "just cause".  It's a long process....
http://www.coollaw.com/documents/185.pdf

Yes, I think it will lessen bad behavior.  Just like I think the Doctor subconsciously weighs his liability.  He thinks twice before making a mistake.  And therefore truly gross negligence is very unusual.

As for the number of people willing to be policemen, well there is a long line of applicants, especially in this job market.  The pay is good, the benefits overly superb, and the job rewarding, albeit sometimes dangerous. 

As to from whom the plaintiff get's to collect, I'm not the attorney here, but using my example of the Physician, in cases of gross malpractice, the Physician is named, the Hospital is named, and usually the kitchen sink is named too.  How liability gets allocated and the pot gets distributed I don't know.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 16, 2012, 02:06:06 PM

"http://www.coollaw.com/documents/185.pdf"

Interesting.  Thank you for that.

As for

"As for the number of people willing to be policemen, well there is a long line of applicants, especially in this job market.  The pay is good, the benefits overly superb, and the job rewarding, albeit sometimes dangerous."

this I find glib.  Besides the fact that lots of applicants are less than desirable, there is also the matter of the willingness to act knowing that one's split second decisions could put into play one's life's savings and family financial security in the hands of a jury of Rodney King's peers. 

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on May 16, 2012, 02:35:04 PM

"As for the number of people willing to be policemen, well there is a long line of applicants, especially in this job market.  The pay is good, the benefits overly superb, and the job rewarding, albeit sometimes dangerous."

this I find glib.  Besides the fact that lots of applicants are less than desirable, there is also the matter of the willingness to act knowing that one's split second decisions could put into play one's life's savings and family financial security in the hands of a jury of Rodney King's peers. 

No offense, but I think your answer is "glib".  You are making an assumption that the applicants "are less than desirable".  I disagree, especially in this economy.  My brother has a landscape business.  He has healthy young guys with Master's Degrees offering to do hard day labor for him.  The requirements to join the LAPD, an excellent department, are minimal; a high school diploma is about it.

http://www.joinlapd.com/qualifications.html

We are ALL judged by our peers if we commit a crime.  Even in a civil trial we are all judged by our peers.  And if we commit an act that is determined to be gross negligence, our life savings and family security is in their hands.  Like a doctor who shows up drunk and performs surgery, or misses an obvious diagnosis (expert witnesses will influence that issue like they would a policeman's action) gross negligence should be punished.  ER doctors for example, make split second decisions that affect lives on a daily basis.  Frankly, much more often than the average policeman on the beat.  The system seems to work well; why are Police exempt?  Would you want a doctor to operate on you for a serious matter who knows that no matter how badly he messes up, he will never be personally responsible?

I don't want a doctor who thinks that he is not responsible for his actions nor do I think a policeman should be exempt in cases of gross negligence. 

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 16, 2012, 04:35:14 PM
Let me try restating this:

If you add personal liability to the risks an officer must take you will lose some of them (presumably the best because otherwise why would they have been selected) AND you will lose some of those who otherwise would have applied.  The net result will tend towards less desirable candidates being selected.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: bigdog on May 16, 2012, 06:25:11 PM
I wonder if a police officer can buy "malpractice" insurance?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: JDN on May 17, 2012, 07:03:19 AM
I wonder if a police officer can buy "malpractice" insurance?

 :-)
The insurance industry despite it's staid reputation is one of the last Frontiers for free enterprise.  If it makes money, let's do it seems to be their motto.
Plus, it's based upon the law of large numbers; there are a lot of police officers out there so I think the answer would be yes.   :-)

As for your comment Crafty, you are making presumptions that are not necessarily true.  Again, let's use doctors.  They have personal liability yet frankly it's still very difficult
to get into Medical School; the demand for that job is still there.  The best doctors don't drop out because of personal liability, if anything, it's the less talented doctors who drop out.  And if a few do drop out, well, there are plenty of applicants.

As for police officers, the hiring practices bewilder me.  It seems more like who do you know, what color or nationality you are, or how lucky you are versus raw intelligence mixed with reasonable physical ability.  Remember, you only need a high school diploma to quality leaving you a huge applicant base. 

As I mentioned on the CA site, as did others, public employees should be run like a business.  That includes police and fire. 
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 17, 2012, 08:34:32 AM
I'm under the impression that the difficulties in the practice of medicine, including medical malpractice lawsuits and the related costs of malpractice insurance, are driving many doctors out of medicine.   To the extent that we believe that those  who become doctors tend to be better qualified than those who don't, the logical inference is of a downward pressure on the level.

I get the logic of saying it is the lesser doctors who are more likley to be sued.  Perhaps, but I suspect it is more likely that doctors be driven away from higher risk/higher premium specialties e.g. ob-gyn.

Anyway, I think the logic of my syllogisim to be just fine:

"If you add personal liability to the risks an officer must take you will lose some of them (presumably the best because otherwise why would they have been selected) AND you will lose some of those who otherwise would have applied.  The net result will tend towards less desirable candidates being selected."
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: dreatx on May 25, 2012, 07:13:13 AM
I am curious as to how you guys feel about the use of unmanned drones, in police work.  As a naturally suspicious person, I dislike this.  I imagine that armed drones for SWAT actions will come next.  That is a barrel of poisonous snakes.  Remember, In this country, in modern times (I was in high school) the police of a certain city actually bombed a city block.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 25, 2012, 07:17:48 AM
Excellent question:  It and related matters have been the subject of some vigorous back and forth on this thread: 

http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1133.550
Title: Naked man 'eating’ face off victim
Post by: bigdog on May 28, 2012, 06:04:21 AM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/26/2818832/naked-man-shot-killed-on-macarthur.html

This says it all: "It was a scene as creepy as a Hannibal Lecter movie."
Title: Stopped for open carry in Maine
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 28, 2012, 08:25:20 AM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfdEbe7e9GE&feature=plcp
Title: Police mistakes costs $millions
Post by: JDN on June 30, 2012, 06:50:32 AM
"The Los Angeles City Council agreed Friday to pay $6.6 million to the family of a woman killed by a speeding police car, the largest amount the city has ever paid to resolve a police traffic collision."

"Officer Brubaker and his partner, who were responding to a report of a possible stolen car about two miles away, had not turned on the car's emergency lights and so were not legally allowed to be speeding. Other drivers and a reconstruction of the crash, however, estimated the police vehicle was going about 70 mph, twice the posted speed limit, according to a lawyer for Lugo's family and a confidential city report about the incident obtained by The Times."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lapd-traffic-settle-20120629,0,1152162.story

"Officer Brubaker was not seriously punished by the department despite the finding that he was to blame. He received an admonishment."   :-o

If these were your employees wouldn't you fire them?  Our tax money paid over $6million for their incompetence.
Title: ACLU-NJ App
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 07, 2012, 12:32:02 AM
http://blutube.policeone.com/videos/5814165-aclu-releases-stealth-app-to-tape-nj-police/
Title: Butler v. Collier
Post by: bigdog on July 11, 2012, 05:21:19 PM
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201113933.pdf

The first four pages of this opinion are the most entertaining I've ever read. The rest is interesting and may inform in the dicussion of this thread.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 11, 2012, 08:15:07 PM
That is hysterical!  Good discussion of Section 1983 as well-- which is quite relevant to the subject of this thread.
Title: The high cost of police incompetence - UC Davis et al
Post by: JDN on July 12, 2012, 07:53:54 AM
"The pepper ball hit the sophomore in the eye and caused permanent damage, eventually leading Nelson to lose a football scholarship and drop out of the university, the court said.

Writing for the court, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said police used excessive force. "A reasonable officer would have known that firing projectiles, including pepper balls, in the direction of individuals suspected of, at most, minor crimes, who posed no threat to the officers or others, and who engaged in only passive resistance, was unreasonable," he wrote.

Police officers generally cannot be held liable for damages in a civil lawsuit. They lose immunity if it can be shown that their actions violated a "clearly established" constitutional right.

The court said the police violated Nelson's 4th Amendment right to be free of unreasonable seizure, and that earlier court rulings should have alerted police that their actions were illegal."

I wonder how many millions of dollars, AGAIN, the taxpayers will need to pay out to cover gross police incompetence.  And often, usually, they don't even get fired.   :?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uc-davis-pepper-20120712,0,3671184.story
Title: This one is for you GM
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 17, 2012, 10:37:42 PM


http://thechive.com/2012/09/17/douchebag-gets-tasered-by-court-security-video/
Title: Best the police keep quiet... it's a small town... We know who's important...
Post by: JDN on September 22, 2012, 09:52:53 AM
10:24 AM ET 09.22 | Michael McClatchy was an officer for the Pickens Police Department in Pickens, S.C. On Sept. 3, McClatchy pulled over a vehicle for speeding. As it turned out, the driver of the vehicle was Clemson football coach Dabo Swinney, who claimed he was late to a radio show he was doing at the local Bi-Lo, which is where McClatchy had pulled over Swinney. Swinney had been doing 63 mph in a 35, and received his speeding ticket while signing autographs for fans waiting outside the store for his radio show.

Eleven days later, on Sept. 14, after rumors of Swinney's speeding ticket began making the rounds on message boards -- because what else is there to talk about on a message board? -- McClatchy decided he had to let the world know what happened. In the posting, the officer said he didn't plan on posting about the incident, but "wanted to clear the air for all involved." The officer said he believed Swinney "thought he would be excused for the violation and continue to his appointment." He said Swinney and his brother were asked to have a seat in the vehicle, which they did not. The officer also said the Bi-Lo store manager approached him and told him a city official was on the phone and would like to speak with him, but the officer declined. According to the officer, Swinney's brother said that he was a retired Alabama police officer with more than 30 years of experience and asked the officer to take the fact into consideration. McClatchy also wrote that Swinney gave him "an unfriendly glare" before leaving and entering the Bi-Lo.

McClatchy was then fired six days later for what police chief Rodney Gregory called a "violation of city computer policy, violation of code of ethics and violation of general orders."

CBS Sports
Title: One wishes this were a post in The Onion , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 22, 2012, 10:07:19 AM


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lapd-verdict-20120921,0,5937288.story
Title: Raid on wrong house leaves homeowner dead
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 24, 2012, 06:19:44 AM


http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1
Title: LEO shoots wheelchair schizo holding a pen as a weapon
Post by: JDN on September 24, 2012, 08:14:15 AM
"A Houston police officer fatally shot in the head a schizophrenic, wheelchair-bound double amputee threatening people with a pen at a group home for the mentally ill after authorities said the man advanced on the officer's partner, police said."

He had a black felt pen. This happened in a mental hospital.  The man was in a wheelchair.  While the Officer had a Tasar he decided to shot and kill him instead.   :?

And we wonder why cities are paying out millions of dollars for police incompetence.  Too bad the officer doesn't have to pay a portion out of his salary.  Instead, he
doesn't lose any pay or benefits and keeps his job.  A fifth year policeman,  this is the second time this officer has shot and killed someone.  Imagine if a staff member
at the hospital shot and killed this patient?  The employee would be fired on the spot; maybe arrested.  More police officers need to get fired in examples like this; not put
on "administrative leave" with full pay.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-09-23/us/us_texas-amputee-shooting_1_police-officer-houston-police-department-john-garcia
Title: police incompetence is rampant
Post by: JDN on September 26, 2012, 11:27:57 AM
The University of California will pay damages of $30,000 to each of the 21 UC Davis students and alumni who were pepper-sprayed by campus police during an otherwise peaceful protest 10 months ago, the university system announced Wednesday.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/uc-davis-pepper-spray.html
Title: Taser deaths
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 08, 2012, 04:48:37 PM
Tasers & deaths: Not a simple relationship, researchers argue

A research team that includes members with law enforcement experience has taken the most comprehensive look yet at the circumstances surrounding Taser deployments where suspects end up dying. 

The findings "demonstrate the complexity of these incidents," the researchers report, citing drug use and mental illness, persistent suspect resistance, and a "wide array of force options used by police" as salient factors in many arrest-related deaths (ARDs).

"Unfortunately, the controversy surrounding CEWs [conducted energy weapons] has resulted in these cases being defined by Taser device use...a considerable oversimplification," the team writes.

To better understand "the hundreds of deaths that occur each year during police-citizen encounters," law enforcement professionals, academics, and the public need to consider "the totality of circumstances" in fatalities that occur proximate to CEW use and "move beyond the tendency to reduce them to simply 'Taser cases,' " the researchers argue.

Led by Dr. Michael White, a former deputy sheriff who now is associate director of the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety at Arizona State U., the six-member team includes Dr. Donald Dawes, a SWAT doc, reserve police officer, and ER physician in California, and Dr. Jeffrey Ho, a deputy sheriff, law enforcement medical director, ER physician, and prominent CEW researcher in Minnesota. (Ho is also the medical director for Taser International, Inc.; he and two of his study colleagues are Taser stockholders, as they disclose in the study.)

The group's 28-page report, "An Incident-Level Profile of Taser Device Deployments in Arrest-Related Deaths," can be read in full without charge as it was recently published online by the journal Police Quarterly. Click here to go directly to the report.

MINING MISSING DATA. In their introduction, the researchers point out that despite widely publicized concern over ARDs that have occurred after Taser exposure, there has been no previous broad-based effort to establish "a detailed profile" of these controversial and "polarizing" events. This has left troubling "unanswered questions regarding officer, suspect, and incident-level characteristics of these death cases, as well the extent to which patterns in these characteristics may have changed over time."
To "enhance our understanding of Taser device use in ARDs" and thus better "inform the discourse" about CEWs, the researchers undertook a thorough "descriptive analysis" of the 392 known Taser-involved ARDs that occurred in the US between 2001-2008. After merging information from print media archives and medical examiner/autopsy reports, they ended up with 213 fatalities about which they had input from both sources.

Each case, including those lacking ME documentation, was parsed for "detailed and accurate information on circumstances surrounding the death," such as officer and suspect demographics; the suspect's behavior before, during, and after the incident; the presence of drugs and alcohol in the suspect's system; mental illness; level of resistance; injury; the number of activations and location of CEW contact; other types of force used; primary and contributing factors in the cause of death; and so on.
Comparing the many variables, the researchers established the following general findings.

INCIDENT CHARACTERISTICS. Although death occurred in only a tiny fraction of CEW deployments, 280 different agencies in 37 states experienced at least one ARD after the use of a Taser during the eight-year study period, with California (75), Florida (57), Texas (32), and Ohio (20) showing the highest numbers. Nearly half the identified deaths occurred in these four states, with California alone accounting for roughly 20% of the total.

Three of these top states are among the nation's most populous, have the largest number of sworn officers, experience the greatest volume of violent crime, and are the biggest customers of Taser cartridges and X26 devices, so their disproportionate distribution of ARDs "makes intuitive sense," the researchers explain. Of the 13 states that had no ARDs, all but two (NJ and MA) had fewer than 3,500 sworn during the study years.

In the majority of ARD cases, multiple officers were at the scene and the suspect was not yet in custody when Tasered. In about a third of the cases (36.5%) there was only one Taser activation, but there were six or more in 10%, with an average of 2.91 activations across all incidents.

Where duration of exposure could be established, it was most often six to 15 seconds. Only rarely did activation total more than 30 seconds. In more than 80% of the time, deployment was via the darts-only mode, and the contact location reported most often (23%) was in the back, buttocks, or legs. The chest was the only contact area documented in 13.6%, with multiple frontal locations recorded in 16.9% of ARDs.

In about one in four ARDs (37.2%), a CEW was the only force used against the suspect. The rest involved other force as well, with officers usually starting with physical measures, OC spray, or handcuffing before resorting to the Taser when lesser measures failed. "n nearly one-fifth of the study cases...police used three or more force options," the researchers found.

SUSPECT SPECS. "[T]he vast majority were male and between the ages of 21 and 40.... Though only about 20% of suspects were described as mentally ill, drug and alcohol use was common...," the researchers write. Among ME reports, "nearly 90% indicated either illicit drugs in the decedent's body or evidence of chronic drug use." Most commonly cited were cocaine (about 66% of the cases) and methamphetamine (18%). More than half were "intoxicated or high during the police encounter."
Most suspects (86%) were unarmed, but "the vast majority were engaged in some form of active resistance against the officer(s) during the encounter." In about 7% of the cases, this resistance was judged to be "potentially lethal." Only 10% of subjects were characterized as "passively resisting." Of suspects who were armed, about half wielded an edged weapon and five brandished a firearm.

Despite Taser application, nearly 60% of suspects continued to resist. This suggests an exceptional commitment to resisting, in sharp contrast with earlier studies of nonfatal cases that show Tasering "stops suspect resistance in 80% to 90% of incidents," the researchers note.

In ARD cases where resistance did stop, researchers found that the average number of Taser applications was much lower, "officers were much less likely to have to resort to other force," and suspects were "less likely to be intoxicated."

CAUSE OF DEATH. "[D]rugs (21.4%), heart-related problems (30.5%), and ExDS [excited delirium syndrome] (23.8%) were cited as the primary cause of death in 75% of the ME reports," the study says. The Taser was listed as the primary cause in only two cases and as a "contributing factor" in 16.

CHANGES OVER TIME. As part of their investigation, the research team compared findings among three separate time periods (2001-2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2008) and discovered "several notable changes over time." Among them:

• "The average number of activations has decreased significantly, from 3.16 in the earlier period to just 2.38 in the later period."
• The percentage of incidents where only the Taser is used has declined.
• The resistance level of suspects has become "increasingly aggressive" and "less passive," yet the likelihood of resistance continuing after Taser exposure has "dropped substantially, from nearly three-quarters of cases in 2001-2004 to just over half of cases in 2007-2008."
• The proportion of death cases involving heart problems has become less common, dropping from 41.2% to 22.2%.

And some things haven't changed. Notably: "[D]rug use and mental illness have remained consistent features of Taser-proximate ARDs over time."

CONCLUSION. The study paints "a clear picture of the complex, prolonged, physical nature" of ARD encounters, the researchers write. These are "complex, dynamic encounters between suspects who [are] actively and aggressively resisting police, and officers who [are] drawing deeply into their arsenal of force options in an attempt to control them."
Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, who was not involved in this research, joins White's team in calling for more nuanced discussions and scientific investigations of ARDs going forward.

"No single pattern emerges that fits all fatal confrontations," he says. "Many variables that are not yet fully understood are involved. Those observers who insist on finger-pointing at CEWs as the sole 'cause' of suspect deaths in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary are distracting from meaningful dialogue about proper policy and practices that relate to this important issue."

NOTE: The researchers footnote that there were 22 cases where one or more officers Tasered a suspect, then subsequently shot him fatally. These incidents were excluded from the analysis, as were five other cases in which a subject committed suicide or died accidentally after Taser application.

An observation from a reader about nomenclature

As a Taser Master Instructor, I continually stress to my students that we do not "Taser" someone. We use the Taser to deliver an energy cycle, etc. The analogy I use is we do not Kenmore our food or General Electric our drinks. We might bake or refrigerate those things. I would like to keep our operators using terms they can easily defend if needed, and Taser is the name of the device.
Sgt. Gerald Machurick
Miami Gardens (FL) PD


Full report at

http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/08/24/1098611112457358.full.pdf+html
Title: Re: police incompetence is rampant
Post by: G M on October 08, 2012, 04:56:37 PM
The University of California will pay damages of $30,000 to each of the 21 UC Davis students and alumni who were pepper-sprayed by campus police during an otherwise peaceful protest 10 months ago, the university system announced Wednesday.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/uc-davis-pepper-spray.html

Californian idiocy is rampant.
Title: Re: Taser deaths
Post by: G M on October 08, 2012, 04:57:48 PM
Resisting law enforcement is dangerous. Bad things, including injury and death may result. Don't be surprised if it does.

Tasers & deaths: Not a simple relationship, researchers argue

A research team that includes members with law enforcement experience has taken the most comprehensive look yet at the circumstances surrounding Taser deployments where suspects end up dying. 

The findings "demonstrate the complexity of these incidents," the researchers report, citing drug use and mental illness, persistent suspect resistance, and a "wide array of force options used by police" as salient factors in many arrest-related deaths (ARDs).

"Unfortunately, the controversy surrounding CEWs [conducted energy weapons] has resulted in these cases being defined by Taser device use...a considerable oversimplification," the team writes.

To better understand "the hundreds of deaths that occur each year during police-citizen encounters," law enforcement professionals, academics, and the public need to consider "the totality of circumstances" in fatalities that occur proximate to CEW use and "move beyond the tendency to reduce them to simply 'Taser cases,' " the researchers argue.

Led by Dr. Michael White, a former deputy sheriff who now is associate director of the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety at Arizona State U., the six-member team includes Dr. Donald Dawes, a SWAT doc, reserve police officer, and ER physician in California, and Dr. Jeffrey Ho, a deputy sheriff, law enforcement medical director, ER physician, and prominent CEW researcher in Minnesota. (Ho is also the medical director for Taser International, Inc.; he and two of his study colleagues are Taser stockholders, as they disclose in the study.)

The group's 28-page report, "An Incident-Level Profile of Taser Device Deployments in Arrest-Related Deaths," can be read in full without charge as it was recently published online by the journal Police Quarterly. Click here to go directly to the report.

MINING MISSING DATA. In their introduction, the researchers point out that despite widely publicized concern over ARDs that have occurred after Taser exposure, there has been no previous broad-based effort to establish "a detailed profile" of these controversial and "polarizing" events. This has left troubling "unanswered questions regarding officer, suspect, and incident-level characteristics of these death cases, as well the extent to which patterns in these characteristics may have changed over time."
To "enhance our understanding of Taser device use in ARDs" and thus better "inform the discourse" about CEWs, the researchers undertook a thorough "descriptive analysis" of the 392 known Taser-involved ARDs that occurred in the US between 2001-2008. After merging information from print media archives and medical examiner/autopsy reports, they ended up with 213 fatalities about which they had input from both sources.

Each case, including those lacking ME documentation, was parsed for "detailed and accurate information on circumstances surrounding the death," such as officer and suspect demographics; the suspect's behavior before, during, and after the incident; the presence of drugs and alcohol in the suspect's system; mental illness; level of resistance; injury; the number of activations and location of CEW contact; other types of force used; primary and contributing factors in the cause of death; and so on.
Comparing the many variables, the researchers established the following general findings.

INCIDENT CHARACTERISTICS. Although death occurred in only a tiny fraction of CEW deployments, 280 different agencies in 37 states experienced at least one ARD after the use of a Taser during the eight-year study period, with California (75), Florida (57), Texas (32), and Ohio (20) showing the highest numbers. Nearly half the identified deaths occurred in these four states, with California alone accounting for roughly 20% of the total.

Three of these top states are among the nation's most populous, have the largest number of sworn officers, experience the greatest volume of violent crime, and are the biggest customers of Taser cartridges and X26 devices, so their disproportionate distribution of ARDs "makes intuitive sense," the researchers explain. Of the 13 states that had no ARDs, all but two (NJ and MA) had fewer than 3,500 sworn during the study years.

In the majority of ARD cases, multiple officers were at the scene and the suspect was not yet in custody when Tasered. In about a third of the cases (36.5%) there was only one Taser activation, but there were six or more in 10%, with an average of 2.91 activations across all incidents.

Where duration of exposure could be established, it was most often six to 15 seconds. Only rarely did activation total more than 30 seconds. In more than 80% of the time, deployment was via the darts-only mode, and the contact location reported most often (23%) was in the back, buttocks, or legs. The chest was the only contact area documented in 13.6%, with multiple frontal locations recorded in 16.9% of ARDs.

In about one in four ARDs (37.2%), a CEW was the only force used against the suspect. The rest involved other force as well, with officers usually starting with physical measures, OC spray, or handcuffing before resorting to the Taser when lesser measures failed. "n nearly one-fifth of the study cases...police used three or more force options," the researchers found.

SUSPECT SPECS. "[T]he vast majority were male and between the ages of 21 and 40.... Though only about 20% of suspects were described as mentally ill, drug and alcohol use was common...," the researchers write. Among ME reports, "nearly 90% indicated either illicit drugs in the decedent's body or evidence of chronic drug use." Most commonly cited were cocaine (about 66% of the cases) and methamphetamine (18%). More than half were "intoxicated or high during the police encounter."
Most suspects (86%) were unarmed, but "the vast majority were engaged in some form of active resistance against the officer(s) during the encounter." In about 7% of the cases, this resistance was judged to be "potentially lethal." Only 10% of subjects were characterized as "passively resisting." Of suspects who were armed, about half wielded an edged weapon and five brandished a firearm.

Despite Taser application, nearly 60% of suspects continued to resist. This suggests an exceptional commitment to resisting, in sharp contrast with earlier studies of nonfatal cases that show Tasering "stops suspect resistance in 80% to 90% of incidents," the researchers note.

In ARD cases where resistance did stop, researchers found that the average number of Taser applications was much lower, "officers were much less likely to have to resort to other force," and suspects were "less likely to be intoxicated."

CAUSE OF DEATH. "[D]rugs (21.4%), heart-related problems (30.5%), and ExDS [excited delirium syndrome] (23.8%) were cited as the primary cause of death in 75% of the ME reports," the study says. The Taser was listed as the primary cause in only two cases and as a "contributing factor" in 16.

CHANGES OVER TIME. As part of their investigation, the research team compared findings among three separate time periods (2001-2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2008) and discovered "several notable changes over time." Among them:

• "The average number of activations has decreased significantly, from 3.16 in the earlier period to just 2.38 in the later period."
• The percentage of incidents where only the Taser is used has declined.
• The resistance level of suspects has become "increasingly aggressive" and "less passive," yet the likelihood of resistance continuing after Taser exposure has "dropped substantially, from nearly three-quarters of cases in 2001-2004 to just over half of cases in 2007-2008."
• The proportion of death cases involving heart problems has become less common, dropping from 41.2% to 22.2%.

And some things haven't changed. Notably: "[D]rug use and mental illness have remained consistent features of Taser-proximate ARDs over time."

CONCLUSION. The study paints "a clear picture of the complex, prolonged, physical nature" of ARD encounters, the researchers write. These are "complex, dynamic encounters between suspects who [are] actively and aggressively resisting police, and officers who [are] drawing deeply into their arsenal of force options in an attempt to control them."
Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, who was not involved in this research, joins White's team in calling for more nuanced discussions and scientific investigations of ARDs going forward.

"No single pattern emerges that fits all fatal confrontations," he says. "Many variables that are not yet fully understood are involved. Those observers who insist on finger-pointing at CEWs as the sole 'cause' of suspect deaths in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary are distracting from meaningful dialogue about proper policy and practices that relate to this important issue."

NOTE: The researchers footnote that there were 22 cases where one or more officers Tasered a suspect, then subsequently shot him fatally. These incidents were excluded from the analysis, as were five other cases in which a subject committed suicide or died accidentally after Taser application.

An observation from a reader about nomenclature

As a Taser Master Instructor, I continually stress to my students that we do not "Taser" someone. We use the Taser to deliver an energy cycle, etc. The analogy I use is we do not Kenmore our food or General Electric our drinks. We might bake or refrigerate those things. I would like to keep our operators using terms they can easily defend if needed, and Taser is the name of the device.
Sgt. Gerald Machurick
Miami Gardens (FL) PD


Full report at

http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/08/24/1098611112457358.full.pdf+html
Title: Another Brutality Brouhaha
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 16, 2012, 02:52:58 PM


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/1...-at-synagogue/
Title: Re: Another Brutality Brouhaha
Post by: G M on October 16, 2012, 02:56:50 PM


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/1...-at-synagogue/

Not found. Dead link.
Title: New York police brutally beat man for sleeping at synagogue
Post by: C-Kumu Dog on October 16, 2012, 03:01:37 PM
I think this might be it

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/16/new-york-police-brutally-beat-man-for-sleeping-at-synagogue/
Title: Re: New York police brutally beat man for sleeping at synagogue
Post by: G M on October 16, 2012, 03:15:18 PM
I think this might be it

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/16/new-york-police-brutally-beat-man-for-sleeping-at-synagogue/

At about 1:05, it looks like the female officer was going to cuff him or place him in an escort hold and he pulls away. Depending on the statute, that's generally resisting arrest. As long as you resist, force can and will be used.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 16, 2012, 04:33:23 PM

Plenty of pre-assault cues by the urban camper, but from my laymen's POV the female officer was about as useful as teats on a bull.  Note how the first man of the backup simply pulls urban camper away from the huddled up position against the wall so UC can be proned out.
Title: The joy of the Sheep Dogs
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 04, 2013, 08:15:22 AM


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/flip-off-police_n_2403563.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
Title: Police station shoot-out
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 06, 2013, 06:15:52 AM
The picture of the disarmed officer does not give one a sense that this was someone who should be handling an uncuffed suspect , , ,

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-police-station-shootout-suspect-department-corrections-employee/story?id=18082491#.UOlzKndp6So
Title: Stoned thug beats up two female LEOs
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 11, 2013, 09:01:04 AM


PSA # 4 P.O. Renee-Maria Sampson
 
NYPD cop beaten so severely by marijuana-carrying suspect, she might not be able to return to job
Officer Renee-Maria Sampson, 29, was allegedly pummeled by Pedro Urena after she spotted him holding a joint on the lower East Side
By Rocco Parascandola — Thursday, January 10th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’
 
 
A pot-smoking suspect beat and choked a petite Manhattan cop so brutally she may never be able to return to work, police sources told the Daily News.
 
Officer Renee-Maria Sampson and her partner Temeisha Hoyte, both four-year NYPD vets, were patrolling a building in the Lillian Wald Houses on the lower East Side on Nov. 23 when they spotted Pedro Urena holding a lit joint, authorities said.
 
The cops called for backup, but before other officers arrived, Urena attacked, punching them both and slamming them against a wall, according to a complaint.
 
Next, he grabbed each cop by the neck and tried to choke the life out of them, according to police and a criminal complaint.
 
“At one point, Urena takes them and hits their heads together,” added one source. “Then he tried to drag both cops into his apartment.”
 
Backup officers arrived just in time, and Urena was arrested.
 
But Sampson had an asthma attack, fell to the ground and slammed her head, police said. She temporarily lost consciousness and had at least two seizures.
 
Sampson said she didn’t want to use her gun for fear she would shoot her partner because of the proximity, a source said.
 
The 29-year-old officer has yet to return to work. At 5-feet-2 and 105 pounds, she was overpowered by Urena, who is 5-feet-11 and 180 pounds, the source said.
 
The NYPD is considering a change in how officers are trained to deal with combative suspects, another source said. That source noted that “maybe the cops could have stayed back and waited for backup.”
COMMENT:  The NYPD finally comes to a tacit admission that some of those ‘Politically Correct’ police hires that Ray Kelly has been putting on the job are just not suited for police work and the street, period.  And it all comes after decades of putting hundreds of  those ‘obese chubbies’, ‘near freaks’, ‘almost dwarfs’, and extremely petit females on the job.  Duuuh!  - MB 
Title: Cop vs. Cop
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 19, 2013, 01:30:37 PM
IAB captain busted in NYPD gal-pal assault
By JESSICA SIMEONE and CHRISTINA CARREGA — Saturday, January 19th, 2013 ‘The New York Post’
COPS WANT TO KNOW: Was IAB Captain Aaron Wright ‘On-duty’ or ‘Off-duty’ while he was conducting his surreptitious investigation into Nicole McFarlane extracurricular amorous adventures? Inquiring cops want to know! — MB
 
An Internal Affairs captain who helped oversee the investigation into the Bronx ticket-fixing scandal was hauled off in handcuffs for allegedly beating his sergeant girlfriend into unconsciousness yesterday, The Post has learned.
Aaron Wright, 38, commanding officer of IAB’s Group 22, was lying in wait for 46th Precinct Domestic Violence Unit Sgt. Nicole McFarlane, 38, at her Queens home at 1:43 a.m., law-enforcement sources said.
 When McFarlane pulled up in her 2006 Nissan Altima, Wright came out of the shadows and twice kicked the driver-side door, the sources said. Then he slugged her so hard with his right fist that she lost consciousness, according to court documents.
 The next thing McFarlane remembered was being lifted off the ground by a uniformed cop with her left eye and jaw swollen and bruised, court papers and sources said. She was rushed to Jamaica Hospital.
Title: empty holstered arrestee gets stomped a bit
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 29, 2013, 05:35:10 AM


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268908/Bridgeport-Police-Department-Connecticut-cops-leave-caught-kicking-stomping-man.html
Title: NYPD patrols inside private buildings at landlords requests
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2013, 11:55:18 AM
http://www.officer.com/news/10892087/nypd-program-patrols-inside-private-buildings?utm_source=Officer.com+Newsday+E-Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CPS130305003
Title: LEO shoots and kills fleeing attempted murderer
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 29, 2013, 04:35:46 PM
This clip has a lot of interesting facets to it, both from the DLO POV and the legal issues presented:

http://www.rightthisminute.com/video/criminal-controversy-and-accidental-abetting

I'd love to get our GM's take on shooting and killing the BG as he runs away from his attempt to kill the officer.
Title: Fleeing unarmed suspects standard
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 30, 2013, 03:16:00 PM
SCOTUS in Tennessee v. Garner:

"Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Title: NYC: Cop had no duty to help heroic citizen
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2013, 08:12:43 AM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/to_serve_but_not_protect_Qr3ume5gEhMhtg8LvHgzAI
Title: Re: LEO shoots and kills fleeing attempted murderer
Post by: G M on April 01, 2013, 05:32:48 PM
This clip has a lot of interesting facets to it, both from the DLO POV and the legal issues presented:

http://www.rightthisminute.com/video/criminal-controversy-and-accidental-abetting

I'd love to get our GM's take on shooting and killing the BG as he runs away from his attempt to kill the officer.

http://www.laaw.com/uodfs.htm

What's Your Use-of-Deadly-Force Standard?

by Michael A. Brave, Esq., M.S., C.P.S., C.S.T.
and John G. Peters, M.S., M.S.
(© Copyright 1992, by Michael A. Brave. All rights reserved.)

"Dispatch - all units, armed robbery in progress - Ajax Liquor, Fourth and Main."
"Dispatch - all units, suicidal adult female with - handgun - 1435 Sycamore."
"456 - dispatch, shots fired, officer down, need immediate assistance!"

These incident examples are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. And, the responding officers when faced with deadly force may only have seconds to choose a deadly-force option that could impact the rest of their lives. If the officers make a poor decision they could face administrative discipline/termination, criminal prosecu- tion, civil litigation, community hatred, and media chastisement. Conversely, if the officers hesitate in their use of reasonable-deadly-force because their agency has failed to provide them with adequate guidance and training, or because of their fear of litigation, discipline, etc. the officers could lose their lives or could be the catalyst that results in others losing their lives.

Every time officers are forced to make deadly-force decisions they are putting their futures (life/death, financial, career, family, societal) on the line. The time of the incident is not the time when your officers should be forced to decide whether they can or cannot use deadly force. Long before the incident occurs the law enforcement agency executives must decide under what circumstances they will allow their officers to use deadly force. Executives need to identify potential problems and need to reasonably limit officer discretion through policy development and that is why every agency needs to develop a competent use-of-force policy.

An agency's first step in providing competent guidance, direction, and training to its officers in the use of deadly force is to provide a sound, unambiguous written deadly-force policy (of course an agency must also provide a non-deadly force policy as well). The policy must set out in clear and unambiguous terms when officers can use deadly force. The balance of this article is not going to examine all of the factors that should be considered in drafting a use-of-force policy. Rather, this article is specifically limited to discussing the major use-of-deadly-force standards which have been adopted by various agencies and jurisdictions.

Before examining the use-of-deadly-force standards, we must first look at a few definitions. While definitions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction we can find some common ground. One of the most misunderstood use-of-force terms is "deadly force." There are many different definitions and interpretations of "deadly force." However, a good working definition of "deadly force" for decision making might be: "[D]eadly force is force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which he knows to create, a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm."(1) "Serious bodily harm" is "[A] bodily injury that: (1) creates a substantial risk of death; (2) causes serious, (3) permanent disfigurement; or (4) results in long-term loss or impairment of the functioning of any bodily member or organ."(2) It is also worth noting that most deadly-force definitions find that the term "serious bodily harm" is synonymous with "great bodily harm."(3) Obviously, "deadly force" does not equate to "lethal" or "fatal" force. "Lethal" or "fatal" force is force which is likely to cause death and not merely serious bodily harm.

Objective Reasonableness Test:

Before we look at the different use-of-deadly-force standards we must look to the overriding standard of Graham v. Conner(4). In Graham, the United States Supreme Court stated that the proper measure to determine whether a law enforcement officer's use of force is excessive, is the "objective reasonableness" test under the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated that the Graham analysis applies to all alleged law enforcement excessive force claims - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen. Therefore, regardless of which use-of-deadly-force standard an agency adopts, the use of force must meet the Graham Fourth Amendment "objective reasonableness" requirement of seizures.

Now let's look at six major use-of-deadly-force standards. The lowest, least restrictive, use-of-deadly-force standard is the standard enumerated by the United States Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner. The Garner standard, which is also referred to as the "fleeing felon standard," allows for the limited use of deadly force against fleeing felons under three restrictive criteria. Under the Garner "fleeing felon standard," a law enforcement officer can use deadly force against a fleeing felon if: (1) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the felon's escape, (2) the fleeing felon has threatened the officer with a weapon or the officer has probable cause to believe that the felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, AND (3) the officer gives the felon some warning of the imminent use of deadly force - if feasible.

Some jurisdictions which do allow the use of deadly force under the Garner standard do not include all three Garner requirements in their use-of-deadly-force statute. Remember, since a law enforcement officer's use of force is subject to the requirements of the United States Constitution, and because of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, a state, or lower government subdivision, cannot create a use-of-force standard that is less restrictive than the standard defined by U.S. Supreme Court and federal case law as it pertains to individual jurisdictions. A law enforcement agency which adopts the "fleeing felon" standard (assuming the agency is in a jurisdiction that allows the use of deadly force under the "fleeing felon standard") must be sure to include Garner's three requirements - even if these requirements are not enumerated in the state statutes. Therefore, if an agency is in a jurisdiction which allows the use of deadly force under the "fleeing felon standard", the lowest standard that could be adopted must meet the Garner and Graham requirements. It is important to note that some jurisdictions (such as Alaska) do not allow the use of deadly force against a "fleeing felon" as defined by Garner.

An interesting question that arises is whether today, or in the foreseeable future, the United States Supreme Court would uphold the "fleeing felon" standard as an "objectively reasonable" seizure under Graham? If Graham is the test for ALL law enforcement use of force (deadly or non- deadly), then today would the U.S. Supreme Court uphold the use of deadly force (against a fleeing felon) under Garner "objectively reasonable" under Graham?

If the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), many law enforcement agencies, and many law enforcement experts are stating that deadly force can only be "reasonably" used in deadly force confrontations, in defense of life or under the deadly-force-defense standard, then the use of deadly force (against a fleeing felon)) under Garner may be held to be unreasonable by future appellate courts. Additionally, with some law enforcement agencies and certain individual experts promulgating the "preservation of life" standard as the only reasonable standard, then the use of deadly force against a fleeing felon under Garner is definitely not a "reasonable" use of force.

A slightly higher standard (than the Garner "fleeing felon standard") is the Model Penal Code Standard(6). The Model Penal Code Standard provides, in relevant part, that a law enforcement officer may use deadly force against an individual, in the course of an arrest, if the officer believes that: (1) the arrest is for a felony; (2) the person effecting the arrest is authorized to act as a peace officer or is assisting a person whom he believes to be authorized as a peace officer; (3) the officer believes that the force employed creates no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; AND (4) the crime for which the arrest is made involved conduct including the use or threatened use of deadly force, or there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury if his apprehension is delayed.

The next, gradually becoming more restrictive, standard is the "Deadly-Force- Defense Standard." Under the "Deadly-Force-Defense Standard" a law enforcement officer may intentionally use deadly force against an individual only if the officer objectively reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the individual from inflicting imminent death or great bodily harm on the officer or others. The "deadly-force-defense standard" is the standard that most closely approximates most self-defense statutes.

Moving up the restrictiveness ladder, the next standard is the "defense of life standard." Often called the "CALEA(7) defense of life standard," the standard requires that, "an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer's own life, or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."(8) CALEA expressly prohibits the use of deadly force under the Garner "fleeing felon standard" and the Model Penal Code Standard.(9)

The CALEA "defense of life standard" contains a glaring ambiguity. The standard states that, "an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer's own life," and then the standard goes on to say that an officer can also use deadly force "in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury." The ambiguity arises in that the standard could be construed to mean that an officer can only use deadly force if the officer's life is in jeopardy and not if the officer is in immediate danger of serious physical harm. However, the officer can use deadly force in defense of "any person" in immediate danger of serious physical harm. So the question becomes, is the officer included in the term "any person" under the language of the standard? If the officer is included under "any person" then why is the officer delineated earlier in the standard, where the standard says "including the officer's own life?" If the officer is included in the term "any person" then this standard is identical to the "deadly force defense standard."

The most restrictive (intentionally used) deadly-force standard is the "preservation of life standard" as adopted by the Dallas (Texas) Police Department (among others). The "preservation of life standard" states that, "[r]egardless of the nature of the crime or the justification for firing at a suspect, officers must remember that their basic responsibility is to protect life. Officers shall not fire under conditions that would unnecessarily subject bystanders or hostages to death or possible injury, except to preserve life or to prevent serious bodily injury. Deadly force is an act of last resort and will be used only when other reasonable alternatives are impracticable or fail.(10)" [Emphasis added.] Further, the "preservation of life standard" requires that, "

While the "preservation of life standard" is the most restrictive policy that is (usually) intentionally promulgated, there are many policies that place even more restrictive use-of-deadly-force standards on officers. Some agencies, such as the Los Angeles Police Department, state that officers should use only the "minimum force that is necessary."(12) Other policies state that officers will exhaust all alternatives before resorting to deadly force. Many officers might think that these more restrictive use-of-deadly-force standards may not come back to haunt them after a use-of-force incident. However, if you watched the trial of the Los Angeles Police Officers who were accused of using excessive force on Rodney King, you may have noticed that the prosecutor accused Officer Powell of violating departmental policy because even if Officer Powell's use of force was "reasonable", it was still in violation of departmental policy because it was not the "minimum force that [was] necessary."

So the question becomes, what use-of-deadly-force policy should you adopt? That decision is yours and should only be made after very careful consideration. The most important point is to adopt ONLY ONE standard. Many policies improperly adopt more than one standard, and then expect the officers to be able to decipher which standard they will be held accountable to for a given incident. Remember: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT POLICY. Having said this, lets look at some potentially problematic and confusing areas which we found in the use-of-deadly-force sections of the 1991 Los Angeles Police Department Policy. The following is for discussion purposes only and should not be interpreted as a criticism of the LAPD.

LAPD: Several Standards:

The LAPD Policy Manual Contains the Following Use-of-Deadly Force- Standards:

Deadly Force Defense Standard - "An officer is equipped with a firearm to protect himself or others against the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury ..."(13)
Model Penal Code Standard - "An officer is equipped with a firearm ... to apprehend a fleeing felon who has committed a violent crime and whose escape presents a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to others."(14)
Model Penal Code Standard - "An officer is authorized the use of deadly force when it reasonably appears necessary ... To apprehend a fleeing felon for a crime involving serious bodily injury or the use of deadly force where there is a substantial risk that the person whose arrest is sought will cause death or serious bodily injury to others if apprehension is delayed.(15)
The Crystal Ball Approach (using deadly force to PREVENT a crime) - "An officer is authorized the use of deadly force when it reasonably appears necessary ... To prevent a crime where the suspect's actions place persons in jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury ..."(16)
The ANY DOUBT Standard - "... Nor should an officer fire at a `fleeing felon' if the officer has any doubt whether the person fired at is in fact the person against whom the use of deadly force is permitted under the policy."(17)
Unconstitutional Standard (does not specify "imminent" bodily harm - unless officers are supposed to read "imminent" into "reasonable and necessary") - "... Officers are permitted to use whatever force that is reasonable and necessary to protect others or themselves from bodily harm."(18)
The NOT LIKELY Standard - "Officers shall not use deadly force to protect themselves from assaults which are not likely to have serious results."(19)
The Exhaust Other Reasonable Alternatives Standard - "... [F]orce may not be resorted to unless other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or would clearly be ineffective under the particular circumstances..."(20)
The Minimum Force Necessary Standard - "... n keeping with the philosophy that the minimum force that is necessary should be used ..."(21)
The Extreme Caution Standard - "This Department has always utilized extreme caution with respect to the use of deadly force against youthful offenders. Nothing in this policy is intended to reduce the degree of care required in such cases."(22)
Using these use-of-deadly-force "standards", answer the following hypothetical. You are dispatched to an armed robbery in progress of a liquor store. Upon your arrival you see the suspect (a young looking minority male) shoot into the store in the direction of some people, you hear screams from inside the liquor store, the suspect then turns and runs in the general direction of a couple of on-lookers. You are faced with a tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving deadly-force confrontation. Governed by the LAPD Policy, make a quick, competent decision within policy? Remember, you may be able to use "reasonable force" in shooting the "fleeing felon", if the fleeing felon's "escape presents a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to others," as long as you "exhaust all reasonable alternatives", while you use "the minimum amount of force necessary", as long as you "utilize extreme caution" in dealing with the possible juvenile. As you can see your decision will be difficult to say the least.

Now let's add one more quotation from the LAPD Policy Manual: "This policy is not intended to create doubt in the mind of an officer at a moment when action is critical and there is little time for meditation or reflection. It provides basic guidelines governing the use of firearms so that officers can be confident in exercising judgment as to the use of deadly force."(23) While only using the LAPD policy for an example as you can see what management appears to be saying in policy seems to be inconsistent with practice.

Summary:

When drafting and adopting a deadly-force policy make sure only one standard is used, and that it is consistent in its application. Policies must guide officers, reasonably limit their discretion in the field, and provide a basis for fair and consistent discipline. But don't stop with the mere writing of a policy and then issuing it to officers.

Be sure to give your officers the guidance, training, and supervision they need to allow them to make that decision under the harsh realities of the deadly-force confrontation. After all, making deadly-force decisions is a core task of the officer's duties.(24)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See generally: Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 85 L.Ed.2d 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, (1985); Pruitt v. Montgomery, 771 F.2d 1475, 1479 n. 10 (11th Cir. 1985); Model Penal Code § 3.11(2) (1962); Mattis v. Schuarr, 547 F.2d 1007, 1009 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1976)(en banc). Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 359. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 580 - under heading "force." Restatement of Torts Second, 䅻(d). 
CALEA Standards, Chapter 1, Glossary, page 1-4, March 1991, revision. See also: Restatement of Torts Second, Section § 63(b); United States v. Johnson, 637 F.2d 1224, 1246 (9th Cir. 1980). 
See: Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 631. Wisconsin Statute § 939.22. Words and phrases defined, number (14). Klein v. Ryan, 847 F.2d 368 (7th Cir. 1988) - (Illinois). 
Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 104 L.Ed.2d 443, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989). 
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 85 L.Ed.2d 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694 (1985). 
Model Penal Code Section 3.07. Use of Force in Law Enforcement. 
Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies. 
CALEA Standard 1.3.2 
CALEA Standard 1.3.3 A written directive specifies that use of deadly force against a "fleeing felon" must meet the conditions required by standard 1.3.2. 
Dallas P.D. Policy § 302.00 Use of Deadly Force, Section (A)(1). 
Dallas P.D. Policy § 302.00 Use of Deadly Force, Section (A)(2). 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.35, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.25 Reason for the Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.25 Reason for the Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.55, Suspected Felony Offenders, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 240.10 Use of Force, page 98; also in Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 240.10 Use of Force, page 98; Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.35, Minimizing the Risk of Death, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.60, Youthful Felony Suspects, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.10, Pream ble to the Policy on the Use of Firearms, page 108. 
City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, et al, 489 U.S. 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989).
Title: TE LEO scores $22,000 during traffic stop
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 01, 2013, 06:16:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMMZiyR-wxc&feature=youtu.be
Title: Chicago cop shoots pit bull puppy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 02, 2013, 08:17:02 PM
http://www.examiner.com/article/off-duty-officer-shoots-and-kills-pit-bull-puppy-chicago

The daughter of a highly regarded detective of a major city writes:

The truth is actually much worse when I talk to her neighbors, their kids
and other witnesses. It was a planned execution because the cop did not want
to let the puppy ever grow up. He was also a racist.
It was a completely socialized happy puppy whom all the neighborhood kids
played with.
He set his own son up  and told him to wait a block back and then walked up
to the house and emptied 9 rounds. He actually missed with 1 of them. All
eight rounds were in the side of the puppy's body ­ which shows he was not
running at him.

Her vet wrote a scathing letter to the press. So, hopefully behind closed,
the cop is getting some scrutiny.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2013, 02:19:50 AM
The daughter of the detective continues today with this:

It gets worse.
timeline

Sam scooped the bloody body of the puppy into her arms and raced the pup
and her screaming kids (ages 5 - 11) to the emergency room.
Of course, the pup couldn't be saved. She's got a huge bill for that. And
the bill for autopsy.

Gets her kids and her crying self back home.

Eventually she gets the kids to sleep.

She crawls into bed in fetal position crying. At 11:30pm, Sam hears fist
pounding on her door. Police OPEN UP!!!

Three large male cops enter and give her a rough interview. She's
terrified of them and just answers anything they want. They give her 2
fines:
One for an off-leash dog; one for an un-licensed dog (wasn't wearing a
Chicago tag).
The vet confirmed that dogs do not require a city license until 5 months
old.
The puppy was scheduled to be neutered the next day.

Every day since then, cops are riding back n forth her house, trolling her
facebook, followed her and parked on either side of her at Walgreen's and
stare her down.

The wife of the cop put her husband up to it. They both knew the puppy,
had met it and warned her they didn't want a pitbull in their neighborhood.
(instead of just introducing their son to the puppy like all the other
neighborhood kids on the block).

It was an absurdly well-behaved sweet natured dog - who layed quietly by
Sam at the many dog-friendly cafes they took him too.

It makes me sick.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on June 03, 2013, 05:29:44 AM
Any discharge of a weapon by an officer should have generated a lot of paper, if the investigation is completed, it should be public information. If the dog owner asserts the officer lied about the shooting, she can file a internal affairs/professional standards complaint.

Where was the dog located when it was shot? The trajectory of the GSW would indicate the distance and orientation when the shots were fired. I'd expect a door to door canvas was done and and an attempt to locate and document all shots fired and the weapon
was taken and entered into evidence.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2013, 12:02:42 PM
Are these the folks that would be doing the investigation?  Or would it be their friends?

"Every day since then, cops are riding back n forth her house, trolling her
facebook, followed her and parked on either side of her at Walgreen's and
stare her down."

Lets try this on for size:  8 broadside shots into a four month old pit (what are we talking about here?  20 pounds max?) is per se WRONG.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on June 03, 2013, 12:07:01 PM
The article says 35 lbs.

Didn't Chicago have 8 humans shot in one day the other day?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2013, 12:22:37 PM
Umm , , , OK , , , but a distinction without a difference though.  Somehow I doubt you believe that 15 pounds here are what required the fire power in question , , , please, tell me that is not your point , , ,

"Didn't Chicago have 8 humans shot in one day the other day?"

Umm , , , that's a helluva leap there GM, even for you  :evil:  The point here is that someone with a badge and a gun did something profoundly wrong, violent, and illegal and other people with badges are backing his play.   This is quite a serious matter for a society which wishes to remain free.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on June 03, 2013, 12:31:12 PM
How do you know he did something wrong ? These media reports? How many pounds per square inch can a 35 lbs pit bull exert on a bite?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2013, 09:25:16 PM
GM:

Please, it was four months old and was not attacking.  With malice aforethought this guy blew it away and his buddies are backing his play.

Time to call bad apples bad apples.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on June 04, 2013, 05:18:44 AM
GM:

Please, it was four months old and was not attacking.  With malice aforethought this guy blew it away and his buddies are backing his pla

Time to call bad apples bad apples.


Facts not in evidence.
Title: Another innocent pit bull suffers at the hands of CPD...
Post by: G M on June 17, 2013, 09:54:27 AM
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-15/news/chi-sergeant-shoots-pit-bull-as-it-attacks-teen-in-englewood-20130515_1_pit-bull-sergeant-dog


Sergeant kills pit bull attacking teen: 'That dog would have killed me'


May 15, 2013|By Liam Ford | Tribune reporter


Tyrell Henry, 16, was bitten by a pit bull on his way to school at Urban Prep Academy in Chicago. The teen suffered puncture wounds to his right leg and foot and received 19 stitches. The dog was killed by a Chicago police officer. (Abel Uribe / Chicago Tribune)


Tyrell Henry just got off the bus and was walking to school when he got a quick glimpse of a pit bull seconds before it jumped him.

"When it first bit me, when I was on the ground, I started kicking it," said Tyrell, a 16-year-old sophomore at Urban Prep Academy. "Then I hit it with my book bag."

The dog was still coming after the boy when a Chicago police sergeant showed up and shouted at it, then fired a shot. The pit bull ran toward the sergeant, who fired again, killing the dog.

"Thank God for that officer," Tyrell told police later. "That dog would have killed me."

The teenager suffered puncture wounds to his right leg and foot and received 19 stitches at St. Bernard Hospital and Health Care Center, just around the corner from where the attack occurred in the 5900 block of South Stewart Avenue in the Englewood neighborhood.

Police discovered that a 63-year-old man had also been attacked and badly bitten by the dog in an alley at 59th Street and Eggleston Avenue. He was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, where he was expected to receive stitches for his injuries, Officer John Mirabelli said.

The sergeant had been dispatched to the area shortly before 8 a.m. after police got a call of someone attacked by a pit bull, Mirabelli said.

Neighbors flagged down the sergeant and pointed him toward the dog, which had just charged the boy. The sergeant jumped out of his car and after the dog was separated from the teen, started firing, Mirabelli said.

The sergeant was attacked by another dog and bitten in the leg while responding to a call last week, a police source said.

"I'm just glad he was there," said Tyrell's mother, Helen Henry, 64, after returning from St. Bernard with her son. "What the sergeant did, that was really great. God was there for him."

lford@tribune.com
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on June 17, 2013, 09:58:40 AM


Chicago Police Department

General Order G03-02-06
 


Weapon Discharge Incidents Involving Sworn Members
 








Issue Date:

25 September 2002

Effective Date:

01 October 2002
 


Rescinds:

G02-09
 


Index Category:

Field Operations
 






I.

Purpose
 


This directive outlines Department investigative and reporting procedures in weapon discharge incidents.
 




II.

Scope
 



Under normal circumstances, the provisions of this directive will not apply to:
 



A.

the discharge of a firearm during:
 






1.

Department-sponsored firearms training or practice;
 






2.

firearms practice at a recognized range facility.
 






3.

Department authorized ballistic examination or testing.
 






4.

a licensed hunting activity.
 







B.

the discharge of a Taser in a Department authorized training program.
 






C.

chemical agent use in a Department authorized training program.
 







III.

Firearms Discharge Incident Notifications
 



In addition to other notifications outlined in this directive, for ANY firearms discharge incidents, including unintentional discharges and those involving the destruction of an animal:



A.

the watch commander in the district of occurrence will ensure Operations Command is notified.
 






B.

Operations Command will notify the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) call-out supervisor of any firearms discharge incident notification.
 







IV.

Mandatory Alcohol and Drug Testing
 






A.

Any sworn Department member, involved in a firearms discharge incident, whether on or off duty, is required to submit to the mandatory alcohol and drug testing, in compliance with this directive and any applicable collective bargaining agreement.
 




NOTE:

 
This requirement does not apply to the circumstances delineated in Item II-A of this directive.
 





B.

The IAD call-out supervisor will:
 






1.

contact the On-Call Incident Commander (OCIC) or watch commander, as appropriate, and respond to the designated location to conduct the alcohol and drug testing.
 






2.

complete and submit a "Notice of Alcohol and Drug Testing Following a Firearms Discharge Incident" (CPD-44.252).
 







C.

The IAD call-out supervisor will ensure:
 






1.

the involved member submits to the alcohol breath test and will conduct the test according to Department policy.
 






2.

the alcohol breath test result is provided to the OCIC or watch commander, as appropriate.
 






3.

the involved member submits to the drug test and ensure the urine specimen is:
 






a.

collected in a manner that will preserve the dignity of the involved member and ensure the integrity of the sample.
 






b.

collected in the presence of a supervisor of the same sex as the involved member.







c.

retained by the IAD call-out supervisor who will assume the responsibility for ensuring that the urine specimen is properly secured in accordance with established division-level standard operation procedures, pending processing by a medical laboratory.
 







4.

the alcohol and drug testing occurs as soon as practicable after the firearms discharge incident given the overall demands of the investigation.
 




NOTE:

 
The member with overall command responsibility, (e.g., OCIC or watch commander), will ensure testing is initiated no later than six hours following the firearms discharge incident.
 





5.

that copies of any associated reports, including the testing and results documentation, are forwarded to the Chief Administrator, Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA) once the testing is completed.
 







D.

If the involved member refuses to provide a breath test or urine specimen pursuant to this process, it is a violation of the Department Rules and Regulations, (e.g., disobedience of an order or directive whether written or oral), and will result in administrative charges against the member, which may include discipline up to and including separation.
 






E.

No discipline shall occur based solely on the results of the alcohol test when the member's actions are consistent with the Department's Use of Force guidelines and the member discharged their weapon off-duty.
 



Terry G. Hillard
Superintendent of Police
 

00-148 LMT, MWK
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on June 17, 2013, 10:01:18 AM


Chicago Police Department

Special Order S03-02-02
 


Other Weapon Discharge Incidents
 








Issue Date:

14 June 2012

Effective Date:

14 June 2012
 


Rescinds:

01 October 2002 Version; G02-09-02
 


Index Category:

Field Operations
 






I.

Purpose
 



This directive outlines Department investigative and reporting procedures in which a member has:
 



A.

discharged a chemical agent.
 






B.

discharged a Taser.
 






C.

discharged a firearm to destroy an animal.
 







II.

Scope
 


Under normal circumstance, the provisions of this directive will not apply to:
 




A.

chemical agent use in a Department authorized training program.
 






B.

the discharge of a Taser in a Department authorized training program.
 







III.

Dishcarge of Chemical Agent
 






A.

A chemical agent includes the personal Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) devices carried by sworn members and Department-owned special weapons which dispense larger volumes of chemical agents.
 






B.

Member Responsibilities
 



When a member discharges a chemical agent, the member will:
 



1.

notify the Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC), his or her supervisor, and the station supervisor in the district of occurrence.
 






2.

complete a Tactical Response Report (TRR) (CPD-11.377), the appropriate case report, and/or other required reports.
 






3.

submit all reports to his or her supervisor for review and approval.
 







C.

Station Supervisor Responsibilities




The station supervisor of the district of occurrence will:
 



1.

notify the Independent Police Review Authority when a personal OC device has been discharged.
 






2.

investigate the incident and document the investigation in the “Watch Commander / ADS Review” section of the Tactical Response Report. The station supervisor will indicate that the findings of the investigation of the member’s use of force revealed that the conduct conformed to Department policy and guidelines or that further investigation is required. If the station supervisor determines that further investigation is required or that the member’s conduct other than the use of force failed to conform to Department guidelines, the station supervisor will initiate that investigation consistent with the Department directive entitled “Complaint and Disciplinary Procedures.”
 






3.

attach the original of the Tactical Response Report to the case report and forward through normal channels.
 






4.

forward packets containing photocopies of the TRR and appropriate reports, as indicated on the TRR in the box entitled “Distribution.”







5.

receive the discharged personal OC device from the sworn member, provide a replacement device to the member, and notify the individual designated by the district commander that a replacement device has been issued. When needed, additional OC devices may be requested from the Taser Repair Center, located at the Education and Training Division, through normal requisition procedures.
 




NOTE:

 
Station supervisors will ensure that a copy of the TRR is presented to the Taser Repair Center for replacement OC devices.
 






D.

Whenever possible, the ranking officer on the scene of an incident will notify the Chicago Fire Department prior to the anticipated use of a device that dispenses a chemical agent through use of pyrotechnics.







E.

In instances where a member discharges a chemical agent outside the City of Chicago, the member will:
 






1.

notify:
 






a.

the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction;
 






b.

OEMC and the Crime Prevention and Information Center (CPIC).
 







2.

complete a TRR and submit it to a supervisor for review and approval.









IV.

Discharge of a Taser
 






A.

Member Responsibilities
 






1.

A member who is about to discharge a Taser device will, when possible:







a.

inform all other Department members on the scene of the imminent deployment of the device.







b.

give verbal commands to the subject prior to, during, and after deployment of the Taser.
 






c.

for back shots, aim for the subject's back below the neck area; for frontal shots, aim for lower center mass.
 




NOTE:

 
It is recommended that Department members deploy the Taser to the subject's back whenever possible.
 





d.

after deployment of the initial Taser five-second cycle, members will:
 






(1)

give the subject an opportunity to comply with his or her demands.
 






(2)

assess the situation and, if the subject is still not under control, consider the following options:
 






(a)

drive stun,
 




NOTE:

 
A drive stun is utilized when a Taser, with or without a cartridge attached, is held against the subject and energy is applied.
 





(b)

give additional five-second cycles,
 






(c)

reload and redeploy another cartridge, or
 






(d)

use another use of force option.
 




NOTE:

 
It is advisable to minimize the stress to the subject as much as possible. Multiple five-second cycles, cycles continuing longer than five seconds, and discharges by multiple Tasers will increase stress on the subject.
 








2.

A member who deploys or anticipates the deployment of a Taser will request that a supervisor respond to the scene.





NOTE:

 
For all field deployments of a Taser, the station supervisor assigned to the district of occurrence will ensure that a supervisor at least one rank higher than the deploying member responds to the scene of the Taser deployment.
 





3.

The member who field-deployed the Taser will:
 






a.

immediately, upon gaining control and restraining the subject:
 






(1)

request that OEMC assign emergency medical personnel when:
 






(a)

the Taser probes were discharged and penetrated a subject's skin.
 






(b)

an electrical current from the Taser was applied to the subject's body.
 






(c)

the subject appears to be in any sort of physical distress.
 







(2)

notify OEMC.
 






(3)

notify their supervisor, the station supervisor assigned to the district of occurrence, and CPIC
 






(4)

if emergency medical personnel determine that the subject requires treatment at a medical facility, follow procedures listed in the directive entitled:
 






(a)

"Field Arrest Procedures" for secured transportation and processing of injured arrestees.
 






(b)

"Assisting Chicago Fire Department Paramedics" for non-arrestees.





NOTE:

 
Subjects will be transported to a medical facility via a Chicago Fire Department vehicle.
 







b.

prepare a Tactical Response Report (TRR).









B.

Responding Supervisor Responsibilities




Responding supervisors will:




1.

ensure that the scene of the Taser deployment is protected and processed in accordance with the Department directive entitled "Crime Scene Protection and Processing," as necessary.







a.

If the Taser deployment occurred in a residence, an evidence technician will be requested to process the scene.







b.

If the Taser deployment occurred in an area other than a residence, whether indoors or outdoors, determine if an evidence technician is required.







c.

Request the assignment of an evidence technician to photograph the locations where the probes penetrated the subject's skin and/or any other injuries incurred as a result of the TASER deployment.








2.

inventory all evidence from the scene of the Taser deployment consistent with the Department directive entitled "eTrack System For Property Taken Into Custody." The discharged probes and used cartridge(s) will be inventoried in the following manner:
 






a.

the probes will be detached from the wires and inserted, pointed ends first, back into the cartridge.
 






b.

the cartridge will be wrapped with tape to secure the probes inside the cartridge.
 







3.

take control of the Taser device and deliver it to the station supervisor.
 






4.

request the station supervisor and/or the appropriate area deputy chief, Bureau of Patrol / On-Call Incident Commander respond to all Taser deployments that result in serious injury or death. When the appropriate area deputy chief, Bureau of Patrol / On-Call Incident Commander responds to the scene of a Taser deployment, they will be responsible for completing the watch commander / ADS review section of the TRR.
 






5.

if a death has occurred, ensure the Mobile Crime Lab and Bureau of Detectives personnel are requested.
 






6.

review the deploying member's TRR and sign it to indicate that the TRR has been completed properly.
 







C.

Station Supervisor's Responsibilities
 






1.

The station supervisor assigned to the district of occurrence will ensure that IPRA is notified and a log number is obtained. During the hours when IPRA is not available, CPIC will be notified to obtain a log number.
 






2.

The station supervisor will download the deployment data consistent with the equipment and software procedures and print a copy of the deployment information. In districts which do not have the necessary equipment to perform the download of deployment data, the station supervisor will follow the alternate procedures outlined in Item III-C-4 of this directive.
 






a.

When printing a Taser deployment data sheet, only the date range containing the actual deployment information need be printed. If the station supervisor does not manually select the specific date range, all 2000 lines of possible deployment data will be printed.
 






b.

The data sheet will be reviewed for time discrepancies. A full download of the device is required if a 254 or a 257 discharge is indicated or the clock is off by several hours, days, months, or years. For additional information, refer to the Department's eLearning website and search keywords "X26 Taser Download."
 







3.

The station supervisor will prepare the "Watch Commander/ADS Review" section of the TRR for those cases which do not require the presence of an area deputy chief, Bureau of Patrol / On-Call Incident Commander consistent with the directive entitled "Incidents Requiring the Completion of a Tactical Response Report," and ensure that:
 






a.

the Taser deployment data sheet and a copy of the TRR are attached to a copy of the original case report and forwarded to IPRA.







b.

the expended cartridge is replaced from the district/unit supply. When needed, additional cartridges may be requested from the Taser Repair Center, located at the Education and Training Division, through normal requisition procedures.
 




NOTE:

 
Station supervisors will ensure that a copy of the TRR is presented to the Taser Repair Center for replacement cartridges.
 






4.

If the station supervisor in the district of a Taser deployment is unable to download the Taser deployment data (required equipment is inoperable or not installed), the station supervisor will:







a.

designate a Department member, preferably a supervisor, to report to an adjacent district or CPIC with the involved Taser device for the purpose of downloading and printing the Taser deployment data sheet. The designated Department member will:







(1)

transport the involved Taser device as directed and ensure that the device is not tampered with during transport.
 






(2)

turn over the Taser device to the appropriate personnel and await the return of the device once the appropriate personnel download the Taser deployment data.
 






(3)

upon return of the Taser device and receipt of the deployment data, immediately transport the Taser device and data sheet to the investigating station supervisor.
 




NOTE:

 
If alternate locations are unable to download the Taser deployment data, the station supervisor investigating the incident will ensure that 2nd watch personnel hand-carry the Taser device to the Taser Repair Center.







b.

not approve the involved member's TRR until the Taser device deployment data sheet has been received and reviewed.







c.

ensure a copy of the Taser deployment data sheet is included in the TRR packet and forwarded as indicated in box 79 of the TRR entitled "Distribution."









D.

CPIC Responsibilities
 



Upon receiving a Taser device, the assigned CPIC personnel will:
 



1.

take control of the Taser device.
 






2.

download the Taser deployment data consistent with the established equipment and software procedures.
 






3.

print out the Taser device data sheet and distribute the original and copies of the data sheet as follows:
 






a.

the original data sheet to the member designated by the station supervisor to transport the device to CPIC.
 






b.

one copy of the data sheet will be retained at CPIC.







c.

one copy of the data sheet will be sent by facsimile message to the investigating station supervisor.









E.

Area Deputy Chief / On-Call Incident Commander Responsibilities
 



In all cases in which a subject has been seriously injured or a death has occurred in conjunction with a Taser deployment, the appropriate area deputy chief, Bureau of Patrol / On-Call Incident Commander will:
 



1.

proceed to the scene, assume command of the scene, and ensure that a complete and thorough investigation is conducted of the incident.
 






2.

ensure that all tasks delineated for subordinate personnel are performed.
 






3.

personally conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the incident and make a preliminary determination as to whether the conduct of the member conformed to Department guidelines.







4.

prepare the "Watch Commanders / ADS Review" section of the TRR and return the completed TRR to the station supervisor conducting the investigation.







5.

determine if a Round Table Panel Session will aid in the investigation.









V.

Discharge of a Firearm to Destroy an Animal
 






A.

Member Responsibilities
 



When a member discharges a firearm to destroy an animal, the member will:
 



1.

notify OEMC, his or her supervisor, and the station supervisor in the district of occurrence.
 






2.

complete a TRR and a Miscellaneous Incident Exception Report (CPD-11.419), Animal Bite Information report, or other appropriate report.
 






3.

submit all reports to their supervisor for review and approval.
 






4.

comply with all applicable provisions of the Department directive entitled "Incidents Involving Animals."
 







B.

The OEMC will assign a supervisor from the district of occurrence to the scene of the incident and notify CPIC.
 






C.

The assigned supervisor will:
 






1.

determine if there is any related personal injury or property damage other than the destruction of the animal and, if necessary, ensure that the required report is completed.
 






2.

review the TRR and sign it to indicate approval.
 







D.

The station supervisor in the district of occurrence:
 






1.

will complete the "Watch Commander/ADS Review" section of the TRR as indicated in the Department directive entitled "Use of Force Guidelines."
 






2.

may waive firearm inventory and ballistic examination and may authorize the member to retain his or her firearm in instances in which there is no likelihood of death or injury to a person or identifiable property damage other than the destruction of the animal.
 




Authenticated by: JKH
 
Garry F. McCarthy
Superintendent of Police
 

10-072 JAB
Title: Poor pit bulls...
Post by: G M on June 17, 2013, 10:10:39 AM
March 12, 2009 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A pit bull was shot and killed after attacking a pregnant woman and her boyfriend.

A Chicago police officer opened fire on the pit bull after it attacked the couple on the city's South Side.

It happened Wednesday night near 59th and Racine. Witnesses say the dog attacked the pregnant woman and her boyfriend as they were leaving a home.

A police officer arrived on the scene moments after the attack. He shot and killed the dog after the victims managed to break free and get to safety.
 
""They shot the dog once and he kept trying to attack the officer. So they opened fire again, nine, 10 more times. It took that many shots to put that dog down," said witness Marlo Weathers.

Police are trying to find the owner of the pit bull.

The female victim is hospitalized in fair condition. The man was treated for a bite to his leg.
Title: Silence used to help convict
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 18, 2013, 05:55:52 AM


http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9141909
Title: FBI agents always right in shootings; 150-0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 19, 2013, 07:14:19 AM


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in-150-shootings-the-fbi-deemed-agents-faultless.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130619&_r=0
Title: Can you say "reasonable cause"?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 23, 2013, 09:58:03 AM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/22/new-black-panther-leader-with-kill-whitey-face-tattoo-busted-on-gun-charge/
Title: On Pit Bulls
Post by: G M on July 01, 2013, 05:50:31 PM
http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-faq.php

Pit bull FAQ :: Download PDF file

Learn the names of the different dog breeds that comprise a "pit bull," the selective breeding history of the pit bull (dogfighting) and answers to other frequently asked questions.



American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and American bulldog.


Q: What is a pit bull?

The legal definition of a pit bull is a class of dogs that includes the following breeds: American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American bulldog1 and any other pure bred or mixed breed dog that is a combination of these dogs. Weight and shape can vary significantly amongst pit bulls, from 35 to 100 plus pounds. (Please see Disguise Breed Name to learn more about the deliberate renaming and mislabeling of pit bulls through history.)

Q: What is the history of the pit bull?

The blood sport of "bull baiting" began over 1,000 years ago in England (various sources dispute this date). What is undisputed is that by 1500, bull baiting had progressed to Britain's national pastime. Bulldogs were reportedly first mentioned by name in 1631, referring to their function rather than a distinct dog breed. By 1800, and through further selective breeding, the bulldog developed into a compact muscular dog characterized by tremendous jaw strength.2

Due to public outrage, bull baiting was banned in England in 1835. Bulldog breeders and owners then moved to the sport of "ratting," where a number of rats were placed into a pit and wagers were made on how many rats the dog could kill in a certain time period. To increase agility, quickness and prey-drive in the bulldog, ratters crossed the breed with terriers. Essentially, it was the sport of ratting that combined the bulldog and terrier into the modern day pit bull terrier.

On the heels of ratting, dogfighting developed. Pit bulls and dogfighting were exported to America as settlers made their way to the New World. In 1884, the American Kennel Club was formed but rejected pit bulls due to their use in dogfighting. In response, Chauncey Z. Bennett formed the United Kennel Club in 1898 to bring formal recognition to the pit bull breed. At that time, Bennett also drew up rules and regulations for dogfighting to bring "organization" to the blood sport.3

Q: What is dogfighting and what does it have to do with pit bulls?

Pit bulls are the dog of choice amongst dogmen, individuals who fight their pit bulls against other pit bulls. Dogmen consider pit bull terriers, who they commonly call "100% bulldogs," to be the ultimate canine gladiator. Pit bulls were selectively bred for "gameness," the ability to finish a fight. A truly gamedog will continue fighting "on stumps," two or more broken legs, and far worse.4 (Please see excerpts from The Complete Gamedog, by Ed and Chris Faron to learn more).

The blood sport of dogfighting involves a contest between two dogs, primarily pit bulls, fighting each other in front of spectators for entertainment and gambling purposes. Other felonious activities, such as illegal drugs, often accompany dogfight matches. A single dogfight averages about an hour in length but can last two or more.5 A dogfight begins when a referee says, "Face your dogs," then says, "Let go." The fight ends when one of the dogs will not or cannot continue.

The arrest and conviction of Michael Vick shows that dogfighting still proliferates in the U.S. Law enforcement education, however, is on the rise. In July 2009, authorities unleashed an 8-state simultaneous dogfighting sting and seized over 450 dogs.6 In December 2008, Edward Faron of Wildside Kennels, known as the "godfather" of dogfighting, was arrested and charged. Authorities seized 127 pit bulls from his property. Faron pleaded guilty to 14 counts of felony dogfighting.7

Q: Why do I always read about pit bulls in the news?

When a pit bull attacks, the injury inflicted may be catastrophic. First responders, such as police officers and firefighters, understand this as do members of the media, who are quick to report these attacks. Ongoing social tension also keeps pit bulls in the news. The pit bull problem is nearly 30-years old.8 In this time, most lawmakers have been "too afraid" to take breed-specific action to correct the problem. Due to this failure, horrific maulings continue to make headlines.

About half of all media reports regarding pit bulls involve police officers shooting dangerous pit bulls in the line of duty.9 Since the late 1970's pit bulls have been used extensively in criminal operations for drug dealers, gang members and other violent offenders. The pit bull terrier is the breed of choice for criminals. This choice is directly linked to the pit bull's selectively bred traits of robust jaw strength, a deadly bite style, tenacity (gameness) and a high tolerance to pain.10


Q: Why do people say that pit bulls "don't let go?"

Through selective breeding, pit bulls have developed enormous jaw strength, as well as a ruinous "hold and shake" bite style, designed to inflict the maximum damage possible on their victims. This bite trait delivered winning results in the fighting pit. When the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the Denver pit bull ban in 2005, the high court set aside characteristics that pit bulls displayed when they attack that differ from all other dog breeds. One of these characteristics was their lethal bite:

"[pit bulls] inflict more serious wounds than other breeds. They tend to attack the deep muscles, to hold on, to shake, and to cause ripping of tissues. Pit bull attacks were compared to shark attacks."11
 Leading pit bull education websites, such as Pit Bull Rescue Central, encourage pit bull owners to be responsible and to always carry a "break stick" -- a tool used to pry open a pit bull's jaws -- in case their dog "accidentally" gets into a fight. These same websites also warn that using a break stick on any other dog breed may cause serious injury to the person.12 This is true because no other dog breed possesses the pit bull's tenacity combined with a "hold and shake" bite style.

One of the most powerful examples of a pit bull "not letting go" occurred in an Ohio courtroom. During the Toledo v. Tellings trial (Tellings was convicted of violating the City of Toledo's pit bull ordinance), Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon showed a videotape of a tranquilized pit bull hanging from a steel cable. The dog is essentially unconscious and still does not release its grip. At the time of the taping, the pit bull was being housed at the Lucas County Animal Shelter.13

Q: Do pit bulls bite more than other dogs?

Depending upon the community in which you live and the ratio of pit bulls within it, yes and no. But whether a pit bull bites more or less than another dog breed is not the point. The issue is the acute damage a pit bull inflicts when it does choose to bite. The pit bull's "hold and shake" bite style causes severe bone and muscle damage, often inflicting permanent and disfiguring injury. Moreover, once a pit bull starts an attack, firearm intervention may be the only way to stop it.

When analyzing dog bite statistics, it is important to understand what constitutes a bite. A single bite -- recorded and used in dog bite statistics -- is a bite that "breaks the skin." One bite by a poodle that leaves two puncture wounds is recorded the same way as a pit bull mauling, which can constitute hundreds of puncture wounds and extensive soft tissue loss. Despite the "quagmire" of dog bite statistics, pit bulls are leading bite counts across U.S. cities and counties.14

Q: How come pit bull owners say, "My dog might lick you to death."

To understand the experience of owning a negatively perceived dog, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy did a study on pit bull owners. Researchers found that owners of out-law dog breeds directly feel the stigma targeted at their breed and resort to various tactics to lessen it. One of the tactics included attempts to counterbalance the pit bull's menacing appearance and physical power with overwhelming "affectionate" behavior, such as: "My dog might lick you to death."15

Q: Why does my friend say, "Pit bulls are dog-aggressive not human-aggressive?"

Due to selective breeding for the purposes of dogfighting, pit bulls are highly dog-aggressive. This aggression is not limited to dogs; pit bulls frequently kill other companion pets and domesticated animals. Leading pit bull education websites warn pit bull owners to, "Never trust your pit bull not to fight." These same websites also state that pit bulls should never be left alone with another dog or animal.16 The practical question is: Why is "pit bull dog aggression" tolerated at all?

Pit bull dog aggression is unacceptable for two reasons. In many instances it leads to human aggression. A common scenario is the following: A loose pit bull attacks a leashed dog being walked by its owner. The owner gets seriously injured trying to stop the attack. In 2009, two human beings suffered death due to pit bull dog aggression: Rosie Humphreys, who had been walking her two poodles, and Carter Delaney, who had tried to protect a smaller dog in his home.

Secondly, far too many beloved companion pets and domesticated animals suffer a violent death by the powerful jaws of pit bull terriers each year. In some instances, these attacks involve pit bulls charging through screen doors of private homes -- in a home invasion attack -- to kill the pet living inside.17 Owners of the pet are then forced to watch as their pet is disemboweled by the pit bull and pray that the dog does not turn its attention on an innocent family member next.

Q: What is the best thing we can do for communities and pit bulls?

The best thing we can do for communities and pit bulls is to regulate pit bull ownership and pit bull breeding. Lowering the pit bull population will reduce the number of serious maulings, as well as pit bull euthanizations. In the July/August 2009 issue of Animal People, the group estimated that of the 1,663,167 shelter dogs projected to be euthanized in 2009, pit bulls accounted for 58%. This is true despite the fact that pit bulls only make up 5% of the total U.S. dog population.18

Over 600 U.S. cities and nearly all privatized military housing -- the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps now have uniform pet policies -- have adopted breed-specific laws to correct the pit bull problem. Such measures include: mandatory sterilization, liability insurance and strict containment rules. The most progressive legislation bans the future breeding of pit bulls (a pit bull ban). In just a few years, these communities see a significant drop in pit bull bites and euthanizations.

Learn how communities are legislating dogs »

1.Progressive pit bull legislation includes the American bulldog in its definition of a pit bull.
2.The History of Bull Baiting, by Amy Fernandez, DogChannel.com.
3.American Pit Bull Terrier Handbook, by Joe Stahlkuppe, Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 2000.
4.The Complete Gamedog: A Guide to Breeding & Raising the American pit bull terrier, by Ed and Chris Faron, Walsworth Pub. Co., 1995.
5.Dogfighting Fact Sheet, The Humane Society of the United States.
6.Eight-State Dogfighting Raid Largest in U.S. History, by Wayne Pacelle, The Humane Society of the United States, July 9, 2009.
7.Dog-fighting 'godfather' given prison, by Monte Mitchell, Winston-Salem Journal, February 13, 2009.
8.Pit Bulls -- Family Pets and Fierce Fighters, by Tom Greely, Los Angeles Times, July 25, 1982.
9.Combined data from: Mid Year Results: U.S. Pit Bull Attacks 2009 and Mid Year Results: U.S. Police and Citizen Shootings of Pit Bulls 2009, by DogsBite.org, August 2009.
10.One City's Experience, by Kory A. Nelson, Senior City Attorney for the City of Denver, Municipal Lawyer, July/August 2005.
11.Pit Bull Case Report and Literature Review, by Steven F. Vegas, MD, Jason H. Calhoun, MD, M. Eng., John Mader, MD, Texas Medicine Vol. 84, November 1988.
12.Breaking Up a Fight, Pit Bull Rescue Central.
13.Information provided by the Lucas County, Ohio Dog Warden.
14.Pit Bulls Lead "Bite" Counts Across U.S. Cities and Counties, by DogsBite.org (continuously updated).
15.Managing the Stigma of Outlaw Breeds: A Case Study of Pit Bull Owners, by Hillary Twining, Arnold Arluke, Gary Patronek, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, Society & Animals Journal of Human-Animal Studies, Vol. 8 Number 1, 2000.
16.10 Easy to Remember Tips for Responsible Pit Bull Owners, PitBullLovers.com.
17.Pit bull put down after attack, by Kieran Nicholson, The Denver Post, March 3, 2009.
18.Decade of Adoption Focus Fails to Reduce Shelter Killing, by Merritt Clifton, Animal People, July/August 2009.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 02, 2013, 06:10:23 AM
GM: 

Please put this in the canine thread instead.
Title: Police reports related to 3rd Amendment case
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 15, 2013, 03:39:16 PM
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/22799464/police-release-reports-connected-to-3rd-amendment-lawsuit
Title: Re: Police reports related to 3rd Amendment case
Post by: G M on July 15, 2013, 03:50:28 PM
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/22799464/police-release-reports-connected-to-3rd-amendment-lawsuit

Seeing the actual reports should be useful. The news story, not so much.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 15, 2013, 04:04:38 PM
Agreed, but as part of following this case I thought it useful to know that the police reports have been released.
Title: US marshalls crash entry citizen's home
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 21, 2013, 08:27:20 AM
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130718/COLUMNIST/130719612/2256
Title: Re: US marshalls crash entry citizen's home
Post by: G M on July 21, 2013, 08:44:54 AM
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130718/COLUMNIST/130719612/2256

The correct spelling for the law enforcement title is "Marshal".
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 21, 2013, 12:25:47 PM
 :oops: :oops: :oops: :-D
Title: Hero citizen denied aid by cowardly cops
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 26, 2013, 01:51:23 PM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/zero_for_hero_5Aw3bMHF7vSPG7f27c0jOO
Title: Experiment: Police wearing cameras
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 12, 2013, 01:13:29 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-cameras-for-police-officers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Title: Re: Experiment: Police wearing cameras
Post by: G M on August 19, 2013, 10:46:35 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-cameras-for-police-officers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I think cameras are a good thing. The biggest technological drawback in the cord on the Axon camera system.
Title: Some of this is bunk, but I think cameras are a good idea
Post by: G M on September 03, 2013, 09:50:06 AM
http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/30/watched-cops-are-polite-cops

Watched Cops Are Polite Cops

How requiring police to wear video cameras will protect your constitutional rights.

Ronald Bailey | August 30, 2013



Who will watch the watchers? What if all watchers were required to wear a video camera that would record their every interaction with citizens? In her ruling in a recent civil suit challenging the New York City police department’s notorious stop-and-frisk rousting of residents, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Federal District Court in Manhattan imposed an experiment in which the police in the city’s precincts with the highest reported rates of stop-and-frisk activity would be required to wear video cameras for one year.



This is a really good idea. Earlier this year, a 12-month study by Cambridge University researchers revealed that when the city of Rialto, California, required its cops to wear cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and the use of force by officers dropped by almost 60 percent. Watched cops are polite cops.
 
Jay Stanley, a policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), calls police-worn video cameras “a win/win for both the public and the police.” Win/win because video recordings help shield officers from false accusations of abuse as well as protecting the public against police misconduct. The small cameras like the AXON Flex from Taser International attach to an officer’s sunglasses, hat, or uniform.
 
In order to make sure that both the public and police realize the greatest benefits from body-worn video cameras, a number of policies need to be implemented. For example, police officers must be subject to stiff disciplinary sanctions if they fail to turn their cameras on each time they interact with the public. In addition, items obtained during an unrecorded encounter would be deemed a violation of the subject’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and excluded as evidence, unless there were extenuating circumstances, such as a broken camera. Similarly, failure to record an incident for which a patrolman is accused of misconduct should create a presumption against that officer.
 
Officer-worn video cameras do have the potential to violate the privacy of citizens. After all, the police frequently are dealing with people when they are having one of the worst days of their lives. For instance, police often enter people’s houses to investigate incidents. In such cases, video of someone’s literal or metaphorical dirty laundry is nobody else’s business. Consequently, Stanley argues that strong rules regarding the retention, use, and disclosure of videos from police-worn cameras must be established and enforced. For example, videos should be retained for no more than 30 to 60 days, unless flagged. Of course, if the video contains evidence of a crime it should be retained just as any other evidence would be. Flagging would also occur for any incident involving force or a citizen complaint. With the appropriate strong privacy protections in place, very little of police-recorded video would ever be retained or viewed.
 
Officers should also be required to notify people that they are being recorded. Some preliminary evidence suggests that both police and citizens behave better when they know that they are being recorded. Additionally, the police should not have discretion to release any video to the public. For example, police would be barred from “leaking” videos like that of the drunken actress Reese Witherspoon being arrested in Atlanta for disorderly conduct after a traffic stop. (For what it is worth, the Atlanta police department denies releasing the Witherspoon scene.) Anyone who is recorded, on the other hand, should have access to the video and they should be allowed to consent to public release. Subjects who are incidentally recorded should be blacked out or blurred if the video is released. (The ACLU’s Stanley notes that video used as evidence in a public trial would likely be made available to the public.)
 
Besides those privacy concerns, what possible objections could there be to requiring every officer to wear a camera? Some contend that since practically every citizen can now record police activity using their cellphones, police-worn cameras will be unnecessary. But some states have made it illegal to record people in public without their consent, and the police are often adamant about enforcing that prohibition when the camera is turned on them. Even when the law does permit recording without consent, the police have, in some cases, confiscated a citizen’s cellphone and allegedly erased inculpating video.
 
In addition, citizen recordings will often be incomplete or misleading. People typically start recording only after an encounter turns aggressive, so the context of what is happening is lost.
 
Won’t police officers resist wearing video cameras? Initially perhaps, but most patrol officers are now becoming comfortable with dashboard cameras in their cruisers. A 2004 study for the International Association of the Chiefs of Police found that in cases where police misconduct was alleged, in-car video evidence exonerated officers 93 percent of the time. The same report further noted that dashboard cameras enhanced officer safety, improved agency accountability, reduced agency liability, simplified incident review, enhanced new recruit training, improved community perceptions, helped advance case resolution, and enhanced officer performance and professionalism. In fact, the Atlanta police officer in the Witherspoon dashcam video does come off as quite professional. Body-worn cameras will clearly augment all of those objectives.
 
The upshot of obliging police to wear video cameras is that it turns the tables on functionaries of the surveillance state. It gives citizens better protection against police misconduct and against violations of their constitutional rights. And it protects good cops against unfair accusations, too. Requiring police to wear video cameras should be universally adopted sooner rather than later.
Title: Ten Rules for dealing with Police
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 11, 2013, 06:58:26 AM
Aimed at the police adverse audience

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nQ_mFJV4I&noredirect=1
Title: Border Patrol, excessive force accusations
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 18, 2013, 08:53:08 AM
Well, to be precise, the accusers probably aren't citizens and probably the great majority of the accusations are BS, but still it seems logical that there should be a proper process , , ,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/call-for-better-tracking-of-cases-of-excessive-force-at-borders.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130918&_r=0
Title: Re: Border Patrol, excessive force accusations
Post by: G M on September 18, 2013, 05:57:35 PM
Well, to be precise, the accusers probably aren't citizens and probably the great majority of the accusations are BS, but still it seems logical that there should be a proper process , , ,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/call-for-better-tracking-of-cases-of-excessive-force-at-borders.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130918&_r=0

The border is muy Peligro. If Mexicans are concerned, stay away.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 18, 2013, 06:05:16 PM
Coincidentally enough, I will be at BP's Advanced Training Center this coming week working with the folks there for the third time.  As you can imagine, lunch time stories can be quite exciting.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on September 18, 2013, 06:18:25 PM
I can only imagine. Training with BORTAC ?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 19, 2013, 09:26:55 AM
http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/09/ohio-cop-caught-on-camera-terrorizing-family-in-bizarre-video-2448908.html
Title: Who will protect you from the protectors?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 27, 2013, 09:38:37 PM
This is a difficult subject.  In our search for Truth, we consider more than one point of view:

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/10/who-will-protect-you-from-the-police-the-rise-of-government-sanctioned-home-invasions/
Title: Re: Who will protect you from the protectors?
Post by: G M on October 28, 2013, 01:39:41 AM
This is a difficult subject.  In our search for Truth, we consider more than one point of view:

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/10/who-will-protect-you-from-the-police-the-rise-of-government-sanctioned-home-invasions/

Was there a time in American history where search warrants were not served?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 28, 2013, 08:25:14 PM
Well, there was a time when no-knock raids in the middle of the night were quite a bit less common.  There was a time when we were not the nation with the largest % of its population in jail on the planet.  There was a time when our laws were more or less knowable, and more or less in line with the American Creed.



Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on October 28, 2013, 08:28:42 PM
 Were any for obscure,unknowable laws?
Well, there was a time when no-knock raids in the middle of the night were quite a bit less common.  There was a time when we were not the nation with the largest % of its population in jail on the planet.  There was a time when our laws were more or less knowable, and more or less in line with the American Creed.





Were any of the raids mentioned in the article no knock raids?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 29, 2013, 06:35:06 AM
I was responding to this:  "Was there a time in American history where search warrants were not served?"

Title: Bend over and spread
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 05, 2013, 02:59:10 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/what-began-as-a-mans-simple-traffic-stop-ended-in-an-unfathomable-12-hour-ordeal-that-is-almost-too-horrific-to-believe/

As was commented elsewhere "They took his Fourth Amendment rights and rectum."
Title: Re: Bend over and spread
Post by: jcordova on November 06, 2013, 05:33:33 AM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/what-began-as-a-mans-simple-traffic-stop-ended-in-an-unfathomable-12-hour-ordeal-that-is-almost-too-horrific-to-believe/

As was commented elsewhere "They took his Fourth Amendment rights and rectum."

Big time violation.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 07, 2013, 09:52:39 PM
http://nevergetbusted.com/hot-news/man-clenches-butt-cheeks-traffic-stop-police-force-defecation-stomach-surgery/
Title: Are Cameras the New Guns?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 17, 2013, 09:18:36 PM
Are Cameras the New Guns?

Are Cameras the New Guns?Expand

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state's electronic surveillance law - aka recording a police encounter - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, "Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals…." (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)

The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.

Glik captured a police action on his cellphone to document what he considered to be excessive force. He was not only arrested, his phone was also seized.

On his website Drew wrote, "Myself and three other artists who documented my actions tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law. The police hesitated for two months because they knew it would mean a federal court case. With this felony charge they are trying to avoid this test and ruin me financially and stain my credibility."

Hyde used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the police. After doing so, he was criminally charged.

In short, recordings that are flattering to the police - an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog - will almost certainly not result in prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple dissent.

A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.

Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an explanation: "For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man."

When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.

Happily, even as the practice of arresting "shooters" expands, there are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested "shooter," the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.

As journalist Radley Balko declares, "State legislatures should consider passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law enforcement officials."

Wendy McElroy is the author of several books on anarchism and feminism. She maintains the iconoclastic website ifeminists.net as well as an active blog at wendymcelroy.com.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: bigdog on November 18, 2013, 03:06:35 AM
May I ask how old this article is? I find it surprising in light of http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-prohibit-taping-of-police-20121126,0,686331.story. That said, there may be follow up issues in Illinois I am not aware of.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 18, 2013, 03:21:10 AM
Hmmm , , , I am not remembering where I got this.  Usually I am pretty good about citing sources, but it looks like I have come up short this time  :oops: 
Title: NYC Stop & Frisk
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 19, 2013, 06:24:08 PM
http://www.upworthy.com/meet-the-17-year-old-who-blew-the-lid-off-racial-profiling-with-his-ipod

Title: Officious d***head with a badge
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2013, 03:55:45 PM

Phone cameras are changing the landscape:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/19/school-is-out-my-kids-are-to-be-given-to-me-dad-arrested-after-objecting-when-school-says-he-must-wait-to-take-his-children-home/#
Title: Next time you think, ‘I don’t like cops’
Post by: bigdog on November 27, 2013, 03:01:47 AM
http://thewiseguydiaries.com/2013/05/10/next-time-you-think-i-dont-like-copsmore-3139/

From the article:

You know, I think I have said the same thing only because one or two cops, in my entire life, have caused me grief whether it was a ticket, ( I obviously did not deserve ), or some smart ass reply directed my way when I interfered with their presumably mundane day.  Shame on me for being so presumptuous.

Pretty petty now as I see it.  Pretty petty of me.


Title: No doubt our GM will have something to say about this
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 04, 2013, 03:37:46 PM
http://www.altemagazinegr.com/kmea/a72/18c.htm
Title: "If we have to get a warrant , , ,"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 05, 2013, 06:07:51 PM
http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/05/cops-if-we-have-to-get-a-warrantwere-gon
Title: Checkpoint refusals
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 19, 2013, 10:04:15 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKiYpsQhZsI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DWKiYpsQhZsI&app=desktop

I consider myself better informed than average, but I have no idea where the lines are drawn in the question presented by this video.
Title: Police work is , , , different
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 27, 2013, 05:29:40 PM
Awaiting GM's witticisms on this  :lol:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/12/alleged_masturbating_man_in_sa.html
Title: Re: Police work is , , , different
Post by: G M on December 28, 2013, 06:43:46 AM
Awaiting GM's witticisms on this  :lol:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/12/alleged_masturbating_man_in_sa.html

Well, the article did say he was a man from Beaverton.
Title: Re: Police work is , , , different
Post by: DougMacG on December 28, 2013, 12:13:05 PM
I'm surprised it's illegal in Oregon.

Sometimes people think more clearly on drugs.  Like a drunk peeing off the sidewalk instead of wasting time looking for a restroom, this meth induced suspect allegedly only did what felt right to him at the time, "exposed his genitals and started masturbating at the bar".  On behalf of all the anything-goes liberals and libertarians, should we all be a little more tolerant?

Or as conservatives can we once and for all admit there are limits on behavior; we will have a few laws and enforce them. 
Title: Salt Lake Tasers
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 02, 2014, 01:05:53 PM


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57025997-78/force-lake-salt-police.html.csp
Title: Your rights when interacting with a LEO
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 03, 2014, 06:22:05 AM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/02/here-are-all-the-rights-you-have-when-interacting-with-a-police-officer/
Title: another no-knock warrant
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 07, 2014, 08:11:43 AM
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/robert-farago/police-militarization-claims-texas-swat-deputys-life/#more-285411
Title: Citizen-Police interactions and civil forfeiture
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 16, 2014, 01:52:09 PM
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/nypd-seized-innocent-mans-cash-used-pad-pensions/#axzz2qbIz4J5q
Title: Hero deputy in FL
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 06, 2014, 10:39:59 AM
http://bearingarms.com/florida-deputy-stops-attempted-spree-killing-in-car-dealership-in-less-than-60-seconds/
Title: No knock! No knock! Who's there?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 06, 2014, 07:48:45 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/05/troubling-new-details-about-the-violent-police-raid-in-iowa/
Title: Knock? No Knock? Who is there? Bang bang!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 07, 2014, 06:47:59 PM


http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/07/texas-grand-jury-declines-to-indict-pot
Title: Is there more police violence or just more cameras?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 10, 2014, 08:43:40 AM
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/police-state-violence-meme-and-the-story-behind-it_022014
Title: Re: Is there more police violence or just more cameras?
Post by: G M on February 10, 2014, 01:32:02 PM
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/police-state-violence-meme-and-the-story-behind-it_022014

Is there a point to linking to this moronic website?
Title: 24 things cops know, but most people don’t
Post by: G M on February 10, 2014, 02:43:38 PM
http://www.policeone.com/bizarre/articles/6111266-24-things-cops-know-but-most-people-don-t/?fb_ref=homepage

24 things cops know, but most people don’t



Not all of these are strictly what the police know that private citizens don’t, but they’re close.
 
Many are things I wish I could have said, but would have been in big trouble for doing so.
 
1.) Even though you say differently, you probably don’t know your rights.
 
2.) If you leave your teenager in charge of the house while you go away for the weekend, he or she will probably do something you forbade them to do. If they decide to host a beer party, your house will be wrecked.
 
3.) You can’t talk your way out of a ticket. Lots of people talk themselves into one.
 
4.) Of course it went off. What did you expect would happen when you pulled the trigger?
 
5.) The electronics in your radar or laser detector work no faster than those in my radar or LIDAR gun. By the time the little red light goes on, I already have your speed.
 
6.) We know you had more than two beers.
 
7.) If you grew up with guns in the house, you probably knew how to get to them, even though your parents thought they had them hidden or locked away. Don’t think your kids are any less ingenious.
 
8.) Arguing with me here will not go well for you. Arguments are for courtrooms, where you can make any statements and ask me any questions you want. Out here, I win all the arguments.
 
9.) We really don’t care how many FOP, State Sheriffs Association or 11-99 Foundation stickers you buy for your car. If you deserve the ticket, you’re getting it.
 
10.) Yes, you do pay my salary. Today’s obligation can be calculated by the following formula:
      ((Amount you pay annually in state, county, or city taxes/365) x (Fraction of budget allocated for law enforcement))/(Number of employees in my organization)
 
11.) I’d be happy to give you a refund. Do you have change for a penny?
 
12.) Most able-bodied people really can do those tests while sober.
 
13.) You are not the first person to see a cop and say "Take him, he did it,"  "I didn’t do it," or to tell your kid, "If you don’t behave, that cop will put you in jail." You probably aren’t even the first one to say that today. You have, however, caused me to mentally label you as a moron.
 
14.) The gun isn’t to protect you. It is to protect me.
 
15.) Your substance abuse problem is your business until it spills over into someone else’s life. Now, you are the problem.
 
16.) I don’t especially care what your race, religion, sexual preference, ethnicity, political affiliation or economic status is. I do have a bias against assholes.
 
17.) Can anyone here point out this person’s parents? He just asked me if I knew who his father was, and I don’t.
 
18.) Believe it or not, you really don’t drive better with a few drinks in you.
 
19.) Do unto others, but do it first.
 
20.) We are not armed, uniformed scribes. If someone has threatened, insulted, or otherwise vexed you in some non-criminal way and you want it put on record, write it down, take it to a notary public, and sign it in their presence. Poof, you have a record. If we could make one change to improve society, better parenting would be toward the top of the list.
 
21.) There probably are teenagers who can handle alcohol responsibly outside the direct supervision of an adult. We never run into them, though.
 
22.) Please press firmly, you are making four copies.
 
23.) You are in ______________. We don’t care how they do it in ___________.
 
24.) Yes, you very well may see me in court. I get paid overtime to be there, win or lose.
 
Title: SWAT team arrests okra plants
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 11, 2014, 11:20:18 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/texas-swat-team-conducts-_n_3764951.html
Title: A stop in Texas results in , , , this.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 17, 2014, 01:54:07 PM
I've been following this meme about how much we have to identify ourselves and the like.  Here is an example in Texas.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emmoJvpSGyw&app=desktop
Title: Re: A stop in Texas results in , , , this.
Post by: G M on February 17, 2014, 06:41:26 PM
I've been following this meme about how much we have to identify ourselves and the like.  Here is an example in Texas.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emmoJvpSGyw&app=desktop

You find this asshat's selectively edited video compelling?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 17, 2014, 06:49:32 PM
Ummm , , , no.  I find it somehow intriguing.

Q:  You find the officer's illegal search of the vehicle OK?

Q:  What do you make of the variance between the letter of the law and reality?

Q:  What do you make of matter about his wanting to view the video by himself first?  I for one have had experience with police lying about me in court that was revealed only by the judge requiring each to testify without the other present.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on February 17, 2014, 07:01:16 PM
Ummm , , , no.  I find it somehow intriguing.

Q:  You find the officer's illegal search of the vehicle OK?

Q:  What do you make of the variance between the letter of the law and reality?

Q:  What do you make of matter about his wanting to view the video by himself first?  I for one have had experience with police lying about me in court that was revealed only by the judge requiring each to testify without the other present.

How do you know the search was illegal? Facts not in evidence. Technically, looking inside the vehicle is a plain view search, though it's not colloquially called a search. also, the courts have upheld opening car doors for officer safety purposes.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 17, 2014, 09:42:46 PM
Well, looking in is not the same thing as opening the door and going in.

Are you saying it is OK for the officer to go in and search without an arrest?
Title: US v. Palmer
Post by: G M on February 18, 2014, 01:15:29 PM
US v. Palmer

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee,

v.

STUART PALMER, Defendant Appellant.

No. 03-5115

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (D.C. NO. 02CR172C)

Submitted on the briefs: Fred Randolph Lynn, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant Appellant. David E. O’Meilia, United States Attorney, and Leena M. Alam, Assistant

United States Attorney, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff Appellee.

Before HENRY , BALDOCK , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.
HARTZ , Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

On September 30, 2002, Defendant Stuart Joseph Palmer was stopped by an officer of the Tulsa Police Department for speeding in a school zone. The officer subsequently found a loaded semiautomatic handgun when conducting a protective search for weapons in the locked glove box of Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). Contending that the search of the locked glove box violated the Fourth Amendment, Defendant moved the district court to suppress the gun. After the district court denied his motion, Defendant reached a plea agreement with the government. He entered a conditional plea of guilty to the indictment, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

“In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the factual findings of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous.” United States v. BoteroOspina, 71 F.3d 783, 785 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc). The final determination whether a warrantless search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Id. “We view the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to the government.” Id.

I. BACKGROUND

Officer Paul Downe observed a 1991 Buick driven by Defendant traveling 46 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour school zone at approximately 9 a.m. on September 30, 2002. Downe activated his police car’s emergency lights and siren to get Defendant’s attention. Driving behind Defendant, Downe signaled Defendant to pull over. Defendant looked back at the police car and pointed to himself, as if to ask “me?” Downe nodded and motioned for Defendant to pull over into a nearby Arby’s parking lot. Rather than turn immediately, Defendant remained in his lane of traffic, made a left turn at the next light, and accelerated. When Downe reactivated his siren, Defendant promptly crossed a lane of traffic and pulled into a NAPA parking lot.

Defendant drove through the parking lot, bypassing approximately 25 empty parking spaces. He eventually stopped on the far side of the lot. From the time Downe first signaled Defendant to pull over until the time Defendant stopped in the parking lot, Downe observed Defendant reaching behind the seat and then back toward the glove box, and leaning forward as if reaching for something under the seat.

As Downe got out of his patrol car and approached Defendant’s vehicle, he saw Defendant continue to make movements toward his feet or under the seat, and toward the passenger side and glove box. Downe observed Defendant’s hand near the glove box, which was open, and saw Defendant close the glove box.

Downe obtained Defendant’s driver’s license and returned to his patrol car to conduct a license check and prepare a citation. As he was doing this, a black pickup truck pulled up next to the patrol car. The driver told Downe that he had witnessed Defendant trying to hide something after Downe had signaled him to stop.

Downe radioed the police dispatcher to obtain backup. While waiting for backup to arrive, Downe conducted a record check on his laptop computer. It indicated that Defendant was an exconvict and warned that Defendant had been armed and dangerous. Downe continued to observe Defendant moving back and forth in his seat and leaning toward the glove box and under his seat.

Shortly thereafter, Officer Goad arrived on the scene. Downe explained to him what had happened and asked him to check the inside of Defendant’s vehicle. Downe removed Defendant from the vehicle, patted him down, and sat him in the patrol car while Goad searched the vehicle. Goad’s search revealed no weapons. Downe asked Goad to watch Defendant while he searched the vehicle himself. During his search Downe tried to open the glove box, which was locked. He removed the keys from the ignition and used them to unlock the glove box, where he found a loaded semiautomatic handgun.

II. DISCUSSION

“[A] traffic stop is valid under the Fourth Amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation . . . .” BoteroOspina, 71 F.3d at 787. In addition, when police officers have a reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that a properly detained driver may be dangerous and “‘may gain immediate control’” of weapons, they may conduct a weapons search of the driver’s person and the passenger compartment of the vehicle. United States v LeyvaSerrano, 127 F.3d 1280, 1283 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983)). Thus, the question in this case is whether Downe had a reasonable and articulable suspicion sufficient to justify the weapons search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle, including the glove box.

We agree with the district court that the specific facts and circumstances here gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that Defendant was dangerous and could gain control of a weapon. The observations of Officer Downe, supported by those of the passing motorist, clearly indicated that Defendant was trying to delay his encounter with the officer until he could hide something in his glove box. When the license check revealed that Defendant was an exconvict who had been considered armed and dangerous, Officer Downe had more than sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that Defendant was dangerous and was hiding a weapon in the glove box.

More problematic is whether there is reason to believe that a suspect “may

gain immediate control” of a weapon in a locked glove box, particularly when the

suspect is in the patrol car, detained by a police officer, while another officer

looks in the glove box of the suspect’s car. We turn to the relevant case law for

clarification of the quoted phrase in the present context.

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Michigan v. Long explains that (1) the fact

that the detainee is “under the control” of officers does not eliminate the risk that

he will gain access to a weapon, and (2) the time period during which the detainee

“may gain immediate control” is the entire period from the initial stop to the

detainee’s departure. The Court wrote:

The Michigan Supreme Court appeared to believe that it was not reasonable for the officers to fear that Long could injure them, because he was effectively under their control during the investigative stop and could not get access to any weapons that might have been located in the automobile. This reasoning is mistaken in several respects. During any investigative detention, the suspect is in the control of the officers in the sense that he may be briefly detained against his will. Just as a Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), suspect on the street may, despite being under the brief control of a police officer, reach into his clothing and retrieve a weapon, so might a Terry suspect in Long’s position break away from police and retrieve a weapon from his automobile. In addition, if the suspect is not placed under arrest, he will be permitted to reenter his automobile, and he will then have access to any weapons inside. Or, as here, the suspect may be permitted to reenter the vehicle before the Terry investigation is over, and again, may have access to weapons. In any event, we stress that a Terry investigation, such as the one that occurred here, involves a police investigation at close range, when the officer remains particularly vulnerable in part because a full custodial arrest has not been effected, and the officer must make a quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger. In such circumstances, we have not required that officers adopt alternate means to ensure their safety in order to avoid the intrusion involved in a Terry encounter.

Long, 463 U.S. at 105152 (internal citations, quotation marks, ellipses, and

emphasis omitted).

If Defendant had broken away from the officers, obtaining a gun from inside the glove box would have taken only a moment more than obtaining a gun from anywhere else within the passenger compartment. To be sure, the tasks of getting a key and unlocking the glove box would delay Defendant somewhat; but a suspect who is able to break free of officers detaining him could also seize the keys, and the suspect may have another means of entry to the glove box, such as a key that would not be detected during a proper frisk or a weapons search of the vehicle. Furthermore, Defendant would have access to the gun at the conclusion of the encounter, assuming that he was only issued a citation and not arrested.

Recognizing these dangers, the federal courts of appeals to address the matter have upheld weapons searches of locked vehicles and glove boxes. In United States v. Holifield, 956 F.2d 665, 66667 (7th Cir. 1992), officers who had stopped a car for speeding removed the occupants from the car, frisked them, examined the interior for weapons, and then removed the keys from the ignition and unlocked the glove box, where they found a pistol. Because the driver’s aggressive behavior justified the officers’ fear for their safety, the Seventh Circuit upheld the search of the locked glove box. The court relied on the above quoted passage from Long, observing that the passengers would eventually return to their car and that even before then, one or more could have broken free from the officers. Id. at 66869. Similarly, the Eighth Circuit followed Long in upholding a weapons search of a locked glove box. United States v. Brown, 913 F.2d 570, 57172 (8th Cir. 1990) (key lying on car’s front seat). Cf. United States v. Mancillas, 183 F.3d 682, 699701 (7th Cir. 1999) (locked car; follows Holifield); United States v. Woody, 55 F.3d 1257, 126970 (7th Cir. 1995) (search of locked glove box incident to arrest; cites Holifield with approval); United States v. Cheatwood, 575 F.2d 821, 825 (10th Cir. 1978) (seizure of firearms from front seat of car while defendant was standing at rear of car “was proper in relation to protection of the persons of the two police officers which necessarily involves the possibility that [the defendant] may have attempted reentry of the vehicle to obtain the weapons for use against the officers”).

Also instructive is United States v. Christian, 187 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1999), although the case did not involve a locked glove box. When two officers approached the defendant to question him as he stood by the side of a car, one saw a dagger on the front seat. Id. at 665. He asked the defendant for the car keys, unlocked the car, and retrieved the weapon. Id. The defendant challenged the search of the locked car because “the car’s interior was not within his immediate control” once the officer had taken the keys from him. Id. at 670 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court responded that the pertinent moment to assess the risk of the suspect’s gaining immediate control of a weapon was just before the officers took protective measures—that is, before the officers obtained the keys. “Otherwise, we might create a perverse incentive for an arresting officer to prolong the period during which the arrestee is kept in an area where he could pose a danger to the officer.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 807 n.9 (1982) (in explaining why warrant need not be obtained to search impounded vehicle that had been stopped on highway with probable cause, Court wrote: “f an immediate search on the scene could be conducted, but not one at the station if the vehicle is impounded, police often simply would search the vehicle on the street—at no advantage to the occupants, yet possibly at certain cost to the police.”). The officers’ actions were therefore justified under Long because “t was not unreasonable to fear [the defendant] might lunge for the door, open it with the keys, and grab the knife.” Christian, 187 F.3d at 670. The court also noted that the defendant might have been able to enter the car even without the keys, id. at 67071, and that the defendant, if not arrested, eventually would have been permitted to reenter the car, id. at 671.

We agree with the analysis in the above cases, which also applies to this appeal. Before the two officers first arrived at Defendant’s car and asked him to step out, Officer Downe had learned of Defendant’s criminal record and dangerousness and had observed Defendant’s furtive movements while being pursued. Thus, they had sufficient justification at that point to take the car keys and open the glove box. The delay in searching the glove box—while Defendant was removed to Officer Downe’s patrol car and Officer Goad first searched the interior of Defendant’s car—did not extinguish that justification. Moreover, as noted in Long, Defendant would certainly have had access to the gun after the citation was issued and he was released to go.

We recognize that “a protective search for weapons is limited in scope, but the fact that it is a limited search does not mean that it may not encompass the glove compartment. Protective searches are only limited in the sense that the officer conducting the protective search must first have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is dangerous and the protective search must be directed only to locations which may contain a weapon and to which the suspect may have access.” Holified, 956 F.2d at 669. Based on the information before the officers, Officer Downe was justified in searching the locked glove box as part of the protective search.

III. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the judgment below.
Title: UNITED STATES v. STANFIELD
Post by: G M on February 18, 2014, 01:34:30 PM
UNITED STATES v. STANFIELD

United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Howard STANFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-4061.
Argued Dec. 2, 1996. -- March 31, 1997
Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. ARGUED:  Stanley Howard Needleman, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant-Appellant.   Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiff-Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Steven J. Potter, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant-Appellant.   Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiff-Appellee. OPINION

Law enforcement officials literally risk their lives each time they approach occupied vehicles during the course of investigative traffic stops.   As the Supreme Court has repeatedly observed, “a significant percentage of murders of police officers occurs when officers are making traffic stops.”   United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 234 n. 5, 94 S.Ct. 467, 476 n. 5, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973).   In recognition of the extraordinary dangers to which officers are exposed during such encounters, the Court has consistently accorded officers wide latitude to protect their safety, authorizing them, inter alia, to routinely order both drivers and passengers to exit their vehicles during such stops and to conduct the equivalent of “frisks” of automobile interiors whenever they reasonably believe their safety might be in jeopardy.

The advent of tinted automobile windows, however, has threatened to bring to naught these essential law enforcement protections.   Confronted with the grave risk that tinted windows pose to the safety of law enforcement personnel, we address herein whether the government's substantial interest in officer safety during a lawful traffic stop outweighs the intrusion on the privacy interests of the vehicle's occupants which results when, because of heavily tinted windows that prevent the interior compartment from being viewed, an officer opens a door of the vehicle in order to ensure that the vehicle's driver is unarmed and that there are no other occupants who might threaten his safety during the investigatory stop.   We conclude that, perhaps generally, but at least under the circumstances of this case, the substantial government interest in officer safety which exists when law enforcement officers must approach vehicles with heavily tinted windows far outweighs any minimal privacy interest the suspect retains in the otherwise visible interior compartment of his vehicle.

I.

At approximately 9:00 a.m. on the morning of April 29, 1996, three officers from the Baltimore City Police Department-Officers Mackel, Buie and Hamel-were patrolling a high crime area in West Baltimore known for its open narcotics trafficking when they saw a late model, black Nissan Pathfinder with heavily tinted windows illegally parked in the middle of the street, effectively blocking traffic.   See Md. Transportation Code Ann. §§ 21-1003(r), 27-101(a) & (b) (Michie 1996).   The officers, who were armed and wearing bullet-proof vests over their uniforms because of the dangerousness of their assignment, see United States v. Stanfield, 906 F.Supp. 300, 301 (D.Md.1995), circled the block and, when the driver of the Pathfinder made no effort to move his vehicle to allow a free flow of traffic, parked their unmarked vehicle in front of the Pathfinder.   Upon exiting their cruiser, the officers noticed that the Pathfinder's driver, appellant Billy Howard Stanfield, was talking to a man leaning from a second story window, whom the officers recognized as William Staten, a known drug dealer.   See id.;   J.A. at 151-52 (testimony of Officer Mackel);  see also J.A. at 19 (Government's Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence).

The officers approached Stanfield's Pathfinder from both the driver and passenger sides, and, as they did so, they noticed that the front driver's side window was down, but that the front passenger side window was raised.   See Stanfield, 906 F.Supp. at 301, 303.   The tinting on the Pathfinder's windows was so dark that Officer Mackel, who was approaching on the passenger's side, could not see into the vehicle.   See id. at 302, 303.   Nor could Officers Buie and Hamel see much of the vehicle's interior during their approach from the driver's side.   As a consequence of the officers' inability to see inside the vehicle as they approached, Officer Mackel opened the front passenger side door of Stanfield's vehicle in order to determine whether Stanfield was armed or had access to weapons and whether he was alone in the Pathfinder.   When Officer Mackel opened the passenger door, he saw in plain view, from his vantage point entirely outside the vehicle, see id., a clear plastic bag of cocaine protruding from the mouth of a brown paper bag which was overturned on the back seat of the Pathfinder.   See id. & n. 6.1 The officers arrested Stanfield, searched the Pathfinder, and discovered a nine-millimeter semi-automatic handgun, numerous empty vials, two contact pagers, and over 200 grams of cocaine.   See id. at 302.   Stanfield was subsequently charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Prior to trial, Stanfield moved to suppress the cocaine seized from the back seat of his Pathfinder, contending that the search affected by Officer Mackel's opening of the front passenger door was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, that the cocaine discovered as a consequence of that search must be suppressed.   Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion, upholding the search on two independent grounds.   First, citing Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 740, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1542, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983), the district court held that Officer Mackel's opening of the passenger side door was permissible because Stanfield did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the interior of his car.   See Stanfield, 906 F.Supp. at 304 n. 9. Second, the district court held that, under Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983), “Officer Mackel was Constitutionally permitted to open the door to determine whether there were other[ ] [occupants in the vehicle] and if any weapons were within Stanfield's immediate reach,” determinations which the district court found were otherwise virtually impossible because of the heavy window tinting.  Stanfield, 906 F.Supp. at 304;  see also id. at 303-04 & n. 11 (“ecause Officer Mackel was unable to see through the heavily tinted windows of the Pathfinder, he had an objectively reasonable belief that Stanfield (or a hidden passenger) was potentially dangerous.”).

Following the district court's denial of Stanfield's suppression motion, Stanfield pled guilty to one count of possession, reserving the right to appeal the district court's suppression ruling that is now before us.   For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

II.

“[T]he ‘touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.’ ”  Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, ----, 117 S.Ct. 417, 421, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) (quoting Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 1803, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991)).   And, as the Court explained in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), reasonableness “depends ‘on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.’ ”   Id. at 109, 98 S.Ct. at 332 (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2579, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975)).   Under this balancing test, the Supreme Court has consistently approved of protective searches of persons, vehicles, and even homes, during routine and other lawful investigatory detentions, in recognition of the paramount interest in officer safety and the extraordinary risks to which law enforcement officials are exposed during such detentions.

Thus, for example, in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the Court sanctioned the now-familiar “pat-down” search, or “frisk,” because of the “immediacy” of the government's interest in officer safety, notwithstanding its conclusion that “[e]ven a limited search of the outer clothing for weapons constitutes a severe ․ intrusion upon cherished personal security,” id. at 24-25, 88 S.Ct. at 1881-82.   If an officer possesses a reasonable belief based on “specific and articulable facts” that the suspect is potentially dangerous, id. at 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1880, reasoned the Court, then the officer is justified in undertaking the “limited steps” necessary to “protect himself and others from possible danger.”   Id. at 28, 88 S.Ct. at 1883.

Fifteen years later, in Long, the Court authorized what are essentially “frisks” of automobile interiors during traffic stops, see Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 332, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 1097, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990), holding that such protective searches are “justified by the principles ․ established in Terry.”  Long, 463 U.S. at 1046, 103 S.Ct. at 3479.   Recognizing that all “investigative detentions involving suspects in vehicles are especially fraught with danger to police officers,” id. at 1047, 103 S.Ct. at 3480, and accepting without discussion that an area search of a vehicle is less intrusive than the frisk of the person, the Court concluded that “the balancing required by Terry clearly weighs in favor of allowing the police to conduct an area search of the passenger compartment to uncover weapons, as long as they possess [a] reasonable belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous.”   Id. at 1051, 103 S.Ct. at 3482.2

In Mimms and Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997), the Court even adopted bright-line rules that officers may, as a matter of course, order both drivers and passengers from vehicles during routine traffic stops in order to ensure that such stops are completed without incident.

The Court in Mimms held that the “inordinate risk” that exists every time “an officer ․ approaches a person seated in an automobile,” 434 U.S. at 110, 98 S.Ct. at 333, justifies a per se rule that drivers may be ordered out of their vehicles during lawful traffic stops, whether or not there exists any particular reason under the circumstances to believe that officer safety might be in jeopardy.   In contrast to the substantial state interest in safety at stake when officers must approach a stopped vehicle, the Court characterized the additional intrusion on personal liberty occasioned by requiring drivers to exit their vehicles and to move off onto the shoulder of the road as “de minimis,” “at most a mere inconvenience,” id. at 111, 98 S.Ct. at 333, and “hardly ris[ing] to the level of a ‘petty indignity,’ ” id. (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 17, 88 S.Ct. at 1877), reasoning that “[t]he driver is being asked to expose to view very little more ․ than is already exposed” when the driver is seated in his automobile.   Id.

Finally, repeating its oft-repeated observation that the government has a “legitimate” and “weighty” interest in officer safety, the Court in Wilson recently expanded the Mimms per se rule to allow officers to order not only drivers, but all occupants, to exit vehicles and move off onto the shoulder of the road during routine traffic stops.   See 519 U.S. at ----, 117 S.Ct. at 885.   While acknowledging that the passengers' liberty interests implicated by orders to exit vehicles might be stronger than those of the drivers, the Court nonetheless readily concluded that these interests likewise are “minimal” and necessarily must yield to the state's interest in officer safety, finding persuasive Maryland's common-sense argument that every occupant in a vehicle “increases the possible sources of harm to the officer.”   Id.

A.

1.

Notwithstanding that the Court “generally eschew bright-line rules in the Fourth Amendment context,” id. at ---- n. 1, 117 S.Ct. at 885 n. 1;  see also Robinette, 519 U.S. at ----, 117 S.Ct. at 421, we believe that the Court's decisions in Mimms and Wilson in particular would support a holding that whenever, during a lawful traffic stop, officers are required to approach a vehicle with windows so heavily tinted that they are unable to view the interior of the stopped vehicle, they may, when it appears in their experienced judgment prudent to do so, open at least one of the vehicle's doors and, without crossing the plane of the vehicle, visually inspect its interior in order to ascertain whether the driver is armed, whether he has access to weapons, or whether there are other occupants of the vehicle who might pose a danger to the officers.   Indeed, it seems to us that a contrary holding would not only be irreconcilable with, but arguably undermine altogether, the caselaw from the Supreme Court that was developed specifically for the purpose of protecting officer safety during what are, in today's society, frighteningly perilous encounters.

 Even where the interiors of vehicles are fully visible, “roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous,” Long, 463 U.S. at 1049, 103 S.Ct. at 3481, with as many as “30% of police shootings occur [ing] when a police officer approache a suspect seated in an automobile,” Mimms, 434 U.S. at 110, 98 S.Ct. at 333;  see also Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 148 n. 3, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1924 n. 3, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972).   In fact, as the Court noted recently in Wilson, in 1994 alone, 5,762 assaults on police officers occurred during the course of traffic pursuits or stops.   See Wilson, 519 U.S. at ----, 117 S.Ct. at 885 (citation omitted).   Thus, “it [is]'too plain for argument' ” that the governmental interest in officer safety during traffic stops is substantial.   Id. at ----, 117 S.Ct. at 885 (quoting Mimms, 434 U.S at 110, 98 S.Ct. at 333).

When, during already dangerous traffic stops, officers must approach vehicles whose occupants and interiors are blocked from view by tinted windows, the potential harm to which the officers are exposed increases exponentially, to the point, we believe, of unconscionability.   Indeed, we can conceive of almost nothing more dangerous to a law enforcement officer in the context of a traffic stop than approaching an automobile whose passenger compartment is entirely hidden from the officer's view by darkly tinted windows.   As the officer exits his cruiser and proceeds toward the tinted-windowed vehicle, he has no way of knowing whether the vehicle's driver is fumbling for his driver's license or reaching for a gun;  he does not know whether he is about to encounter a single law-abiding citizen or to be ambushed by a car-full of armed assailants.   He literally does not even know whether a weapon has been trained on him from the moment the stop was initiated.   As one officer put the obvious:  “If the suspect has a weapon, I might not see it until he rolls down the window.   He may just shoot me through the window.” 3  If, as the Court has noted, officers face an “inordinate risk” every time they approach even a vehicle whose interior and passengers are fully visible to the officers, Mimms, 434 U.S. at 110, 98 S.Ct. at 333, the risk these officers face when they approach a vehicle with heavily tinted windows is, quite simply, intolerable.   In fact, it is out of recognition of just such danger that at least twenty-eight states, including Maryland, have now enacted laws either regulating or altogether prohibiting the use of tinted windows on vehicles in their states.4

In contrast to the indisputably substantial government interest in protecting its law enforcement officials from the danger that inheres in the lawful stop of a vehicle with heavily tinted windows, the privacy and liberty interests implicated by the opening of such a vehicle's door for the limited purpose of determining whether the vehicle is occupied by one or several persons and whether the vehicle's occupants are armed or have access to weapons, are, although not unimportant, comparatively minor, and will always be so.

It is axiomatic, of course, that “
  • ne has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle,” in part because “its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one's residence or as the repository of personal effects.”  United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2484, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977) (quoting Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 2469, 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1974) (plurality opinion)).   Because of this, and the fact that vehicular travel is, of necessity, highly regulated, individuals traveling in vehicles “must expect that the State, in enforcing its regulations, will intrude to some extent” on their privacy.  New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 113, 106 S.Ct. 960, 965, 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986).


But, apart from the fact that there is a considerably reduced privacy interest in a vehicle's interior passenger compartment as a matter of law, the driver and other occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle have already had their liberty curtailed.   Moreover, because the driver must comply with routine requests for identification and registration, he will be required at some point during the brief detention to expose the interior compartment of his vehicle to view through at least one window, if for no other reason than to interact with the officer.   Of course, when the driver lowers the window, then much if not all of the car's interior will be visible to the officer.   The additional interference with the occupants' privacy interests affected by the opening of one of the vehicle's doors would seem minimal when measured against the enormous danger law enforcement officers face when they approach a vehicle with heavily tinted windows.   Such an intrusion would seem considerably less than the intrusions affected by ordering the driver and passengers to exit the vehicle and to proceed to the shoulder of the road, which were held in Mimms and Wilson, respectively, to be “de minimis ” in comparison to the states' interests in protecting their law enforcement personnel under circumstances far less inherently dangerous than those existing when the stopped vehicle has heavily tinted windows.   Not only does the person subjected to the limited search entailed in the opening of the vehicle door not have his entire body exposed to the view of the officers and public, he also retains his liberty interest in remaining seated in his automobile during the duration of the detention.   Indeed, the actual invasion of privacy entailed in an officer's opening of the vehicle door is indistinguishable from, if not precisely the same as, that which occurs when an occupant is required to open a door to exit a vehicle pursuant to an order given under the authority of Mimms or Wilson.

2.

Even if there were reasonable alternatives to allowing officers to open the door of a vehicle with heavily tinted windows in order to ascertain whether the driver is armed and whether there are other occupants in the vehicle, we would hesitate to impose them on the law enforcement community as a matter of constitutional law.   As the Supreme Court has been at pains to observe, during Terry-type stops, officers “must make ․ ‘quick decision as to how to protect [themselves] and others from possible danger’ ” at times when they are “particularly vulnerable,” and thus it has “not required that officers adopt alternate means to ensure their safety in order to avoid the intrusion involved in [such an] encounter.”  Long, 463 U.S. at 1052, 103 S.Ct. at 3482 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 28, 88 S.Ct. at 1883);  see also id. at 1052 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. at 3482 n. 16. That is, the Court has scrupulously avoided substituting its judgment for that of law enforcement as to how best to ensure officer safety.

With that said, however, we are at a loss to identify an acceptable alternative to a rule such as that we suggest would be justified.   Upon a moment's reflection, it becomes apparent that neither requiring officers (while in their cruisers or as they proceed toward the stopped vehicle) instead to order occupants to exit the vehicle nor requiring that they order that all of the vehicle's doors be opened, represents an acceptable, or even a reasonable, alternative.   To require officers to order the vehicle's occupants to exit as the officers approach the stopped vehicle exposes the officers to the very danger to which we believe it is unconscionable to subject them, namely, that they might be fired upon as they approach the vehicle.   As the Court observed in Terry, it is by definition “unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties.”  392 U.S. at 23, 88 S.Ct. at 1881.   On the other hand, to insist that officers remain in their vehicles and order the occupants out ignores the fact that, with heavily tinted windows, the officers could never know whether all of the vehicle's occupants had exited;  and, eventually, the officers would still be required under this alternative to approach a vehicle which, insofar as the officers could know, still held passengers who might be armed and dangerous.   Ordering that the vehicle's doors be opened, of course, allows the vehicle's occupants legitimately to move about the vehicle in ways that would enable them to access available weapons, which represents a separate danger unto itself.

Therefore, in the end, we believe, it will be impractical, if not impossible, for law enforcement officers to neutralize the dangers to which they are exposed by virtue of heavily tinted windows.   There simply do not appear to be any alternatives to the bright-line rule we suggest, which would infringe less on the residual privacy interests that drivers and passengers retain in the interior compartment of a lawfully stopped vehicle, yet still allow law enforcement officers to take that control of the situation that enables them to minimize the risk of harm to themselves and to the vehicle's occupants.   Cf. Wilson, 519 U.S. at ----, 117 S.Ct. at 886 (“The risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.”) (quoting Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 703, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 2594, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981)).   A bright-line rule that officers could always pursue the course of opening the door of a tinted-windowed vehicle when, in their informed judgment, such an act appears necessary to protect their safety, would not render the stops of such vehicles risk-free, but it would at least reduce to an extent the enormous danger to which law enforcement authorities are exposed as a consequence of the advent of tinted windows.

B.

 Even absent a Mimms /Wilson-type per se rule that officers may, in the circumstances we have described, open a vehicle's door to deter mine the number of occupants within and whether any of those occupants are armed or have access to weapons, however, Officer Mackel's opening of Stanfield's passenger door was fully authorized under the principles, if not by the direct holdings, of Terry, Long and Buie. Officer Mackel's belief that he was potentially in danger as he approached Stanfield's Pathfinder was imminently reasonable;  it would be folly to suggest otherwise.   Under Terry, Long and Buie, therefore, it is clear that Officer Mackel could have conducted a protective search of the entire interior compartment of Stanfield's vehicle to ensure his safety and that of his partners.   It follows a fortiori that Officer Mackel's much more limited search of merely opening the Pathfinder's door was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

As our previous discussion suggests, we are convinced that the presence of windows so tinted that the vehicle's interior compartment is not visible is, in itself, a circumstance that would cause an officer reasonably to believe that his safety might be in danger-as the district court held.   When the fact of the tinted windows on Stanfield's Pathfinder is considered together with the other circumstances informing Officer Mackel's judgment as he approached Stanfield's vehicle on the morning of April 29, 1996, we are satisfied that no reasonable officer would have failed to appreciate the potential danger confronting Officer Mackel and his partners.

First, Stanfield was, at the time of the stop, in violation of the state's traffic laws, having parked his Pathfinder in the middle of a two-way street, which was not passable by two cars simultaneously.   See Stanfield, 906 F.Supp. at 301.   Second, Stanfield's vehicle was stopped in the early morning in a relatively deserted area of town.   See id.;   J.A. at 128.   Third, Stanfield's vehicle was stopped in an area of Baltimore known for its open narcotics trafficking and high crime rate.   See Stanfield, 906 F.Supp. at 301;  J.A. at 53.   As we have often noted, where there are drugs, there are almost always guns.   And, as the Supreme Court has recognized, in a high crime area, “the possibility that any given individual is armed is significant.”   Buie, 494 U.S. at 334 n. 2, 110 S.Ct. at 1098 n. 2. Fourth, Stanfield was driving a vehicle which, according to the officers' testimony and the district court's factual finding, “is of the class of four wheel drive vehicles favored by drug dealers,” and is also “the preferred target of car thieves.”   Stanfield, 906 F.Supp. at 301 & n. 3;  J.A. at 163-64.   Fifth, as the district court found, the officers did not know and could not determine, because of the tinting on the windows, “whether Stanfield was alone or whether any weapon was within arms reach of the defendant.”   See Stanfield, 906 F.Supp. at 303.   And, sixth, as the district court found, Stanfield had been seen by the officers conversing with William Staten, a known drug dealer, immediately prior to his encounter with Officers Mackel, Buie and Hamel.   Id. at 301, 304 n. 10;  J.A. at 151-52, 237 (testimony of Officer Mackel);  J.A. at 19 (Government's Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence).5  Only the most foolhardy would not have believed that his safety was “potentially” in danger, see Long, 463 U.S. at 1051, 103 S.Ct. at 3481-82, as he approached Stanfield's Pathfinder.

There was more reason for Officer Mackel to believe that his safety might be in danger than there was in Long for Deputies Howell and Lewis to believe that their safety might be in danger.   The Supreme Court there held that Howell and Lewis were “clearly justified” in their conclusion that Long might pose a danger to them were he allowed to reenter his vehicle because (1) “[t]he hour was late and the area rural,” (2) Long had been speeding and had swerved into a ditch, (3) Long had appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant, and (4) the officers had seen a hunting knife on the floorboard of Long's car.6  463 U.S. at 1050, 103 S.Ct. at 3481.   The Court readily reached this conclusion notwithstanding that the officers had already completed their detention of the suspect without incident;  they knew that there were no other occupants in Long's vehicle;  they also knew that there was no one else in the vicinity who could pose an immediate threat to their safety;  they knew that Long did not have a weapon on his person;  they had determined that, although Long was not impaired sufficiently that he could not drive, he was unlikely to initiate an assault on the officers;  and they had reason to believe that Long wished to leave the scene without further involvement with the authorities.

In contrast, here, Officers Mackel, Buie and Hamel had just initiated their encounter with Stanfield, who was driving a vehicle not uncommonly associated with drug activity;  they were in a high crime area known for its open drug trafficking;  they had, only moments earlier, seen Stanfield talking with a known drug dealer;  they did not know whether Stanfield was alone or accompanied by others;  they were unable, because of the tinting of the windows, to determine whether Stanfield, or any other occupants of the vehicle, were presently armed or had ready access to weapons;  and they had no reason to think Stanfield might be incapacitated in such a way as actually to reduce any threat he might pose to them.

If there was less reason for Officer Mackel to believe that he might be in danger than there was in Terry for Officer McFadden to believe he might be in danger, we are satisfied that the difference is not significant enough to warrant a different conclusion as to the reasonableness of Officer Mackel's perception of possible danger, especially given the greater vulnerability of the officers here because of the heavy tinting of the Pathfinder's windows.   Officer McFadden had observed conduct by Matthew Terry and his companions that was entirely innocent in itself, although suspicious to McFadden, a trained officer, who recognized the conduct as “consistent with [an] hypothesis that the[ ] men were contemplating a daylight robbery.”   Terry, 392 U.S at 28, 88 S.Ct. at 1883.   Under these circumstances, observed the Court, it was reasonable for Officer McFadden to assume that one or more of the men might be armed.   Here, of course, Stanfield was not engaged in entirely innocent behavior;  he was actually committing an offense, albeit a relatively minor traffic offense, when he was stopped.   And, it bears repeating, he was stopped in an area of the city known for its open drug trafficking, in a vehicle frequently associated with drug activity, and he was talking with a known drug dealer.   A trained officer certainly would be as warranted in believing that his safety might be in danger in these circumstances as in those present in Terry.   Of course, in neither instance need the officer have been “absolutely certain that the individual [was] armed;  the[only question] is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would[have been] warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.”  Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. at 1883.   As to this question, in this case, we have no doubt whatsoever.

Although the Court in Buie did not itself resolve the ultimate issue of whether the protective sweep undertaken by the officers was justified under the Terry and Long standard, which the Court there held was applicable to the officers' sweep of Buie's home, the Court specifically analogized law enforcement's interest “in taking steps to assure themselves that the house in which a suspect is being, or has just been, arrested is not harboring other persons who are dangerous and who could unexpectedly launch an attack,” to the “immediate interest of the police officers [in Terry and Long ] in taking steps to assure themselves that the persons with whom they were dealing were not armed with, or able to gain immediate control of, a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against them.”  Buie, 494 U.S. at 333, 110 S.Ct. at 1097.   The Court noted that an in-home arrest, unlike the typical encounter on the street, “puts the officer at the disadvantage of being on his adversary's ‘turf[,]’ [and that] [a]n ambush in a confined setting of unknown configuration is more to be feared than it is in open, more familiar surroundings.”   Id. Even so, however, the Court was hesitant to characterize either the risk of danger during an in-home arrest or the risk of danger in an “on-the-street or roadside investigatory encounter” as the greater.   Id. Based upon these overarching observations concerning the relative risks associated with in-home arrests and traffic stops, and with due regard to the relevant specifics, we are even unprepared to say that the risk of danger to Officers Mackel, Buie, and Hamel was less pronounced than was the risk to the officers in Buie.

First, and most significantly, any difference between the inherent risk existing during an in-home arrest and a lawful investigatory traffic stop due to the officers' lack of familiarity with the surroundings, was minimized, if not entirely eliminated, in this case, because the interior of Stanfield's vehicle was not visible to the officers.   Through the use of heavy tinting, the driver and occupants of a vehicle effectively secure for themselves, as Stanfield did in this case, a “confined setting of unknown configuration,” forcing law enforcement authorities to confront them on their own “turf”-not unlike if they were hiding in their home.   Second, some six or seven officers were present at Buie's residence to affect the arrest, whereas only three officers, were investigating Stanfield.   Third, the officers in Buie had proceeded to Buie's house for the specific purpose of arresting Buie and were fully prepared for anything that might develop in connection with that assignment;  unlike Officers Mackel, Buie, and Hamel, they had not simply come upon Buie unexpectedly in circumstances requiring a quick, on-the-street judgment.   Fourth, the officers had already arrested Buie and had only to depart the residence and premises;  at the time of their search of Buie's basement, the officers were not merely beginning their investigatory detention, as in the case sub judice, when a confrontation is more likely.   Fifth, two days had lapsed since the robbery in Buie, and, although it was certainly not unreasonable to think someone (in particular, Buie's accomplice) might be hiding in the house with Buie, the officers had nothing specific to support such an inference.   As the dissenting judge on the Maryland Court of Appeals said in his opinion on the remand from the Supreme Court:

From the information elicited at the suppression hearing, we do not know whether Allen [Buie's accomplice] had been arrested or was still at large.   The testimony at the hearing does not give any indication that Allen was seen entering or leaving Buie's home during the three day surveillance period.   In fact, there was no testimony that placed Allen at Buie's home at any time prior to Buie's arrest.   Neither is there information as to what type of relationship Buie and Allen had;  that is, we do not know whether they were longtime friends who spent a great deal of time together or whether the only time they were ever together was the night of the alleged robbery.

The inconclusive surveillance ․ does not help the State.   It surely does not permit the inference that the police thought Allen was at Buie's house, for if they had believed that they would have brought along his arrest warrant as well as Buie's.

Buie v. Maryland, 320 Md. 696, 580 A.2d 167, 173-74 (1990) (Adkins, J., dissenting).   Here, of course, while Officers Mackel, Buie, and Hamel likewise had no specific reason to believe that there were other passengers in the Pathfinder, they did know that there was someone in the vehicle (Stanfield) who, for the reasons earlier recited, potentially might be dangerous.

 In contrast to the substantial state interest in having the investigatory detention necessitated by Stanfield's traffic infraction conclude without harm to its law enforcement officials, the liberty and privacy interests which Stanfield attempts to protect are, for the reasons previously discussed, notably insubstantial.   Additionally, because, even according to Stanfield, the driver's side window was down when the officers approached the Pathfinder, the interior of Stanfield's car, as well as contents lying exposed on the back seat, were fully open to the view of the officers and passersby.7  Even had all of the Pathfinder's windows been raised, the undisputed evidence in the record before us is that Stanfield's tinted windows would not have prevented passersby from viewing the Pathfinder's interior under all lighting conditions.   See J.A. at 88.   Hence, it was only because of the mere happenstance of cloud cover that the back seat of Stanfield's car was not visible, just as in Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983), the interior of the open glove compartment was not visible to the officer only because of the happenstance that the stop occurred at night.   Therefore, as the district court alternatively held, it is questionable whether Stanfield had any privacy right at all in those portions of his interior passenger compartment relevant in this case, for there is no legitimate expectation of privacy “shielding that portion of the interior of an automobile which may be viewed from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive passersby or diligent police officers.”   Id. at 740, 103 S.Ct. at 1542.

 Assuming that Stanfield did have some residual privacy interest in the interior compartment of his car, the additional intrusion on that interest that resulted from the mere opening of the passenger door was inconsequential.   There is, of course, no comparison between the “severe,” “surely ․ annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating” pat-down of the person authorized by the Court in Terry, 392 U.S. at 24-25, 88 S.Ct. at 1881-82, and the incremental additional intrusion on Stanfield's privacy interests affected by the mere opening of his passenger door.   Similarly, the protective sweep of the home authorized by the Court in Buie, pursuant to which the police were authorized to search closets, showers, attics, studies, basements, and underneath beds, was much more offensive to privacy interests than was the search here.   And, obviously, the opening of the car door and perusal of the car's interior from the outside interfered less with Stanfield's privacy interest than would have a complete search of the vehicle's interior permitted under Long, which could have included visual inspection of any area in which a weapon might have been secreted.

We even believe, as explained supra, that the intrusion affected by Officer Mackel's mere opening of the passenger door of Stanfield's Pathfinder was considerably less than those intrusions authorized as a matter of course by the Court in Mimms and Wilson.   The opening of the door of the Pathfinder exposed to view little more of Stanfield's body than was already exposed to view through the open driver side window and little more of the interior compartment than was visible through that same window.   And, in contrast to the action that may be ordered under Mimms and Wilson, the mere opening of the door did not require Stanfield (nor would it have required any other occupants of the vehicle) to move at all.

 In sum, when the state's substantial interest in ensuring that its investigatory detention of Stanfield occurred without incident to its law enforcement agents is weighed in the balance with Stanfield's privacy interests implicated by Officer Mackel's search, there can be no doubt but that the search was reasonable under the circumstances and appropriately limited in scope.   What was said of Officer McFadden's actions in Terry is no less true of Officer Mackel's actions here:

We cannot say his decision [to open the passenger door to Stanfield's Pathfinder in order to determine whether there were other passengers in the vehicle or whether the driver or other had access to weapons] was the product of a volatile or inventive imagination, or was undertaken simply as an act of harassment;  the record evidences the tempered act of a policeman who in the course of an investigation had to make a quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger, and took limited steps to do so.

392 U.S. at 28, 88 S.Ct. at 1883.   To hold otherwise than we do today would be “to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties,” Terry, 392 U.S. at 23, 88 S.Ct. at 1881, something which, as the Supreme Court has

consistently held, the Constitution does not require.8

III.

Because Officer Mackel was engaged in a reasonable protective search when he opened Stanfield's passenger door for the limited purpose of determining whether Stanfield was armed and whether there were any other occupants within the vehicle who might pose a danger to him or his partners, and because the cocaine that Stanfield seeks to suppress was seen by Officer Mackel in plain view during the conduct of this reasonable search, the district court's denial of Stanfield's motion to suppress is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The recited facts are those as found by the district court.   A number of the material facts were vigorously disputed at the suppression hearing and, ultimately, the district court did not fully credit the testimony of either the officers or Stanfield, a fact which brings the case to us in a somewhat awkward posture.   For example, the officers testified that both the front driver and passenger side windows were open, and that the cocaine was seen through the open passenger window.   See Stanfield, 906 F.Supp. at 301.   The district court, for reasons we find difficult to understand, rejected this testimony seemingly for the reason alone that it was fifty-nine degrees on the day in question, and therefore “it seem[ed] more likely than not that [Stanfield] would have left the passenger's side window up.”   See id. at 303 n. 5. Stanfield, for his part, testified that the passenger side window was raised and that Officer Mackel opened the passenger side door, climbed inside the vehicle, and searched under the back seat to find the cocaine.   See id. at 302.   The district court specifically found, however, that the cocaine was in plain view once Officer Mackel opened the passenger side door and that Officer Mackel, contrary to Stanfield's contention, neither entered the vehicle nor searched under the vehicle's seat.   See id. at 303 n. 6.

2.   The Court expressly extendedTerry and Long in Buie, authorizing, “in conjunction with ․ in-home arrest,” 494 U.S. at 337, 110 S.Ct. at 1099, protective sweeps even of personal residences, where a reasonably prudent officer, based upon articulable facts, would believe “that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.”   Id. at 334, 110 S.Ct. at 1098 (stating that the adopted standard “is no more and no less than was required in Terry and Long, and as in those cases, we think this balance is the proper one.”).   Although the Court remanded for application of this standard, it concluded that, even though the suspect sought by police had been arrested and handcuffed, and all discernible threat to the police had been neutralized, a “cursory search” of Buie's house still might be permissible on the ground that the house could “harbor[ ] other persons who are dangerous and who could unexpectedly launch an attack” on the officers.   Buie, 494 U.S. at 333, 110 S.Ct. at 1098.   Not surprisingly, the Maryland Court of Appeals on remand did in fact hold that the cursory search of Buie's basement was reasonable.   See Buie v. Maryland, 320 Md. 696, 580 A.2d 167, 172 (1990).

3.   Leef Smith, “They're Dark No More,” The Washington Post, Dec. 4, 1996, at VO4 (explaining that suspected gang members often drive around “in cars whose windows are all but blacked out,” using the cover created by the tinting to “hide illegal activities”) (statement of Officer Linda Hudson);  see also, e.g., Norman Peckham, “Phoenix Now Enforcing Window Tint Law,” The Tucson Citizen, March 17, 1995, at 9E (“Heavy tint may conceal the fact that the occupant may have a weapon.”) (statement of Officer Eugene Mejia);  Caroline Lemke, “In the Dark:  Tinted Windows Give Cars A Cool Look, But Some Are Illegal,” The Los Angeles Times, February 13, 1992, at 2 (When a car has tinted windows “t is hard for an officer to see into [that] car.   A gun could be pointed at you.   It puts you in a vulnerable position.”) (statement of Officer John Marinez).

4.   See Alabama Code § 32-5-215(e) (Michie 1996);  Arkansas Code of 1987 Ann. § 27-37-306 (1987-95);  Connecticut Gen.Stat. Ann. § 14-99g(b) (West 1996);  Delaware Code. Ann. Title 21 § 4313 (1975-95);  Code of Georgia § 40-8-73.1 (1982-96);  Idaho Code § 49-944(1) (Michie 1948-96);  West's Smith-Hurd Illinois Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/12-503 (West 1996);  West's Ann. Indiana Code § 9-19-19-4(c) (West 1996);  Baldwin's Kentucky Rev. Stat. Ann. § 189.110(3) (Banks-Baldwin 1996);  West's Louisiana Stat. Ann. R.S. 32:361.1 (West 1996);  Maine Revised Stat. Ann. Title 29 § 1916(3) (1996);  Maryland Transportation Code § 22-406 (Michie 1957-96);  Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. § 257.709 (1996);  Mississippi Code 1972 Ann. § 63-7-59 (1995);  Montana Code Ann. § 61-9-405 (1978-95);  Nebraska Rev. Stat. of 1943 § 60-6,257 (1995);  Nevada Rev. Stat. § 484.6195 (1995);  New Hampshire Stat. Ann. § 265:95 (1995);  Gen Stat. of North Carolina § 20-127(b) (Michie 1944-96);  North Dakota Century Code § 39-21-39 (Michie 1995);  Baldwin's Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 4513.241 (Baldwin-Banks 1996);  1995 Oregon Rev. Stat. § 815.221 (1995);  Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976 Ann. § 56-5-5015 (1995);  Tennessee Code Ann. § 55-9-107 (1955-96);  Utah Code, 1953 § 41-6-149 (Michie 1987-96);  Code of Virginia § 46.2-1052(C)(1) (Michie 1982-96);  Wyoming Stat.1977 § 31-5-962(b) (1977-96);  West's Revised Code of Washington Ann. § 46.37.430(5) (1996).  The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have done so as well.   See District of Columbia Code 1981 § 40-718.1 (1981-96);  Laws of Puerto Rico Ann. Title 9 § 1134 (1994).

5.   Although the government opposed Stanfield's suppression motion, see Government's Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, J.A. at 18-40, on appeal it inexplicably conceded error and then went to quite unusual lengths to have the case decided on the briefs and without oral argument.   Unwilling to reverse the district court's judgment summarily, we ordered the reluctant Assistant United States Attorney, Philip S. Jackson, to appear and argue the case.   When confronted by the court with the Supreme Court authorities described above, and questioned why he was unable even to advance good-faith arguments before this court in support of the district court's judgment, Mr. Jackson represented to the court that he had confessed error solely because, in his view, there was no basis for the district court's finding that Staten was a known drug dealer, a view that was nowhere mentioned in the government's three and one-half page brief.   Mr. Jackson thereafter, however, conceded that neither he nor the United States had any basis at all for challenging the district court's finding as clearly erroneous, ultimately acknowledging that if that finding were sustained, the United States had improperly confessed constitutional error.We find the district court's finding to be amply supported by the record, especially the testimony of Officer Mackel, in response to questions from Stanfield's counsel:Q: What really happened here was that you were on routine patrol, in your bullet proof vests, and you saw Mr. Stanfield talking to someone who you knew, isn't that correct?A: Once I pulled into the block, that is correct.   I recognized who it was.․Q:  ․ Now, when you saw Mr. Stanfield talking to someone, isn't it true that that is why you really stopped your vehicle and got out of the car and started investigating Mr. Stanfield?A: No.Q: Isn't it true that that person [Staten] you had known through previous, I guess through some previous dealings, that he might be or was a law breaker?A: Yes, I had dealings with Mr. Staten before.Q: And the real reason you got out of the car, all three of you, had nothing to do with being double parked, but you wanted to see what was up, isn't that correct?A: No, that is not true.Q: And you really, all you really had was a hunch and you just wanted to go in and see what was up?J.A. at 152.It is plain from this exchange between defendant's own counsel and Officer Mackel that defense counsel himself understood that Officer Mackel had previously had “dealings” with Staten in connection with drug transactions.   Stanfield even contended to the district court that, as the officers exited their cruiser, “one of the officers then shouted up to William [Staten] and asked [Staten] whether he had stopped dealing drugs.”   See J.A. at 238.It is plain that defense counsel's strategy was to develop a case that the officers had relied upon the pretext of Stanfield's traffic offense to investigate their “hunch” that, because Stanfield was talking to a known drug dealer, he might be engaged in a drug transaction, and, in fact, this was the very argument defendant advanced before the district court, see J.A. at 238 (opinion of district court) (“Stanfield argues that the officers were not attracted to him because of any traffic violation but because they were investigating drug trafficking.”).   Indeed, although Stanfield (for obvious reasons) does not mention the officers' previous dealings with Staten in his submissions to this court, one of Stanfield's two assignments of error from the district court's denial of his suppression motion was that the officers acted only on this hunch.   See Appellant's Br. at 2-9.It is evident, therefore, that the district court's finding that Stanfield was talking with a man known by the officers to be a drug dealer is unassailable.   The Assistant United States Attorney himself, albeit in direct contradiction of his own representations before us, even represented to the district court that “[a]n officer recognized th[e] individual [to whom Stanfield was talking] as William Staten, an individual about whom [the officer] had received information indicating Staten's involvement in the distribution of controlled substances.”   See Government's Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, J.A. at 18, 19.

6.   When listing the circumstances supporting the reasonableness of the officers' belief that they might be in danger if Long were allowed to reenter his vehicle, the Court did, as noted, mention that the officers had earlier seen the hunting knife on the floorboard of Long's automobile.   It is relatively clear, however, that the knife was mentioned more in support of the court's alternative holding that the search of Long's person was also reasonable, and that the presence of the knife played little, if any, role in the Court's determination that Officers Howell and Lewis were reasonable in their belief that their safety might be at risk if Long were allowed to reenter his car, see 463 U.S. at 1050 & n. 15, 103 S.Ct. at 3481 & n. 15. When it mentioned the knife, the Court even noted that “ Long was not frisked until the officers observed that there was a large knife in the interior of the car into which Long was about to reenter,” id. at 1050, 103 S.Ct. at 3481 (emphasis added), and, as the Court had noted earlier, after observing the knife on the floorboard, “[t]he officers [had] stopped Long's progress and subjected him to a Terry protective pat-down.”   Id. at 1036, 103 S.Ct. at 3474.   As the Court explained, the question with respect to the search of the vehicle's passenger compartment was whether the officers acted “unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons [other than the knife] within Long's immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile.”   Id. at 1051, 103 S.Ct. at 3482 (emphasis added).

7.   This fact, of course, suggests that the district court's denial of Stanfield's suppression motion might well be sustainable on the alternative ground that the cocaine would inevitably have been discovered by Officer Buie or Officer Hamel, even had it not been discovered by Officer Mackel.   Where the preponderance of evidence establishes that the information would “ultimately or inevitably” have “been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation,” the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule allows the prosecution to admit the evidence obtained through an illegal search.  Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2508-09, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).

8.   Stanfield also argues that the initial seizure of his vehicle was illegal because the officers stopped his vehicle in order to investigate possible drug trafficking, not, as the officers contended, because he was in violation of the state's traffic laws.   See supra note 5. Because, as the Supreme Court has recently held, an officer's subjective state of mind in stopping a vehicle is irrelevant to the constitutionality of the stop, see Robinette, 519 U.S. at ----, 117 S.Ct. at 420 (“ ‘Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.’ ”) (quoting Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 138, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 1723-24, 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978));  Whren v. U.S., 517U.S. 806, ----, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 1774, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (“[Our] cases foreclose any argument that the constitutional reasonableness of a traffic stop depends on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved.”), the district court was unquestionably correct in rejecting this argument.

LUTTIG, Circuit Judge:

Affirmed by published opinion.   Judge LUTTIG wrote the opinion, in which Judges HAMILTON and WILLIAMS joined.
.
Title: Police Can Open Car Doors When They Fear For Safety
Post by: G M on February 18, 2014, 03:28:42 PM
http://www.sclawreview.org/blog/2013/07/23/police-can-open-car-doors-when-they-fear-for-safety/

Police Can Open Car Doors When They Fear For Safety

Published July 23, 2013


 In McHam v. State, the supreme court addressed whether a police officer’s decision to open a passenger door because the officer feared for his safety was an impermissible search under the Fourth Amendment. The case arose in the context of a PCR appeal.
 
 Police conducted a checkpoint on Powell Mill Road in Spartanburg County.  Three police officers in marked cars were present.  McHam was stopped at the checkpoint at 10:50 p.m. McHam had a passenger in his vehicle, and neither of them were wearing their seatbelts.  An officer asked McHam for his license, registration, and proof of insurance.  McHam provided his driver’s license, and McHam and the passenger searched for their rest of the information.  The officer stated that “they were making a lot of movements in the car that he didn’t feel was consistent with looking for a registration card or a proof of insurance.”  The officer walked to the passenger side of the vehicle to make sure they were not accessing a weapon; once there, the officer could not see their hands and so “for his own safety he opened up the door to watch what they were doing while they were going through the car.”
 
Upon opening the door, the officer saw a bag of crack; the officer pretended not to see the bag and called for backup from the other officers at the checkpoint.  When the other officer arrived, he immediately grabbed the crack and arrested the occupants.  The officers searched the vehicle for weapons and found a bag of cocaine, digital scales, and a large amount of money.  The officers did not find any weapons.
 
McHam’s counsel made a motion prior to trial to suppress the drug evidence, arguing the officer’s opening of the door constituted an impermissible search under the Fourth Amendment.  The trial court denied the motion.  At trial, McHam’s counsel did not raise an objection, thus failing to preserve the issue for appeal.  McHam was convicted.
 
McHam filed a direct appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  The court of appeals dismissed his appeal.
 
McHam filed a PCR application, arguing trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the suppression issue at trial.  Trial counsel testified at the PCR hearing and admitted that he did not preserve the issue at trial.  Nonetheless, the PCR court dismissed McHam’s application because trial counsel was not deficient.  The PCR court assumed the court of appeals addressed the merits of his direct appeal, even though the issue was unpreserved.
 
McHam appealed and the supreme court granted certiorari.  McHam argued that the PCR court erred in making the assumption that the court of appeals addressed the merits of an unpreserved issue. McHam also argued that trial counsel was deficient and he suffered prejudice as a result.  The State argued that McHam cannot prejudice from trial counsel’s failure to preserve the issue.
 
The supreme court applied the Strickland test, which requires a PCR applicant to show (1) counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced him.  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
 
 On the first prong, the supreme court held that trial counsel’s failure to renew the Fourth Amendment objection was deficient performance.
 
On the second prong, the supreme court first stated that the court of appeals did not address the merits on direct appeal because the issue was unpreserved.  The court then stated that to determine whether McHam suffered prejudice, the court needs to determine whether McHam would have prevailed on the merits if the issue was preserved.
 
McHam did not challenge the checkpoint; instead, he challenged only the officer’s opening of the passenger door.  The court held that an officer’s opening of a door to an occupied vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment because “it enables the officer to observe portions of the interior of the vehicle that would not otherwise be readily visible to those who are outside the vehicle.”  The court then examined whether the search was justified by an exception to the warrant requirement.  The court held “as a general principle that officer safety can justify the opening of a door to an occupied vehicle under reasonable circumstances.”  The court stated the reasonable circumstances were “officer safety was a legitimate concern, given the dimly-lit conditions at the scene of the stop, the presence of more than one occupant in the vehicle, the fact that the officer was the only one approaching the vehicle at that moment, and the actions of the occupants.”
 
Since the court held McHam could not prevail on the merits of the appeal, he did not suffer prejudice, and as a result, the court affirmed the dismissal of his application.
Title: FAILURE TO IDENTIFY
Post by: G M on February 18, 2014, 03:34:47 PM
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/38/38.02

TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 38.02 : Texas Statutes - Section 38.02: FAILURE TO IDENTIFY



(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:

(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or

(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:

(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or

(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1009, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
 - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/38/38.02#sthash.pyVhh8t7.dpuf
Title: Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves
Post by: G M on February 18, 2014, 03:38:27 PM


Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves
 



By Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor, Plano, Texas, Police Department



A police officer does not need probable cause to stop a car or a pedestrian and investigate potential crime. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a police officer may initiate a temporary stop, a level of intrusion short of an arrest, if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime.1 This is commonly known as a Terry stop. Further, if the officer can articulate a reasonable basis for suspecting that the subject might be armed, he can pat down the outer clothing of the suspect in a limited search for weapons. This is commonly referred to as a Terry frisk.

The Terry rule has developed quite a bit since 1968, but some aspects remain murky. In particular, if the suspect refuses to give his name or any identifiers, may an officer arrest the suspect? According to the Supreme Court, the police may arrest for failure to identify if state law criminalizes such behavior.

Officers conducting a lawful Terry stop may take steps reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety, check for identification, and maintain the status quo.2 Occasionally a suspect will refuse to identify himself. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Ct. of Nev., a state law requiring a subject to disclose his name during a Terry stop is consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure:


Obtaining a suspect’s name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests. Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder. On the other hand, knowing identity may help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.3

Such a statute does not implicate the subject’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, as simple disclosure of one’s name presents no reasonable danger of incrimination. But the Court clearly limited the application of this new rule by also noting that an officer may not arrest a suspect for failing to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. The question is, is the request for identity a commonsense inquiry or an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence?

Furthermore, a state may not make it a crime to refuse to provide identification on demand in the absence of reasonable suspicion.4 The Court has also held that a requirement that a detainee give “credible and reliable” identification information to the police upon request is too vague to be a criminal offense.5

In short, if the state has a law requiring suspects to identify themselves when asked to do so during a valid stop or detention, the U.S. Constitution will not bar arrest and prosecution for failure to do so. It is not clear what officers may do if their jurisdiction does not have a law against failing to identify oneself.


Failure to Identify and Traffic Stops

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has held that, in the context of traffic stops based on reasonable suspicion alone, a “motorist may be detained for a short period while the officer runs a background check to see if there are any outstanding warrants or criminal history pertaining to the motorist even though the purpose of the stop had nothing to do with such prior criminal history.”6 Several other circuits have come to the same conclusion.7

The Tenth Circuit addressed the issue later in United States v. Villagrana-Flores: “We explained in Holt that ‘the justification for detaining a motorist to obtain a criminal history check is, in part, officer safety’ because ‘by determining whether a detained motorist has a criminal record or outstanding warrants, an officer will be better apprized of whether the detained motorist might engage in violent activity during the stop.’” As long as the detention is for a short period, “the government’s strong interest in officer safety outweighs the motorist’s interests.”8


Failure to Identify and Pedestrians

Officer safety is just as strongly implicated where the individual being detained for a short period of time is on foot rather than in an automobile. An officer detaining a pedestrian has an equally strong interest in knowing whether that individual has a violent past or is currently wanted on outstanding warrants. The citizen’s interest, on the other hand, is no more robust merely because a short detention occurs while traversing on foot.

Moreover, permitting a warrants check during a Terry stop on the street also “promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice.”9 Indeed, an identity’s utility in “inform[ing] an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder,”10 would be nonexistent without the ability to use the identity to run a criminal background check.


What Does It Mean to Criminalize the Conduct?

It is up to each state or municipality to criminalize a suspect’s failure to reveal his or her identity. Such laws may not make it a crime to fail to reveal one’s name during a consensual encounter; to avoid violating the Fourth Amendment there must, at a minimum, be reasonable suspicion of crime afoot by the subject.11

Further, the stop-and-identify law must not be “vague,” according to the Supreme Court. In Kolender it found a California statute unconstitutionally vague because it required the subject to produce “credible and reliable” identification that carried a “reasonable assurance” of reliability, and left it up to the officer to determine what “credible and reliable” and “reasonable assurance” are.12 Acceptable statutes simply require disclosure and leave it to the subject to decide how to comply.13

If the name given by the subject turns out to be false, the subject has likely violated another law, giving the officer probable cause to arrest. The Nevada statute in question in the Hiibel opinion treats failure to disclose as a form of obstructing the discharge of an officer’s official duties. It is quite likely that the charge of obstructing official duty would be untenable for failure to identify in a Terry stop without a law similar to Nevada’s requiring a subject to identify themselves. In Texas a person is not guilty of failure to identify unless the person is already under arrest and refuses to give his name and other information. Further, an act criminally interfering with public duties may not consist of speech only. 14


What If a State Does Not Criminalize Refusal to Identify?

An interesting question arises when state law does not make it a crime to refuse to identify oneself but does clearly allow the police to temporarily detain the suspect and determine his identity. The decision in Hiibel suggests that Terry allows officers to ask for identification as long as the request for identification is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the initial stop.15 Also, Terry may permit an officer to establish or negate a suspect’s connection to a crime by compelling the suspect to submit to fingerprinting.16

In Hayes the police were investigating a string of burglary-rapes and had recovered latent prints from one of the crime scenes and herringbone-patterned shoe prints.17 Hayes was one of 40 suspects interviewed and came to be a principal suspect. Hayes refused to accompany police officers to the station for fingerprinting until threatened with arrest for refusing to comply. The police also seized from Hayes’s house a pair of sneakers with a herringbone tread pattern. Hayes’s prints matched the latent prints found at the scene.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hayes’s fingerprints were illegally obtained and inadmissible. The Court endorsed the practice of fingerprinting a subject when there is reasonable suspicion that the prints will establish or negate the person’s involvement in the crime being investigated. Further, the Court made it very clear that, under certain circumstances, the judiciary may authorize the seizure of a person on less than probable cause, and removal to the police station, for the purpose of fingerprinting. This is not to suggest that drivers, passengers, or pedestrians who refuse to identify themselves can be taken to the station for fingerprinting in all cases, only that it is possible in some cases.


Police Not Penalized for Stop Made Longer by Uncooperative Suspect

If an investigative stop continues indefinitely, at some point it can no longer be justified as an investigative stop.18 But when the delay in ending a Terry stop is attributable to the evasive actions of a suspect, the police do not exceed the permissible duration of an investigatory stop.19

There is some support for detaining a suspect during a Terry stop to determine his identity and conduct a warrants check, for which the suspects’ identity is required.20 The officer may detain the driver as long as reasonably necessary to conduct these activities and to issue a warning or citation. 21


Court Allows Fingerprinting at Scene

The Supreme Court has specifically left open the option of detaining suspects, fingerprinting them at the scene, and attempting to identify them with their fingerprints or even getting a warrant on less than probable cause to take them to the police station and try to identify them.22 Clearly, this option is burdensome for officers and intrusive for suspects.

Nevertheless, it might be justified when identification of a suspect is reasonably related to the scope of the stop. For instance, if the suspect is stopped because he somewhat matches the description of a wanted person, but not to the extent that he can be arrested for the crime, and the police have fingerprints of the wanted person, it might be both worthwhile and permissible to either get a court order authorizing seizure on less than probable cause and take the suspect to the station and fingerprint him or keep him at the scene, fingerprint him, and compare the prints. Any delay in ending the Terry stop would be attributable to the suspect’s refusal to identify himself.

These options apply to a narrow set of facts, but there is support in the case law for dealing in this manner with suspects who refuse to identify themselves, who have not presented the officer with probable cause to arrest, and whose identity is reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the valid Terry stop.


Evidence Uncovered During a Stop

If during a Terry stop police discover that there exists a valid arrest warrant for the subject, the arrest would be unassailable. A person cannot claim that his person is the fruit of an illegal arrest and that he is therefore immune from prosecution.23

But evidence obtained during an illegal detention or frisk will be inadmissible.24 For instance, a Terry frisk is a search for contraband. If an officer goes into a suspect’s pocket and pulls out a wallet without probable cause to believe that there is contraband in the wallet or pocket, and contraband is found, the contraband is inadmissible.

If the officer uses the identification in the illegally obtained wallet to determine the subjects’ identity for purposes of a warrant check, and it is determined that there is a valid warrant, the arrest under warrant is good, but any evidence out of the wallet is inadmissible. The courts have not clarified the ramifications of an illegal search that results in the discovery of a warrant that leads to a valid arrest.


Verbal Identification or Requirement of Documentation?

In Hiibel the Court notes that the Nevada statute “apparently does not require him to produce a driver’s license or any other document.” In Kolender we learn that a law requiring “documentary identification” may be unconstitutionally vague. One imagines, though, that a statute that specifies what documents are satisfactory would survive a vagueness challenge.

Still, the Supreme Court has never dealt squarely with the constitutionality of a state statute that requires production of documentary identification in an investigative detention or the legality of an arrest of a pedestrian for refusal to produce documentary identification. Obviously, if someone is operating a motor vehicle in a public area they can be required to produce the associated privilege license, which of course has the effect of identifying that person.

But what of suspects who are stopped but are not operating vehicles? Current law generally does not require that ordinary pedestrians even carry documentary identification and it remains to be seen what courts will do with the issues surrounding a requirement of documentary identification. Naturally, if someone is arrested, any documentary identification on that person can be located in the search incident to arrest. ■




Top

1Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1968).
2United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229, 235 (1985).
3Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. of Nev., 542 U.S. 177, 186 (2004).
4Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
5Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 362 (1983).
6United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215, 1221 (10th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
7See United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 507-08, 507-08 n.5 (5th Cir. 2004).
8United States v. Villagrana-Flores, 467 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. November 7, 2006).
9See United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229, 105 S. Ct. 675, 83 L. Ed. 2d 604 (1985).
10Hiibel, 542 U.S. 186.
11Brown, 443 U.S. 52 (1979).
12Kolender, 461 U.S. 360.
13See Hiibel, 542 U.S. 187.
14Texas Penal Code 38.02 and 38.15 (West 2006).
15Citing Terry, 392 U.S. 16.
16Citing Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985).
17Hayes, 470 U.S. 812.
18United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685 (1985).
19United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 687-88.
20See United States v. Thompson, 282 F.3d 673, 678 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Beck, 140 F.3d 1129, 1134 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. White, 81 F.3d 775, 778 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1011 (1996).
21See United States v. Wood, 106 F.3d 942, 945 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v. Trimble, 986 F.2d 394, 397-98 (10th Cir. 1993) cert. denied, 508 U.S. 965 (1993).
22See, for instance, Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 630 n.2 (2003), and Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 817 (1985).
23New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 21; United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 474 (1980).
24See United States v. Hudson, 405 F3d 425, 439 (6th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 522 U.S. 973 (1997).




Top

 



 
 



From The Police Chief, vol. 74, no. 4, April 2007. Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 515 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 USA.

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: c - Shadow Dog on February 18, 2014, 06:55:44 PM
Papers Please
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQfdSBq7flw[/youtube]
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 18, 2014, 08:25:22 PM
Another impressive display by GM, (though some of the cases arguably can be distinguished on the facts)

The final post was quite on target, but still, the distinctions are so nuanced that I am left wondering exactly what the rules are that I can apply to my own behaviors.  I have a gut sense that the law PARTICULARLY IN THIS SORT OF THING should be knowable.  I have above average legal knowledge and even after reading GM's on point post, I still walk away with no clear idea as to the standard.

Like many Americans I have an instinctive aversion to having to produce papers; it reminds me too much of Terry's Casablanca clip wherein being subject to inspection by the police on their whim was exactly the sort of thing that meant they weren't "exceptional" like America-- so for all the logic of GM's posts, and it is considerable, on some gut level I continue to resist.

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on February 18, 2014, 09:08:11 PM
I'd think that you'd be a bit more sensitive to the trivialization of the horrors of the 3rd reich. Exactly what fate would one expect for someone who gave the slightest resistance or attitude to a nazi official? I'm pretty sure it would go far beyond a couple of citations.

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 18, 2014, 11:02:47 PM
Ummm , , , I think the point being made had to do with the starting point-- i.e. that a person was not free to come and go as he pleased without being inspected by authorities.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on February 19, 2014, 08:15:49 AM
What exactly would you have instead? There are true monsters lurking about that you don't want running free.

Just a reminder of what any traffic stop might be:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBPM709JJA0&safe=active[/youtube]
Title: In Praise of Routine Traffic Stops
Post by: G M on February 19, 2014, 09:35:48 AM

In Praise of Routine Traffic Stops

 by Daniel Pipes
May 4, 2005
 updated Apr 30, 2013










Today's news includes this item:
 •
Sami Ibrahim Isa Abdel Hadi, 39, was stopped for tailgating on Route 46 in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey. When a Bergen County police officer called in Abdel Hadi's North Carolina license plates, he learned that Abdel Hadi had been ordered deported to Brazil in December 2001 and is listed in the FBI's National Crime Information Center database. Even more interestingly, Abdel Hadi has a valid temporary I.D. from L & L Painting to paint the George Washington Bridge (a high-profile potential terrorist target).
 



 
 

Michael Wagner
 


 
 
 
 

Abdel Hadi is hardly the first actual or potential terrorist stopped due to a routine traffic infringement.
 •
In July 2004, Michael Wagner's not wearing a seat belt got him stopped in a SUV near Council Bluffs, Iowa, that had in it "flight training manuals and a simulator, documents in Arabic, bulletproof vests and night-vision goggles, a night-vision scope for a rifle, a telescope, a 9mm semiautomatic pistol and hundreds of rounds of ammunition."
 

Timothy McVeigh was stopped in April 1995 as he sped away from Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people and injured more than 500 because his car lacked a license plate.
 

A New Jersey state trooper noticed Yu Kikumura's odd behavior at a New Jersey Turnpike rest stop in April 1988 and thoroughly searched his vehicle, finding three powerful homemade bombs. Kikumura, a member of the Japanese Red Army, was sentenced to thirty years in jail followed by deportation to Japan.
 

Three members of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (Walid Nicolas Kabbani, Georges Fouad Nicolas Younan, and Walid Majib Mourad) were stopped by Richford, Vermont's only policeman in October 1987, because he was suspicious of their movements. Indeed, they were smuggling a bomb from Canada to the United States.
 

Comments: (1) It is remarkable how many criminals, terrorist and otherwise, make elementary traffic mistakes. (2) There is no substitute for law enforcement on the ground. (3) If good luck brings in so many terrorist-related individuals, one has to wonder how many of them don't tailgate and do wear seatbelts. (4) I shall record other examples here as I become aware of them. (May 4, 2005)
 •
Semi Osman was driving to Bly, Oregon, on Sep. 30, 1999, when the Oregon State Police stopped him because his car lights were not working, then cited him three more times for other infractions. One of these stops caught the attention of the FBI, which had lost track of Osman. He was subsequently arrested in 2002, accused of "material support for terrorists," plea-bargained, pleaded guilty to a weapons violation, and served his jail sentence. (October 4, 2005)
 

"On a damp, gray day in March 2004, the Dutch traffic police stopped a Belgian driver for a broken headlight and accidentally stumbled onto a major investigation of Islamic radicals," write Elaine Sciolino and Hélène Fouquet in the New York Times, telling the story of Khalid Bouloudo, whose name "turned up on an Interpol watchlist, for an international arrest warrant from Morocco charging him with links to a Moroccan-based terrorist organization and involvement in suicide bombings in Casablanca in 2003. The random arrest set into motion a cascade of events that underscores the extent of the radicalization of young Muslims throughout Europe - and a rapidly expanding and home-grown terrorist threat." (October 9, 2005)
 

Nov. 12, 2005 update: Apparently, not everyone shares my appreciation for the benefits of routine traffic stops. The Staten Island Advance reports on a meeting between the borough's Muslim community and its police commander, Albert Girimonte, in which the former complained that in four incidents during the past 11 months,
 

cops investigating minor auto accidents or traffic infractions allegedly asked mosque members inappropriate questions about their citizenship status. "The typical question has been: 'Where are you from, where were you born?' … Two questions that are totally irrelevant at an accident scene."
 
In one of the incidents near the Staten Island Mall at Christmastime last year, a female Pakistani wearing a Muslim shawl repeatedly was asked where she came from, he said. "This is an educated woman," [the Muslim leader] said. "When a policeman first asked her where she was from, she told him Staten Island. Then he asked her where she was born. She told him Pakistan." There were other incidents in the spring, he said, including the case of a girl caught crossing against a traffic light in New Springville being questioned.
 
For his part, Girimonte agreed that the interrogation was improper: "Asking a person at an accident scene where they're from is not necessary. Once your proper ID is confirmed, all you want to find out is what happened." He acknowledged being "surprised" by the incidents and promised that traffic stops would not lead to questions about citizenship status. "This is basically a training issue. And we'll address it. The police should not be concerned with the citizenship status of motorists. That's not our bailiwick."
 •
 



Naveed Haq under arrest.
 
Tragic proof that Albert Girimonte is wrong and I am right came yesterday, when Naveed Afzal Haq was driving to the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building, where he proceeded to murder one person and severely injure five others. According to Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, as paraphrased by the Associated Press, Haq had been "stopped shortly before the shootings in Seattle for a minor traffic infraction, and was cited and released. … Haq had a valid driver's license and his actions did not raise any suspicion." That traffic violation was driving down a buses-only lane. Comment: How many more murders will it take for the police to wake up to the danger of Sudden Jihad Syndrome? (July 30, 2006) Apr. 16, 2008 update: Police Officer Glen Cook gave testimony in Haq's trial, providing more details: Haq drove his white Mazda pickup north on Third Avenue at 3:37 p.m., a bus lane at that time of day, Cook pulled him over, took down Haq's license and proof of insurance, ticketed him, and let him go.
 

July 1, 2007 update: The July/August issue of the magazine Crime & Justice International features an article on pp. 4-12 by Dean C. Alexander and Terry Mors, "Best Practices in Identifying Terrorists During Traffic Stops and On Calls for Service." It discusses "how patrol officers can assist in identifying and capturing domestic and international terrorists while undertaking traditional duties, with particular emphasis on traffic stops and calls for service." The author's advice is summed up in a few words: "Police should go on the offensive and aggressively look for signs of terrorist activity or involvement."
 •
The newspaper account does not tell why New Castle County, Delaware, police Officer Thomas Bruhn stopped the car of Amir Al-Kaabah, 21, and a female passenger shortly before 3 p.m. on Court Street near Brandywine Avenue in Claymont, but he stumbled on a minor treasury of criminality: 10 grams of marijuana, a large buck knife, fictitious registration tags, no title to the car, and an identity theft ring. The last became clear when he found expensive jewelry, clothing and shoes, all in their original wrapping in the trunk, all purchased with credit cards belonging to recent customers at the Comfort Inn in Birmingham Township, where the female passenger happened to work. Further inquiry found that Al-Kaabah is a fugitive from Georgia for violating his probation for a conviction of armed robbery, kidnapping and weapons violations. Al-Kaabah was charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon, possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, possession of marijuana, and driving while suspended. The woman was turned over to Pennsylvania authorities to face criminal charges. (December 18, 2007)
 

Four men (Pratheepan Thambu, 22, Lojanand Srianandan, 27, both of Toronto, Sethukavalar Saravanabavan, 35, and Kirubakaran Selvanayagam Pillai, 38, both of London, U.K.) were riding in a rented van in Scarborough, Ont., on Jan. 28, when Constables Scott Aikman and Patrick Pelo watched them run a stop sign and pulled the van over. On looking inside, the officers noticed one of the four desperately hiding something. They also observed that the driver had been drinking, plus the presence of open liquor in the vehicle, giving them the right to search the vehicle, which they did. They found a number of plastic gift cards worth an estimated $250,000, with debit card information on the magnetic strip which police believe was stolen from UK bank customers.
 

Police later searched a hotel and a home and found another 88 cards, all with debit card data from British banks on their magnetic strips, as well as $25,000 in Canadian $20 bills, laptop computers and memory sticks, receipts for money transfers to the U.K., travel documents and passports and what detectives described as "Tamil Tiger paraphernalia."
 
The routine traffic stop quickly exposed an international debit card fraud ring, led to 373 criminal charges, and possibly broke up a Tamil Tiger terrorist fundraising and money laundering operation. Running a light is "not too smart a thing to do when you're driving a van full of stolen bank cards," Detective. Peter Trimble sagely observed. "And they had been drinking and had open liquor in the car, which also isn't very smart." (January 31, 2008)
 •
Police in Matthews, N.C. stopped Sasan Ghazal, 21, of Bristol Ford Place in Charlotte, on suspicion of drunken driving on Feb. 9, and found an explosive device his vehicle. Under state law, Ghazal was charged with possession of a weapon of mass destruction, as well as possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. A U.S. Attorney will decide if federal charges are warranted. Ghazal is now in the Mecklenburg County Jail on a $101,500 bond. In 2006, he pleaded guilty of carrying a concealed gun and felony possession of drugs. (February 14, 2008)
 

 



Najibullah Zazi.
 
According to CBS News, the sequence of events that ended in the arrest of Najibullah Zazi on terrorism charges began with his being stopped for an unspecified "routine traffic violation" on his way into New York: "While entering the city, he was stopped by police for a routine traffic violation on the George Washington Bridge, which connects New Jersey and New York. Suspicious police allowed him to go free but kept a close watch on his movements." The same account, however, goes on to state that "Zazi told authorities he disposed of the explosives once arriving in New York," raising the possibility that the traffic stop may have backfired by alerting Zazi to the fact that he was already being watched by the FBI before this trip to New York. The full story is not clear here. (February 22, 2010)
 

Swiss police report that a routine traffic-stop (for unspecified reasons) on April 15 at Langnau thwarted three eco-terrorists of Il Silvestre from blowing up the site of the £55 million nano-technology headquarters of IBM in Europe at Rueschlikon, near Zurich. The police stopped the two men and a woman a few miles from the target with an explosive device primed and ready to go off. (April 26, 2010)
 

Pre-Olympic U.K. terror arrests: Police stopped a car on June 30 on a highway in Yorkshire, impounded it, suspecting it was uninsured. They discovered two firearms, ammunition, and other materiel, leading to the arrest of the driver, the passenger and five other male suspects between 22 and 43. (July 6, 2012)
 

Jared Loughner killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in Tucson, Arizona, on Jan. 8, 2011; it turns out, according to information buried in thousands of pages of just-released documents, that hours before his shooting rampage, he was stopped on a routine traffic matter. Arizona Game and Fish Officer Alen Forney saw Loughner driving in northern Tucson about 7:30 a.m. that day and stopped him for driving erratically and running a red light. Michael Mello recounts what happened for the Los Angeles Times:
 

When the officer approached the car, Loughner's hand was already thrust through the window, holding his license and registration. Forney said Loughner took off the black bandanna he was wearing. The officer saw that Loughner had a shaved head, something he thought was peculiar. He asked Loughner whether he knew why he had been stopped. He replied, yes, he did.
 
During the traffic stop, another Game and Fish officer drove by, asking whether Forney needed any help. "I gave her the thumbs up at that point," Forney told investigators. "I had no reason to believe anything suspicious was going on."
 
Forney said he didn't notice anything unusual inside the car, but had checked to make sure "the trunk was secure" on Loughner's '69 Chevrolet Nova. "I made the decision not to write a citation. Game and Fish doesn't write a lot of traffic citations … I was also in kind of a hurry" to join [a meeting with] other officers for their patrol at Florence Junction, east of the Phoenix metro area.
 
"I told him, 'I'm not going to write you a citation for this.' When I said that to him, his face got kind of screwed up and he started to cry.… That struck me as a little odd," Forney told investigators. "I asked him if he was OK. He said, 'Yeah, I'm OK. I've had a rough time and I really thought I was going to get a ticket and I'm really glad that you're not … going to give me a ticket."
 
Forney again asked Loughner whether he was OK, worried he would be driving with his emotions out of control, possibly leading to an accident. Loughner then immediately composed himself, he said. "He actually looked up at me and said, 'Can I thank you?' I said, 'Yeah, you can thank me.' He asked what my name was, and he stuck out his right hand."
 
(March 28, 2013)
 
• A routine traffic stop uncovered insurance problems which led to an arsenal of sawn-off shotguns, machetes, knives, samurai swords, elements for pipe bombs, and a nail bomb being found in a car. For details, click here. (April 30, 2013)
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 20, 2014, 11:36:17 AM
As usual, you bring good intel to the conversation.

As I go out into a busy day, let me ask you a two part question:

Must anyone present ID to an officer at any time? 

Why?

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on February 20, 2014, 04:13:28 PM

As usual, you bring good intel to the conversation.

As I go out into a busy day, let me ask you a two part question:

Must anyone present ID to an officer at any time? 

It depends. What does the state law require? Some states require you ID yourself, some don't. Is it a "Terry stop" or a consentual contact? Are you being cited for a violation?

Why?

Because ID'ing people who may be involved in criminal activity or have outstanding warrants in an effective tool for keeping the public safe.

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 20, 2014, 09:04:30 PM
Allow me to clarify-- I am not asking legal question, I am asking your opinion as to what the law should be.  It is a values question.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on February 21, 2014, 02:41:18 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable for there to be a law requiring a person to ID themselves in an investigative stop.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 21, 2014, 06:48:52 AM
OK.  Not arguing in what follows, just looking to explore where this leads.

Is it fair to say that we both know that as a practical matter an officer can make up a reason, before or after, for the stop?  Thus as a practical matter does the standard become the police can demand ID of anyone at any time.

What if a person does not have ID with him?  May he be searched for ID?  Fingerprinted?  Arrested?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: DougMacG on February 21, 2014, 08:56:40 AM
OK.  Not arguing in what follows, just looking to explore where this leads.

Is it fair to say that we both know that as a practical matter an officer can make up a reason, before or after, for the stop?  Thus as a practical matter does the standard become the police can demand ID of anyone at any time.

What if a person does not have ID with him?  May he be searched for ID?  Fingerprinted?  Arrested?

When police 'make up a reason', I think we all can agree justice is undermined. 

Laws are different for operating a motor vehicle on a public street than for just existing, or being somewhere.  I sometimes don't have ID when driving, even though it is required.  When pulled over, they already know I match the photo and description of the person who owns the car, and they know my record, warrants, etc.  Police are also doing more and more with 'shooting' license plates without a driving infraction to look for legal or criminal issues with the vehicle, owner or driver.

I would not carry a wallet for just walking and maybe just a credit card or a bill if I was planning to buy something on the walk.  I wonder if facial recognition software will change the ID and fingerprint question of the innocent person looking suspicious to law enforcement.  I assume that if you are out in public they believe they have the right to shoot security footage.  Can't they run checks that way - soon if not now?  Less intrusive in one way, but far worse perhaps in the potential for abuse.

There will always be a contention between the right to be left alone and a need for law enforcement to try to prevent things like a terror attacks before they occur.  Crafty, how would you like to see that balance struck?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 21, 2014, 06:00:12 PM
I'd like to get GM to flesh out his thoughts on this first.  He is unusually well-informed, sometimes infuriatingly so, and has put thought into these issues.  So, rather than be the fly whose wings he gleefully sears off with a magnifying glass like a sadistic little boy I'd rather get him define what he sees as the limits on police power in the context of American freedom.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on February 22, 2014, 05:49:21 AM
A free society is difficult to police, and given the alternatives, that's the way I'd prefer it to be.

In the system envisioned by our founders, there should be a constant tension between public safety and personal freedom, with neither being absolute. No rational person wants to live in a police state. Nor should you want to live in a place without the rule of law. Laws are meaningless unless there is a tangible enforcement of them and real incentives and disincentives associated with individual conduct.

Would anyone look at the failed states on the planet as opportune places to live? Why do I not see big L Libertarians moving to Somalia to avoid America's so called  "militarized police"? 

If one were to examine the limitations on police power in western/english speaking nations, you'd find that American law enforcement has less authority and operates under greater scrutiny than any other nation. We have the only elected law enforcement executives in any country I'm aware of and the vast majority of law enforcement agencies in this country are under local control. Good or bad, the local agencies reflect their communities giving proof to Thomas Jefferson's line that the people get the government they deserve.

I'm pretty certain that only the US has legal firms specializing in litigating against law enforcement agencies or has a large insurance industry focused on insuring individual law enforcement officers against the full spectrum of potential legal jeopardy faced by officers in the US. Due to the massive liabilities associated with law enforcement in this country, the biggest obstacle for police supervisors and administrators is to motivate officers to navigate the real dangers of the job and the legal minefields while cultivating a positive relationship with the public they serve.

It's not easy, as I said before, nor should it be, but I see a deep vein of irrationality in the discussion of American policing today that in no way reflects the reality I know.

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 24, 2014, 03:08:35 AM
Well expressed.  My apologies for taking some time in getting back to this.
Title: Public Safety and Democracy
Post by: G M on February 24, 2014, 04:11:03 PM
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_1_policing.html

William J. Bratton and Paul Romer

Public Safety and Democracy

A dialogue on the evolution and future of policing

Winter 2014

 

DAMIAN DOVARGANES/AP PHOTO
 
Sophisticated crime mapping allows police to direct resources to where the bad guys are.
 
PAUL ROMER: Across the world, public safety is the most important task facing city governments. In many poor countries, crime holds back the kind of urbanization essential for economic development. Closer to home, Detroit shows us that if they can, people will flee a city that fails to provide basic public safety.

Cities with crime problems should be able to take advantage of what we have learned about the policing strategies that reduce crime. Unfortunately, they hear too often from academics and other opinion shapers who still seem to think that policing strategies can have no effect on crime rates. This perception is totally at odds with the new understanding that has emerged among people like you, who have been in the trenches, experimenting with new approaches, and bringing down crime.

WILLIAM BRATTON: Yes. In a democratic society, the Number One obligation of the government is public safety. And the criminal-justice system is the entity charged with that responsibility. The police, through their behavior, are entrusted to enforce the law. A key challenge is to do it constitutionally. You can’t break the law while enforcing it. And in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, police were breaking the law quite a lot. So that’s why we ended up with a lot of constitutional guidelines for police activity.

ROMER: What was your experience with the changes that came after the 1960s, when we tried to bring policing in line with the protections of the Constitution? One of the reasons that so many people today seem not to understand the connection between policing and crime is that they do not remember, or perhaps never knew, how crime increased in the United States starting in the 1960s and then came back down in the 1990s.

BRATTON: I joined the Boston Police Department in 1970 and came to New York to take over the Transit Police in 1990. Those 20 years were a time of phenomenal change. We were in the midst of an extraordinarily unpopular war in Vietnam. We were in the midst of the civil rights movement. There was great social turbulence—the Democratic National Convention riots, the Kent State shootings. It was an incredible time in American history. That’s the world I came into, all 155 pounds of me. I had my six-shot revolver, my six spare rounds, a set of handcuffs, a pen, and a parking-ticket book. They didn’t even give me a radio. Just six weeks of training, and I was on the streets of Boston.

ROMER: Looking back, it is hard to believe that you received so little training. These days, we understand that policing is an extremely difficult, high-skill job. Now we expect that police will be well educated and well trained.

BRATTON: I was very fortunate because as part of a push toward professionalization, the federal government for the first time was paying for police officers to go to college. It was the best thing that ever happened to me because I didn’t get wrapped in the “blue cocoon” as I was beginning my career. The kids I ate with at the college cafeteria in the morning would be demonstrating against the war in front of the federal building in the afternoon. And I’d be there, too, on the other side of the lines in my blue suit.

ROMER: It seems to me that prior to the 1960s, police were powerful but were largely unaccountable to the public. They did keep crime in check but sometimes did so in ways that the public increasingly found unacceptable. One impetus for this change came from the civil rights movement, which highlighted the many ways in which local governments and local police mistreated people of color. In response, we brought in controls to limit the abuse of police powers and pushed for better training for members of any police force.

BRATTON: I’ve spent my life in the police profession, and I’m proud of that. But I am also very cognizant of the profession’s limitations, its potential for abuse, and its potential negative impact. Policing has to be done compassionately and consistently. You cannot police differently in Harlem from the way you’re policing downtown. The same laws must apply. The same procedures must be employed. Certain areas at certain times may have more significant crime and require more police presence, or more assertiveness, but it has to be balanced. If an African-American or a recent immigrant—or anyone else, for that matter—can’t feel secure walking into a police station or up to a police officer to report a crime because of a fear that they’re not going to be treated well, then everything else that we promise is on a shaky foundation.

ROMER: When we first tried to limit the potential for abuse and professionalize policing, which were clearly important things for us to do, we may have gone too far and made it impossible for police to do what had historically been their primary job: preventing crime. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we sent the message that police could get into trouble if they tried to anticipate and prevent crime, and we gave them a justification for simply waiting for crime to happen and then reacting to it. We developed a new theory about what caused crime—the so-called root causes—and a new view about what the job was for police. Because they could not change the social and economic factors that were thought to be the root causes of crime, the police could not be expected to prevent crime. All they could do, and all we expected them to do, was to clean up after it took place.

BRATTON: After the 1960s, as social movements evolved and America was changing, society felt that the role of the police also needed to change, to become more professional and better educated, in terms of forensics and training.

What changed in the 1990s—and I’m one of the principal advocates of it—was that the role of police became first and foremost about preventing crime. I’ve always embraced decentralization, empowering a local precinct commander to work with his or her community. In a city the size of New York, you can’t expect the police commissioner to be aware of what’s going on down, say, on West 3rd Street all the time. But the precinct commander there, through involvement with the community, should be aware of deteriorating conditions in the area and be able to address them. This approach allowed us to identify the problems that were creating fear, disorder, and, ultimately, crime. Given that the police have limited resources, the question then becomes: What do we prioritize? What do we focus our time on?

That was the purpose of the Compstat process that we developed in 1994 to track crime. We needed active intelligence so that we could rapidly respond to what it was telling us. But we also needed an environment where all the police commanders came together to talk about what was working and what wasn’t. And in that process, part of the effort was to reduce falsification. Because if you’re in there with all your peers, they’re going to detect very quickly when something’s wrong or doesn’t add up. We would do auditing, so if any precinct reported a percentage change in crime that was outside the standard variation for the rest of the department, it would be audited to find out what was really going on.

ROMER: Describe the changes that followed from this return in New York to the traditional view that the job of the police is to protect public safety by preventing crime.

BRATTON: Many New Yorkers are too young to understand what the city looked like when I got here in 1990—the graffiti, the decay, the crime, the social disorder. The police were not expected to do anything about these quality-of-life issues—aggressive begging, encampments in every park. When I came in as police commissioner, almost 300 people were living in the park across the street from the UN. At the time, we didn’t focus on that, though. There was a perception that the police really couldn’t do anything about that kind of disorder. We thought that we were focused on serious crime. What we really didn’t understand until the late 1980s and early 1990s was that the victim of all the abhorrent behavior on the streets was the city itself.

To give you an idea of how things have changed: in 1990, I didn’t go anywhere without a gun because, as chief of the transit police, I did not feel secure anywhere, including in the subways. In Los Angeles, when I was chief of police there, I also had to carry a gun everywhere, because of the gang violence. I don’t carry a gun now. I haven’t for a while. It’s locked away. I just don’t feel the need for it. And I like it that I can do that.

ROMER: One of the misleading conclusions that outsiders seem to have reached is that police cannot deter a person from committing a crime, so the only thing they can do is find people more likely to commit crimes and incapacitate them, lock them up, and throw away the key. I know that you reject this kind of naive, “get tough” approach to crime. One of the dramatic but rarely noticed successes of the turnaround in policing that you started in New York is that the incarceration rate has fallen. A smaller fraction of the population is locked away, yet far fewer crimes are being committed. This points clearly to the possibility, even the likelihood, that with the right policies, we can prevent crime. We can deter people from committing crimes.

Those same people who look at policing from the outside sometimes describe community policing as the misguided alternative to the “get tough” policies that they support. You have always believed that to prevent or deter crime, police must have a good working relationship with the community—that this is as important in preventing acts of terrorism as it is in preventing street crime.

BRATTON: Seventy-five percent of the terrorist plots that have been disrupted since 9/11 were detected when a community member informed a police officer or when a police officer who had a relationship with the community was able to put the clues together to predict that something was going to happen and take steps to prevent it. So the collaboration that is so essential to successful policing really requires the community to be able to trust that what the police are doing is, in fact, not illegal and not based on racial profiling or targeting the Muslim community. Proactive, assertive policing is effective, but if you don’t have the legitimacy and the trust of the community, you’re not going to get the information that you need to predict and prevent crimes.

ROMER: This same strategy is as important in the fight against gang crime as it is in the fight against terrorism. When you took over as chief of police in Los Angeles, it was clear to everyone that the police did not have a good working relationship with the community, especially with the minority community. Developing a better working relationship with the community was crucial to the turnaround that you implemented there, one that may have been even more difficult than the turnaround in New York (see “The LAPD Remade,” Winter 2013).

One hallmark of New York’s turnaround was a greater reliance on data. In Los Angeles, did you have a way to get frequent updates on how public attitudes toward the police were changing, something that you could use as you used Compstat in New York—as a management tool to see if the officers out on patrol were bringing about the needed changes?

BRATTON: Well, we really had to rely on polling done by entities such as the Los Angeles Times and other institutions.

ROMER: This seems to be an area in which technology should be able to help. Ideally, a police chief should have as much detailed geographical data about the relationship between the police and the community as he has about crimes committed. Do you see other ways that technology and new data sources could change policing?

BRATTON: Through the algorithms being developed by a number of universities, we now have an increasing ability to predict where a crime will occur. It doesn’t mean that we can know exactly when it will happen and exactly what it will be, but we can say that, within a certain time frame, within a certain geographic area, if we don’t put resources in there—meaning, a police officer—there’s going to be a crime committed. So you’ll hear this term “predictive policing” a lot more often, going forward. It will require computing power and intelligence-analysis capabilities. This means real-time crime centers outfitted with the latest technology. That costs money, and, as you well know, money is tight these days.

ROMER: What about new ways for police and the community to communicate? How can you let members of the community know what the police are doing and why they are doing it?

BRATTON: The police have historically had to rely on the media. Sometimes you had to go through them to get to the public—and, not only to get to the public, but to get to the cops as well, because cops read papers. They watch television. Their families watch television. So you needed to use the media. The media hated it when we said that we “used” them, but you had to make yourself available to them. Sometimes it was painful to make yourself available, but you had to do it to get certain messages through.

But now we have Twitter. Now we have all these social media sites. Think about what happened with the Boston Marathon bombing. The news media are erroneously reporting information. Someone puts up pictures of people who weren’t involved and says, “Here are the bombers.” Someone else reports that the bombers have been arrested. It’s all wrong. So what do you do? Well, now the Boston P.D. can instantly put out a Tweet saying, “No arrest has been made. The two individuals identified in the newspaper story are not who we’re looking for.” And that’s that. It’s irrefutable and reaches thousands or tens of thousands of people and then gets amplified through the traditional media.

ROMER: Let me ask you one last question, which is, in a sense, a management question. How can you effectively manage an organization in which a very few bad apples can make headlines for abusing their power and do enormous harm to the legitimacy of the entire force?

BRATTON: A police official once said to me that the NYPD employs more than 38,000 “career assassins”—the idea being that any one of the police officers in New York can, at any time, through inappropriate or criminal behavior, effectively bring about a catastrophe for the whole department. All you have to do is think of the actions of Justin Volpe—the officer who brutalized Abner Louima—to appreciate how fragile public confidence in the police can be. This is particularly true in minority communities. The way you deal with that problem is to make it clearly known that the department does the best it can to recruit, train, and supervise its officers. You have to send a message that those officers who go astray will be disciplined. You have to be honest and transparent at all times.

William J. Bratton is once again New York City Police Commissioner. He has formerly served as Boston police commissioner and chief of police in Los Angeles. His conversation with Paul Romer was hosted by the NYU Stern Urbanization Project and NYU’s Marron Institute.

Paul Romer is a University Professor at New York University and founding director of the Urbanization Project at the Stern School of Business.
Title: Supreme Court rules in favor of police in home searches without objector presen
Post by: bigdog on February 26, 2014, 06:35:58 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-police-in-home-searches-without-objector-present/2014/02/25/7bc1bb6a-9e5a-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html

From the article:

“An occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority.
Title: Know your rights when the police stop you
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 04, 2014, 01:34:42 PM
This seems to me like something that should be broadly disseminated for the good of all, LEO and citizen alike.

GM, does this pass muster for you?

http://www.online-paralegal-programs.com/legal-rights/
Title: Re: Know your rights when the police stop you
Post by: G M on March 05, 2014, 03:49:51 PM
This seems to me like something that should be broadly disseminated for the good of all, LEO and citizen alike.

GM, does this pass muster for you?

http://www.online-paralegal-programs.com/legal-rights/

I didn't see any glaring errors. I'll look it over in more detail and report back.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2014, 04:13:35 PM
Much appreciated.  This area is a real forte' for you.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on March 05, 2014, 04:26:40 PM
A PBT (Preliminary Breath Tester) isn't the same as a Brethalyzer used for a forensically admisssable analysis. The PBT can be used for part of roadsides but it's reading alone isn't admissable as they are more prone to error where as the one you'd find at the local PD/SO is calibrated and is admissable in court.

There are other smaller details that are debatable. The biggest thing is don't be stupid or confrontational. Follow the orders given. If you politely clarify things, like "Am I free to leave?" to establish your status, that's fine.
Title: Re: Know your rights when the police stop you
Post by: DougMacG on March 06, 2014, 07:58:41 AM
This seems to me like something that should be broadly disseminated for the good of all, LEO and citizen alike.
GM, does this pass muster for you?
http://www.online-paralegal-programs.com/legal-rights/
I didn't see any glaring errors. I'll look it over in more detail and report back.

Under "Never" it says "Never Answer Questions"

This is written from a defense attorney's point of view to a future client.  Whatever the accused said is on the record and won't go away.  I would just add, on the other hand, there are times with law enforcement where you might want to be helpful. 

Late night police stops around here for minor infractions, tail light, rolling stops, etc. are aimed at finding something else, drunk drivers in particular.  IF you have had nothing to drink and have nothing else to hide, being cooperative seems like a better strategy than saying I don't have t answer that.  Not consent to a search, but to answer their questions hopefully shows your sobriety quickly so they can get on with their next stop.

I had one encounter with law enforcement that comes to mind; it was not a police stop but a criminal investigation of sorts.  I was leaving my office to meet with the Mpls Fire Chief about an apartment building fire when my insurance adjuster warned me on the phone that as owner of the building with an insurance policy in force, I was their first suspect.  I was shocked; that is ridiculous!  I was a thousand miles away when it happened and I can prove it.  Then I thought through that excuse and realized that sounded exactly the same as the alibi they would hear if I had arranged the fire.  So I got focused on being extremely helpful and forthcoming in helping them solve the crime.  With my keys I got them into units where the tenants would not let him in.  Answering everything and then some sure seemed like a better strategy than acting guilty, but only I knew I was innocent and that no evidence could be discovered that would point to me.  (Now I self-insure.)

Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 07, 2014, 03:15:29 AM
One of the times I was stopped for speeding the officer asked where I was co,ing from. 

A party.

You been drinking?

No.

Really?

I exhaled vigorously in his face in a humorous not disrespectful way to prove my point: 

He let me go.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on March 07, 2014, 06:44:09 AM
Law enforcement isn't out looking for innocent people to jam up. Those who actually do the majority of police work are a small number of the officers being paid to work, depending on the agency.

If you are actually trying to catch real bad guys, it's like sales. It's about numbers. If you stop John or Jane Q. Citizen, you can quickly find they are not a problem and cut them loose.

You are looking for the guy who starts out explaining why he doesn't have ID and he borrowed the car from a friend who doesn't have a last name and an unknown address. Or the driver who slurs their words and has a strong odor of an unknown alcoholic beverage on their breath and person.


If you look at statistics, the biggest thing you can do to save lives as a patrol officer is take drunk drivers off the road.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 19, 2014, 11:00:26 PM
Hard to picture a set of facts justifying this , , ,

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ww2-hero-refuses-medical-care-so-cops-kill-him-in-his-nursing-home/#axzz2wTT5597u
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on March 20, 2014, 06:10:09 AM
Hard to picture a set of facts justifying this , , ,

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ww2-hero-refuses-medical-care-so-cops-kill-him-in-his-nursing-home/#axzz2wTT5597u

It seems they have at least one police report, so why not post the entire thing rather than snippets along with the editorializing?
Title: IL: Sup. Ct overturns public recording ban
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 24, 2014, 04:03:38 PM
http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/20/illinois-supreme-court-unanimously-overt
Title: Re: IL: Sup. Ct overturns public recording ban
Post by: G M on March 24, 2014, 06:18:50 PM
http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/20/illinois-supreme-court-unanimously-overt

Good.
Title: Brutality complaints drop dramatically
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 03, 2014, 03:42:36 PM


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=728872463822149&set=a.256913927684674.62537.254620607914006&type=1&theater
Title: Re: Brutality complaints drop dramatically
Post by: G M on April 04, 2014, 06:05:24 AM


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=728872463822149&set=a.256913927684674.62537.254620607914006&type=1&theater

I think the cameras are a great idea.
Title: The Trucker and the Trooper
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 30, 2014, 11:33:13 AM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/30/so-youre-above-the-law-video-captures-trucker-confronting-state-trooper-about-his-driving-and-what-the-trooper-decided-not-to-do-about-it/
Title: MRAPs aren't tanks
Post by: G M on July 06, 2014, 07:43:14 AM
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/daniel-zimmerman/cops-mraps-and-the-heartbreak-of-police-operator-syndrome/
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 06, 2014, 09:41:48 PM
A very sensible, emotionally healthy piece of writing.
Title: Pro-boner attorney defends against the penile system
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 10, 2014, 06:09:43 AM
Not quite sure where to post this one:

http://www.newser.com/story/190709/for-sexting-case-cops-to-take-photos-of-aroused-teen.html
Title: Man acquitted of shooting at raiding police
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 10, 2014, 11:39:08 AM
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Man-who-shot-at-cops-acquitted-5608077.php#photo-6571699
Title: BP points gun at Boy Scout
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 22, 2014, 06:45:36 PM
http://www.kcci.com/news/officer-points-gun-at-boy-scout-at-canadian-border/27078396#!bj84sS
Title: Police Chief points gun at city council member
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 08, 2014, 01:22:32 PM
http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/city-decide-fate-police-chief-pointed-gun-council-member/
Title: Re: Police Chief points gun at city council member
Post by: G M on August 09, 2014, 06:29:11 AM
http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/city-decide-fate-police-chief-pointed-gun-council-member/

Not much of an article.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 09, 2014, 08:57:04 AM
Not much of a police chief either it would appear , , ,
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on August 10, 2014, 05:48:51 AM
Not much of a police chief either it would appear , , ,

Hard to say, given the utter lack of any sort of detail.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2014, 12:23:51 PM
As a general rule pointing guns at people, especially police chiefs at their employers, tends to be a bad idea.  Yes?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on August 10, 2014, 01:19:12 PM
As a general rule pointing guns at people, especially police chiefs at their employers, tends to be a bad idea.  Yes?


There are training classes where you'd perform drills with a weapon that has been confirmed to be unloaded by multiple parties.

What the scenario was is impossible to determine from the article.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2014, 02:52:39 PM
The quick little clip I saw sure did not appear to be that.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on August 10, 2014, 08:03:36 PM
What details did the video add? I couldn't view it.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2014, 10:31:02 PM
Looked like they were standing in an office and for no reason I could visually discern he drew his gun and momentarily pointed at one of the civilians.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on August 11, 2014, 01:06:35 AM
Looked like they were standing in an office and for no reason I could visually discern he drew his gun and momentarily pointed at one of the civilians.


Strange. Well, that is a relevant detail not in the article.
Title: Michael Brown a blood?
Post by: G M on August 14, 2014, 05:49:14 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-michael-brown-was-a-local-gangster-seen-flashing-gang-signs/
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 16, 2014, 05:16:24 AM
Please also post that on the R汗thレアdオンSCH
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on August 16, 2014, 06:43:56 AM
Please also post that on the R汗thレアdオンSCH

Sorry,my Japanese is a bit rusty...
Title: what happens when there are no "militarized police" around...
Post by: G M on August 16, 2014, 07:15:54 AM
http://twitchy.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-police-stand-down-looters-run-wild-again-local-store-owners-plead-for-help-where-the-cops-at/
Title: A bit of history
Post by: G M on August 20, 2014, 05:13:24 AM
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-good-ol-days.html
Title: Re: what happens when there are no "militarized police" around...
Post by: bigdog on August 20, 2014, 07:12:22 PM
http://twitchy.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-police-stand-down-looters-run-wild-again-local-store-owners-plead-for-help-where-the-cops-at/

What happens when there ARE "militarized" police around (hint: it still involves widespread looting):

http://toprightnews.com/?p=5136
Title: Re: what happens when there are no "militarized police" around...
Post by: G M on August 20, 2014, 10:06:08 PM
http://twitchy.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-police-stand-down-looters-run-wild-again-local-store-owners-plead-for-help-where-the-cops-at/

What happens when there ARE "militarized" police around (hint: it still involves widespread looting):

http://toprightnews.com/?p=5136

Sure, under orders from their chain of command, and a desire to avoid being the next target of the department of injustice and Gov. Nixon.
Title: Re: what happens when there are no "militarized police" around...
Post by: bigdog on August 21, 2014, 04:10:49 AM
http://twitchy.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-police-stand-down-looters-run-wild-again-local-store-owners-plead-for-help-where-the-cops-at/

What happens when there ARE "militarized" police around (hint: it still involves widespread looting):

http://toprightnews.com/?p=5136

Sure, under orders from their chain of command, and a desire to avoid being the next target of the department of injustice and Gov. Nixon.

Cute, pithy response, as usual. But you didn't look at the date. This was, if I recall correctly, the third or fourth night of protest, before the Missouri Highway Patrol was brought in. This was the "good old days" when it just the Ferguson and surrounding area agencies responding.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on August 21, 2014, 01:56:38 PM
You think that cops aren't aware of the political climate?
Title: Radical DOJ unit sent to Ferguson
Post by: G M on August 21, 2014, 02:49:14 PM
http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2014/08/20/radical-doj-unit-ferguson/

Don't think this can't happen to you, BD. If you were to defend yourself and/or your family on a trip to one of Your states urban areas. You'd get the full Zimmerman treatment.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 21, 2014, 04:25:25 PM
Please post in Rule of Law as well.
Title: Fatal shooting by St. Louis officers
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 21, 2014, 07:02:12 PM


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/08/19/3473247/police-officers-involved-in-fatal-st-louis-shooting/ 
Title: 4 miles from Ferguson, another killing
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 23, 2014, 07:03:10 AM


http://live.wsj.com/video/video-shows-police-kill-kajieme-powell-in-st-louis/1700030D-18B3-4476-A476-D64E250A75FE.html?mod=trending_now_video_4#!1700030D-18B3-4476-A476-D64E250A75FE
Title: Re: 4 miles from Ferguson, another killing
Post by: G M on August 23, 2014, 07:09:16 AM


http://live.wsj.com/video/video-shows-police-kill-kajieme-powell-in-st-louis/1700030D-18B3-4476-A476-D64E250A75FE.html?mod=trending_now_video_4#!1700030D-18B3-4476-A476-D64E250A75FE

Looks like a clean shoot to me.
Title: Tueller drill
Post by: G M on August 23, 2014, 07:19:50 AM
http://bearingarms.com/tueller-drill-moving-target/
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: DDF on August 26, 2014, 01:49:08 PM
"Some people just want to watch the world burn." Nothing is fairer than chaos and nature. I believe in being fair. It's the just thing to do.
Title: Not exactly surprised; accusation disproved by video
Post by: G M on August 26, 2014, 05:34:44 PM
http://m.wistv.com/wistv/pm_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=od:QCIeDedt
Title: Secret good samaritans
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 31, 2014, 05:50:51 PM
http://www.local12.com/news/features/around-the-web/stories/texas-officers-buy-groceries-for-needy-family-wkrc.shtml#.VAPCiIUZ_P8
Title: Citizen-Police interaction at his front door
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 05, 2014, 07:18:58 AM


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/04/cops-knock-on-mans-door-ask-to-see-id-and-to-check-his-house-the-way-he-handles-it-has-some-cheering-others-calling-him-out/
Title: MRAP and SWAT protect children
Post by: G M on September 07, 2014, 01:32:09 PM
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/SWAT-Rescues-Kids-During-Manhunt-273868641.html?device=tablet

Radley Balko unavaiable for comment.
Title: Why cameras on officers is a good idea
Post by: G M on September 14, 2014, 06:55:02 AM
http://pjmedia.com/blog/oakland-firefighter-plays-victim-card-until-police-release-video/?singlepage=true

Truth.
Title: Once again, the victim narrative destroyed by actual recording
Post by: G M on September 17, 2014, 06:20:17 AM
http://patterico.com/2014/09/16/cop-to-daniele-watts-im-mildly-interested-that-you-have-a-publicist-but-im-going-to-get-your-id/
Title: The allure of racial victimhood
Post by: G M on September 23, 2014, 03:40:02 AM
http://pjmedia.com/blog/daniele-watts-and-the-allure-of-racial-victimhood/?singlepage=true
Title: Michael Brown autopsy results are in
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2014, 05:25:29 PM
Not necessarily a reliable site, but they seem to have it right:

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/10/22/breaking-michael-brown-official-autopsy-results-are-in-will-this-finally-stop-the-protests/ 
Title: Heh!
Post by: G M on November 18, 2014, 12:07:44 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/ferguson-protest-leader-has-car-stolen-during-the-fck-the-police-rally/
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 19, 2014, 10:34:18 AM
God retains his sense of humor it would seem  :lol: :lol:
Title: Citizen demands ID of cop, threatens to issue citation
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 09, 2014, 05:02:43 PM


https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152332335836104&set=vb.207242941103&type=2&theater
Title: Graham vs. Connor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 13, 2014, 10:25:22 AM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor
Title: The Cop Mind is formed by unique circumstances
Post by: Russ on December 13, 2014, 05:46:29 PM
It is not the role of the public or the press to determine whether an officer involved shooting was justified. That investigation is done by the State's/ District Attorney/ or Grand Jury in some states.. Also, "an officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional." (Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396, 397 (1989)). That means that the purpose of the original stop, the circumstances of the encounter, and the intentions of the officer are irrelevant as to whether a shooting is justified or not. The only relevant factors are related to whether the officer on the scene believed that his life, or the life of another was in danger. For example, did the suspect attempt to grab the officers gun, or did he attack the officer? You are considered armed if you are attempting to grab an officer's gun. Once these factors are examined through a proper investigation, then the public and the press will know that information. Also, if it is determined that a shooting is justified, that does not prohibit legal action for claims of civil rights violations, or other civil legal action against the officer.

Here is the Constitutional standard for use of deadly force by the police:

“[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….”

Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

The question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them “(Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396, 397 (1989)).



The cop mind is formed by unique circumstances

By DAVID BROOKS, Associated Press | Posted 2 days ago

Like a lot of people in journalism, I began my career, briefly, as a police reporter. As the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases have unfolded, I've found myself thinking back to those days. Nothing excuses specific acts of police brutality, especially in the Garner case, but not enough attention is being paid to the emotional and psychological challenges of being a cop. Early on, I learned there is an amazing variety of police officers, even compared to other professions. Most cops are conscientious, and some, especially among detectives, are brilliant.

They spend much of their time in the chaotic and depressing nether-reaches of society: busting up domestic violence disputes, dealing with drunks and drug addicts, coming upon fatal car crashes, managing conflicts large and small.

They ride an emotional and biochemical roller coaster. They experience moments of intense action and alertness, followed by emotional crashes marked by exhaustion and isolation. They become hypervigilant. Surrounded by crime all day, some come to perceive that society is more threatening than it really is.

To cope, they emotionally armor up. Many of the cops I was around developed a cynical, dehumanizing and hard-edge sense of humor that was an attempt to insulate themselves from the pain of seeing a dead child or the extinguished life of a young girl they arrived too late to save.

Many of us see cops as relatively invulnerable as they patrol the streets. The cops themselves do not perceive their situation that way. As criminologist George Kelling wrote in City Journal in 1993, "It is a common myth that police officers approach conflicts with a feeling of power — after all, they are armed, they represent the state, they are specially trained and backed by an 'army.' In reality, an officer's gun is almost always a liability ... because a suspect may grab it in a scuffle. Officers are usually at a disadvantage because they have to intervene in unfamiliar terrain, on someone else's territory. They worry that bystanders might become involved, either by helping somebody the officer has to confront or, after the fact, by second-guessing an officer's conduct."

Even though most situations are not dangerous, danger is always an out-of-the-blue possibility, often in the back of the mind.

In many places, a self-supporting and insular police culture develops: In this culture no one understands police work except fellow officers; the training in the academy is useless; to do the job you've got to bend the rules and understand the law of the jungle; the world is divided into two sorts of people — cops and a—holes.

This is a life of both boredom and stress. Life expectancy for cops is lower than for the general population. Cops suffer disproportionately from peptic ulcers, back disorders and heart disease. In one study, suicide rates were three times higher among cops than among other municipal workers. Other studies have found that somewhere between 7 percent and 19 percent of cops suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. The effect is especially harsh on those who have been involved in shootings. Two-thirds of the officers who have been involved in shootings suffer moderate or severe emotional problems. Seventy percent leave the police force within seven years of the incident.

Most cops know they walk a dangerous line, between necessary and excessive force. According to a 2000 National Institute of Justice study, more than 90 percent of the police officers surveyed said that it is wrong to respond to verbal abuse with force. Nonetheless, 15 percent of the cops surveyed were aware that officers in their own department sometimes or often did so.

And through the years, departments have worked to humanize the profession. Overall, police use of force is on the decline, along with the crime rate generally. According to the Department of Justice, the number of incidents in which force was used or threatened declined from 664,000 in 2002 to 574,000 in 2008. Community policing has helped bind police forces closer to the citizenry.

A blind spot is race. Only 1 in 20 white officers believe blacks and other minorities receive unequal treatment from the police. But 57 percent of black officers are convinced the treatment of minorities is unfair.

But at the core of the profession lies the central problem of political philosophy. How does the state preserve order through coercion? When should you use overwhelming force to master lawbreaking? When is it wiser to step back and use patience and understanding to defuse a situation? How do you make this decision instantaneously, when testosterone is flowing, when fear is in the air, when someone is disrespecting you and you feel indignation rising in the gut?

Racist police brutality has to be punished. But respect has to be paid. Police serve by walking that hazardous line where civilization meets disorder.
Title: Policing in the Obama era
Post by: G M on December 22, 2014, 11:45:06 AM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/353916.php
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: DDF on December 22, 2014, 04:56:09 PM
I smell whiffs of anarchy. Looks like you all up there are starting to join the party. Stay safe.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 22, 2014, 05:03:26 PM
I smell whiffs of anarchy. Looks like you all up there are starting to join the party. Stay safe.

A society that declares war on it's police better make friends with it's criminals.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: DDF on December 22, 2014, 05:07:00 PM
I smell whiffs of anarchy. Looks like you all up there are starting to join the party. Stay safe.

A society that declares war on it's police better make friends with it's criminals.

I swim amongst them, I'm probably a rank amateur, and I'm not their friends. I'm doing alright. People need to be more self reliant. That is the issue everyone keeps missing.
Title: Milwaukee officer won't be charged
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 23, 2014, 06:10:56 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/us/former-milwaukee-police-officer-wont-be-charged-in-death-of-black-man-in-park.html?emc=edit_th_20141223&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0
Title: How many more?
Post by: G M on December 23, 2014, 04:10:32 PM
http://pjmedia.com/blog/how-many-more-dead-police-officers-will-the-mob-want/?singlepage=true
Title: Technique for getting through a DUI checkpoint
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 03, 2015, 08:48:27 AM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/03/see-this-guy-get-through-a-dui-checkpoint-without-saying-a-word-thanks-to-what-he-hung-out-his-car-window/
Title: Cottonwood Melee
Post by: Quiet Dog on April 11, 2015, 09:53:46 AM
Melee situation with multiple officers and citizens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=69&v=pBIKBIOtEjA

Will try to figure out which other threads this is relevant to.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 11, 2015, 10:13:50 AM
This is a good thread for the clip Quiet Dog.

WOW!  What chaos!  The continuous caterwauling must make it very hard to stay centered.

Things seem to start rather abruptly, but given the purposeful arrival of several police cars I'm guessing there is a back story here. 
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 11, 2015, 10:22:21 AM
An internet friend who follows and seems responsible about these things, says this is the back story:

IF: "Family of EDP's living in their car. Walmart loss prevention employee asked them to leave, they became hostile, cops were called"

MARC "Ah. Sure looked like the cops arrived in force and they did not dilly dally before going physical."

IF: "Agreed, but their use of force being so ineffective should be embarrassing and the one cop who shot himself in the leg...wtf and the other cop who kicked his partner in the face trying to kick the assailant"
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on April 12, 2015, 06:32:47 PM
An epic goat rope.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 08, 2015, 09:27:53 AM
This sort of thing does not build trust , , , :-P :cry:


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/07/cops-seemingly-had-no-idea-drivers-camera-was-rolling-when-they-had-this-conversation-during-traffic-stop/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire_Morning_Test&utm_campaign=Firewire%20Morning%20Edition%20Recurring%20v2%202015-05-08
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on May 08, 2015, 06:59:36 PM
This sort of thing does not build trust , , , :-P :cry:


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/07/cops-seemingly-had-no-idea-drivers-camera-was-rolling-when-they-had-this-conversation-during-traffic-stop/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire_Morning_Test&utm_campaign=Firewire%20Morning%20Edition%20Recurring%20v2%202015-05-08

Without knowing all the relevant details, it's hard to say what that was about.
Title: A very important point made very well
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 11, 2015, 06:26:45 AM
http://www.wimsblog.com/2015/05/police-brutality-black-man-gets-arrested-for-no-reason/
Title: Don't judge too quickly
Post by: War Dog on May 17, 2015, 03:49:53 PM
http://youtu.be/C8Keo97K9cs
Title: FYI: Crowd prevents arrest
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 18, 2015, 11:00:41 AM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/17/cop-caught-on-video-trying-to-handcuff-a-teen-girl-but-when-an-angry-crowd-gathers-he-reacts-in-a-shocking-way/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%205-18-15%20Monday%20with%20Malkin
Title: I'd have been a jewish Don King if this happened to me
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 20, 2015, 10:35:36 AM
http://www.islandpacket.com/2015/05/19/3754777/driver-with-sawed-off-shotgun.html?rh=1
Title: Obama Crime Wave
Post by: G M on May 31, 2015, 08:21:35 AM
I smell whiffs of anarchy. Looks like you all up there are starting to join the party. Stay safe.

A society that declares war on it's police better make friends with it's criminals.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/052615-754269-an-obama-crime-wave-spreads-across-america.htm?p=2
Title: New Crime Wave is all part of the plan
Post by: G M on May 31, 2015, 06:54:00 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/30/ferguson-effect-americas-new-crime-wave-is-all-part-of-the-plan/
Title: Water is Getting Choppy...
Post by: DDF on July 14, 2015, 12:42:32 PM
"They targeted, they ambushed, they tried to assassinate a police officer," the chief told reporters outside the hospital where the officer was treated and later released. "What we saw tonight are individuals that were armed, that targeted a police officer and had no second thoughts, no remorse about it at all."

I have to wonder if the death penalty or any other legislation deterred them? The problem is that police merely think they're the law, when really, law has always been a "majority rules" type of circumstance.

The next year or two will be interesting.


http://www.policeone.com/police-products/body-armor/articles/8657821-Mo-chief-Gunman-tried-to-assassinate-officer/
Title: Federal Court rules no right to video police
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 27, 2016, 08:56:01 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/02/23/federal-judge-recording-cops-isnt-necessarily-protected-by-the-first-amendment/
Title: Scenes from the growing chaos
Post by: G M on May 27, 2016, 07:36:09 AM
https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-la-police-commission/?singlepage=true

Grievance Theater Night at the L.A. Police Commission
BY JACK DUNPHY MAY 26, 2016 CHAT 13 COMMENTS

Pity the man who is so unfortunate as to have to appear before the Los Angeles Police Commission. First, he must endure the trip to downtown Los Angeles, an hour’s drive or maybe much more from some of the city’s outlying communities. Then he must find a place to park, no easy task amid all the construction and street closures that are often added to the customary gridlock around the civic center. If he manages to find a spot on the street, he must be mindful of the time, for his car will be ticketed or perhaps towed if it remains in the spot even seconds beyond the posted limit. If he parks in a parking lot, he will be charged an exorbitant sum for the privilege. And, no matter where he parks, as he walks to the police headquarters building he will encounter any number of panhandling vagrants who have wandered away from nearby skid row in search of “spare change.” Upon arrival at the headquarters building, he will subjected to a security screening akin to those performed at airports.

After all of that, he will be allowed to take a seat in the police commission meeting room to await his turn to speak. And it is at this point that all of the inconveniences described above will seem trivial.

Public meetings in any city or town – city council, school board, or what have you – attract their own regulars: the gadflies and cranks who appear at meeting after meeting and demand to be heard, most often reciting some variation of the tale they’ve been telling for weeks, months, or even years. The L.A. police commission has its share of these people, and in a city of four million people, that share is quite large. But lately, added to this usual roster of gadflies and cranks have been the crankiest people in town, the local chapter of the Black Lives Matter movement. So while our hapless citizen waits patiently to plead his case before the commission, he must sit and listen as the BLM people parade to the microphone, using their allotted two minutes (and usually more) to berate, belittle, and insult the commissioners and police chief Charlie Beck, often in language that is unprintable here.

If you want to know why LAPD officers are dispirited these days, if you want to know why they may be feeling the weight of the “Ferguson effect” and are reluctant to place their mortal hides on the line in the cause of reducing crime in the city, look no further than the commission that oversees the department. The police commission is a five-person body whose members are appointed by the mayor. It sets policy for the LAPD, and every member of the department, from the greenest rookie to the chief, serves under its authority.

 
In theory, this system of civilian oversight is an admirable arrangement. It becomes less admirable when that oversight is provided by people who are disconnected from the more unpleasant realities faced by police officers on the streets, and who in some cases are even hostile to the officers they purport to lead. Bear in mind that commissioners are selected not on the basis of any expertise they might have in law enforcement. Rather, they are chosen so as to satisfy demands for “diversity” on the panel. But this diversity, as is most often the case when the term is used today, does not extend to a diversity of thought or political opinion, only of race, sex, and sexual orientation. As it’s currently composed, the police commission is uniformly liberal, albeit with some members leaning farther to the left than others.

So how troubling it must be for the commissioners, good liberals all, to sit there and listen to the relentless invective spewing from people with whom, if the commissioners were candid enough to admit it, they are largely in agreement.

Last September, I wrote here on PJ Media on the abrupt departure of Paula Madison from the L.A. police commission. In discussing a controversial police shooting, Madison had made it a bit too clear that she was motivated by a racial grievance agenda, and in so doing she became a liability to Mayor Eric Garcetti. As I wrote at the time, “Mayor Garcetti does not necessarily object to his police commissioners being motivated by a racial agenda, but he insists that they be more guarded about it in their public pronouncements.”

So out the door she went, leaving it to Mayor Garcetti to appoint entertainment attorney Matthew Johnson to fill what we might call the black seat on the panel. Johnson was promptly voted in as president of the commission and now serves as its front man during what for it has been a tumultuous time. The commission holds its public meetings every Tuesday morning, and at these meeting members of the LAPD, most often headquarters types, make presentations, usually accompanied by PowerPoint slides, on matters which both the presenters and the commissioners pretend to understand. Members of the public are invited to speak for two minutes on agenda items, and are required to submit a written request before being allowed to speak.


All well and good, in theory if not always in practice. Rather than serving as an exercise in open, participatory governance, the commission meetings have devolved into farce, with the meetings regularly disrupted by protesters who defy calls for them to behave themselves. A typical scenario goes like this: at the time designated for public comment, BLM protesters, having submitted their cards, take turns at the microphone trying to outperform the previous speaker. When they talk beyond their allotted two minutes, Mr. Johnson gives them several warnings, including multiple “last warnings,” before asking a handful of beleaguered police officers to escort the person back to his seat or, in the case of the more obstreperous ones, out of the room. But the officers are under strict orders not to lay a hand on anyone, so things often turn into comical ballets in which a speaker dances around and continues to heckle the commission while the officers try to coral him without touching them. This brings an uproar from the offending speaker’s cohort, who themselves begin to chant and carry on, forcing the commission to interrupt the meeting and clear the room. This happens nearly every week.

In a lame attempt to curb these theatrics, Mr. Johnson wrote an op-ed piece in the May 12 edition of the Los Angeles Sentinel, a newspaper marketed to L.A.’s black community. In that piece, titled “Dialogue, not disruption, is the path to LAPD reform,” Johnson made it clear that he is very much in agreement with the sentiments of the Black Lives Matter Movement, but not its tactics. In his more than 1,500 words, he detailed the LAPD’s “checkered past which contributed to civil unrest in 1965 and 1992.” But he emphasized that he and his fellow police commissioners are now firmly in charge of the department and that those bad old days are truly over. Nowhere in the piece does he offer any encouraging words for the officers he purports to lead, nor does he address the city’s rising crime that disproportionately affects black neighborhoods. To cite just the most startling number in recent crime statistics, in the LAPD’s Southwest Division, murders are up 275 percent this year over the same period in 2015.

And Johnson is not the only member of the police commission whose priorities would seem askew. At the May 17 meeting (you can watch it here), Robert Saltzman, current occupier of the commission’s homosexual seat, opened the meeting by saying he had been a speaker at a police academy graduation ceremony the previous Friday. He went on to say how pleased he was that the graduating class was 11 percent black and 22 percent female. All well and good, one supposes, but it then fell to Mr. Johnson to address the issue of the two LAPD officers who had been shot later on that same Friday. It’s probably too much to ask, but in the future Mr. Saltzman might delay the diversity bean-counting discussion until after the matter of two wounded cops has been addressed.

In a career that lasted more than 30 years with the LAPD, I had occasion to meet just two police commissioners. I am led to believe by my former colleagues that the current commissioners are not in the habit of getting out and mixing with the troops. Watch just a few minutes of the meeting linked to above, or of any of the meetings available at that website, and it will be apparent why this is so.
Title: Louisiana shooting victim
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 08, 2016, 09:55:04 AM
http://www.allenbwest.com/matt-palumbo/heres-what-liberals-dont-want-you-to-know-about-louisiana-shooting-victim
Title: Police now expected to run away from armed subjects
Post by: G M on September 24, 2016, 08:17:27 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/22/la-police-union-police-commission-wants-cops-to-run-from-armed-suspects/

You are on your own.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 25, 2016, 09:33:00 AM
 :-o :-o :-o
Title: Officer charged with murder in MN case
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 16, 2016, 09:18:44 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/philando-castile-shooting-minnesota.html?emc=edit_na_20161116&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
Title: Michael Brown did too rob the store in Ferguson
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 14, 2017, 02:56:16 PM
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14400/michael-brown-did-rob-convenience-store-even-his-phelim-mcaleer?utm_source=dwemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=031417-news&utm_campaign=position1
Title: Murder or Self-Defense in No Knock Raids
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 19, 2017, 08:38:18 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/texas-no-knock-warrant-drugs.html?emc=edit_ta_20170319&nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0

Title: Just another day in LA
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 22, 2017, 11:36:22 PM
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Man-With-Cache-of-High-Power-Weapons-and-Ammunition-Arrested-at-MTA-Gold-Line-Station-429999983.html
Title: Re: Just another day in LA
Post by: G M on June 23, 2017, 08:28:23 AM
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Man-With-Cache-of-High-Power-Weapons-and-Ammunition-Arrested-at-MTA-Gold-Line-Station-429999983.html

If there is a aloha snackbar nexus, this story will disappear.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 23, 2017, 04:01:07 PM
Ain't that the Truth!
Title: Video proves cops lied; man freed with $1.3M
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 26, 2017, 04:31:02 PM
https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2017/09/texas-jury-awards-man-1-3-million-home-video-proved-deputies-lied/
Title: Re: Video proves cops lied; man freed with $1.3M
Post by: G M on September 26, 2017, 04:39:05 PM
https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2017/09/texas-jury-awards-man-1-3-million-home-video-proved-deputies-lied/

Wow. It would be interesting to read the use of force reports. I foresee 42 USC 1983 actions in the future.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 27, 2017, 08:27:37 AM
Ah yes, Section 1983-- I remember that one from law school.
Title: Body cam cognitive dissonance
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 17, 2017, 10:53:40 PM
https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/news/bodycam-advocates-now-claim-body-cameras-are-a-threat-to-civil-rights-RZI2tR4e9UaYyZdz6Ce3pA
Title: Re: Body cam cognitive dissonance
Post by: G M on November 19, 2017, 10:27:26 AM
https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/news/bodycam-advocates-now-claim-body-cameras-are-a-threat-to-civil-rights-RZI2tR4e9UaYyZdz6Ce3pA

Now that the jury and the public get to see what cops have to deal with...
Title: King: SCOTUS and "police brutality"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 10, 2017, 05:26:56 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-2-supreme-court-rulings-change-police-brutality-article-1.3269247

I suspect our GM will disagree , , ,

Title: Re: King: SCOTUS and "police brutality"
Post by: G M on December 10, 2017, 06:47:59 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-2-supreme-court-rulings-change-police-brutality-article-1.3269247

I suspect our GM will disagree , , ,



Shaun King is a literal joke. Otherwise known as "Talcum X" for pretending to be black.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: G M on December 10, 2017, 07:04:27 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/?utm_term=.9883e59db289

320 million Americans. Approximately 800,000 federal, state and local law enforcement officers. We can estimate that it's about 1000 deadly shootings in a year done by law enforcement. Do these numbers suggest that LEOs are trigger-happy?

Title: Baltimore: Police carry plant guns just in case
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 31, 2018, 06:54:49 AM
It pains me to have to post this one, but around here we search for Truth.
Title: Re: Baltimore: Police carry plant guns just in case
Post by: G M on January 31, 2018, 07:03:22 AM
It pains me to have to post this one, but around here we search for Truth.

This appears to be one specific unit within the BPD. However, what has come out is horrible.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 01, 2018, 10:02:54 AM
In general, Baltimore police have a very bad reputation in this regard.

Also there was the case in , , , North Carolina?  where the officer shot to death a middle aged black man fleeing on a traffic violation in the back and then was caught on civilian camera calmly planting a gun he happened to have on him at the time.

Things like this do terrible damage.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: DougMacG on February 01, 2018, 10:59:03 AM
"...where the officer shot to death a middle aged black man fleeing on a traffic violation in the back and then was caught on civilian camera calmly planting a gun he happened to have on him at the time.
Things like this do terrible damage."

Agreed!  There are a few bad ones in every profession and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!  Knowing your partner or fellow officer committed a felony and helping to cover it up is also a felony, right?

Shooting a man in the back is murder in most situations even if you are police, and planting evidence is another felony. 

It's strange that the whole political movement was energized by wrongly reported events, and innocent blacks in Baltimore are examples of people hurt most by the movement. 

After all the stigmatizing of inner city police, I have not seen North Minneapolis police get out of their squad cars in a long time.  In St Paul, the number of applicants is down by 85% in four years. 
https://www.twincities.com/2018/01/26/after-too-few-people-apply-to-be-st-paul-police-officers-city-extends-deadline/ 

Without an active police presence, gangs rule the streets and things like this happen (to my tenant).
http://www.fox9.com/news/jury-finds-ezeka-guilty-in-murder-of-mpls-grandmother-birdell-beeks
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 01, 2018, 11:23:38 AM
Exactly so!!!
Title: No duty to protect
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 25, 2018, 07:41:56 PM
https://o4anews.com/supreme-court-police-no-duty-protect-public/
Title: Secret Palantir Predictive Policing Tool
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 28, 2018, 01:27:24 PM
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/27/17054740/palantir-predictive-policing-tool-new-orleans-nopd
Title: Is this legally sound?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2018, 07:57:17 AM
GM:

Is the part about not having to ID yourself legally correct?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GspYU1Donrg

Title: Re: Is this legally sound?
Post by: G M on March 05, 2018, 05:56:09 PM
GM:

Is the part about not having to ID yourself legally correct?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GspYU1Donrg



Well, like many things, it depends. Know your state laws, and conduct yourself like the pastor did in the video. Bear in mind that you might avoid the rap, but you might get the ride. In Colorado, it’s not illegal to Refuse to ID yourself under most circumstances, but if you give a false name, it’s a felony.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2018, 06:42:53 PM
Thank you.
Title: Baltimore's LEO Swamp
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 11, 2018, 11:31:31 AM
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xvzwp/baltimore-cops-carried-toy-guns-to-plant-on-people-they-shot-trial-reveals-vgtrn?utm_campaign=sharebutton
Title: Testilying: Police perjury not rare?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 18, 2018, 06:37:54 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/nyregion/testilying-police-perjury-new-york.html?emc=edit_ta_20180318&nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193&ref=cta

Testilying’ by Police:
A Stubborn Problem

Police lying persists, even amid an explosion of video
evidence that has allowed the public to test officers’ credibility.

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN
MARCH 18, 2018


Officer Nector Martinez took the witness stand in a Bronx courtroom on Oct. 10, 2017, and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God.

There had been a shooting, Officer Martinez testified, and he wanted to search a nearby apartment for evidence. A woman stood in the doorway, carrying a laundry bag. Officer Martinez said she set the bag down “in the middle of the doorway” — directly in his path. “I picked it up to move it out of the way so we could get in.”

The laundry bag felt heavy. When he put it down, he said, he heard a “clunk, a thud.”

What might be inside?

Officer Martinez tapped the bag with his foot and felt something hard, he testified. He opened the bag, leading to the discovery of a Ruger 9-millimeter handgun and the arrest of the woman.

But a hallway surveillance camera captured the true story: There’s no laundry bag or gun in sight as Officer Martinez and other investigators question the woman in the doorway and then stride into the apartment. Inside, they did find a gun, but little to link it to the woman, Kimberly Thomas. Still, had the camera not captured the hallway scene, Officer Martinez’s testimony might well have sent her to prison.


When Ms. Thomas’s lawyer sought to play the video in court, prosecutors in the Bronx dropped the case. Then the court sealed the case file, hiding from view a problem so old and persistent that the criminal justice system sometimes responds with little more than a shrug: false testimony by the police.


“Behind closed doors, we call it testilying,” a New York City police officer, Pedro Serrano, said in a recent interview, echoing a word that officers coined at least 25 years ago. “You take the truth and stretch it out a little bit.”

An investigation by The New York Times has found that on more than 25 occasions since January 2015, judges or prosecutors determined that a key aspect of a New York City police officer’s testimony was probably untrue. The Times identified these cases — many of which are sealed — through interviews with lawyers, police officers and current and former judges.

In these cases, officers have lied about the whereabouts of guns, putting them in suspects’ hands or waistbands when they were actually hidden out of sight. They have barged into apartments and conducted searches, only to testify otherwise later. Under oath, they have given firsthand accounts of crimes or arrests that they did not in fact witness. They have falsely claimed to have watched drug deals happen, only to later recant or be shown to have lied.

No detail, seemingly, is too minor to embellish. “Clenched fists” is how one Brooklyn officer described the hands of a man he claimed had angrily approached him and started screaming and yelling — an encounter that prosecutors later determined never occurred. Another officer, during a Bronx trial, accused a driver of recklessly crossing the double-yellow line — on a stretch of road that had no double-yellow line.

In many instances, the motive for lying was readily apparent: to skirt constitutional restrictions against unreasonable searches and stops. In other cases, the falsehoods appear aimed at convicting people — who may or may not have committed a crime — with trumped-up evidence.

In still others, the motive is not easy to discern. In October 2016, for example, a plainclothes Brooklyn officer gave a grand jury a first-person account of a gun arrest. Putting herself in the center of the action, the officer, Dornezia Agard, testified that as she approached a man to confront him for littering, he suddenly crouched behind a van, pulled from his waistband a dark object — later identified as a gun — and threw it on the ground.

“P.O. Agard testified that she heard a hard metal object hit the ground,” according to a letter the Brooklyn district attorney’s office wrote summarizing her testimony.

But prosecutors lost faith in her account in July 2017, after learning from other officers that she was not among the first officers on the scene. Officer Agard had arrived later as backup, according to the letter, which noted that the gun charges against the man were later dismissed. The prosecutors did not address why Officer Agard claimed to be a witness, or why the other officers present seem to have allowed her to process the arrest.

Police lying raises the likelihood that the innocent end up in jail — and that as juries and judges come to regard the police as less credible, or as cases are dismissed when the lies are discovered, the guilty will go free. Police falsehoods also impede judges’ efforts to enforce constitutional limits on police searches and seizures.

“We have 36,000 officers with law enforcement power, and there are a small handful of these cases every year,” said J. Peter Donald, a spokesman for the Police Department, the nation’s largest municipal force. “That doesn’t make any of these cases any less troubling. Our goal is always, always zero. One is too many, but we have taken significant steps to combat this issue.”
Shrouded, but Persistent

The 25 cases identified by The Times are almost certainly only a fraction of those in which officers have come under suspicion for lying in the past three years. That’s because a vast majority of cases end in plea deals before an officer is ever required to take the witness stand in open court, meaning the possibility that an officer lied is seldom aired in public. And in the rare cases when an officer does testify in court — and a judge finds the testimony suspicious, leading to the dismissal of the case — the proceedings are often sealed afterward.

Still, the cases identified by The Times reveal an entrenched perjury problem several decades in the making that shows little sign of fading.

So far in 2018, a Queens detective has been convicted of lying in a drug case and a Brooklyn detective has been arrested amid accusations that he fabricated the results of a photo lineup. These cases returned the phenomenon of police lying to the public eye, leaving police officials to defend the integrity of honest officers.

Kevin Richardson, the Police Department’s top internal prosecutor, said he believes so-called testilying is nearing its end. “I think it’s a problem that’s very much largely on its way out,” he said.

Indeed, it’s tempting to think about police lying as a bygone of past eras: a form of misconduct that ran unchecked as soaring street violence left the police overwhelmed during the 1980s and early 1990s and that re-emerged as police embraced stop-and-frisk tactics and covered up constitutional violations with lies.

But false testimony by the police persists even as crime has drastically receded across the city and as the Police Department has renounced the excesses of the stop-and-frisk years.

Some policing experts anticipate that the ubiquity of cameras — whether on cellphones, affixed to buildings or worn by officers — will greatly reduce police lying. For the moment, however, video seems more capable of exposing lies than vanquishing them.

Memory and Manipulation

In two recent cases, The Times found, officers appear to have given false accounts about witness identifications. These cases are particularly troubling because erroneous identifications by witnesses have been a leading cause of wrongful convictions.

After a 2016 mugging near a Brooklyn subway station, the police arrested a group of four people, one of whom was found to be in possession of the victim’s wallet. In preparing the case, prosecutors sought to pin down a few basic facts. Had the police brought the victim, who was punched and had his wallet taken, to positively identify the four suspects after they were taken into custody? If so, what had the victim said?

Getting a straight answer from the arresting officer, Chedanan Naurang, proved nearly impossible. It had been Officer Naurang’s quick thinking that had made the arrest possible: Having lost the suspects at one subway station, he followed a hunch and drove one stop down the line, where he caught up with the four men after they got off the train.

But certain details Officer Naurang gave prosecutors kept shifting over the next year, according to a February 2017 letter that prosecutors wrote in which they summarized his fluid story.

Officer Naurang said at one point that the identification had occurred inside a police station when the victim passed by the holding cells, saw the men and confirmed their involvement in the crime.

A few weeks later, he backtracked. No, the victim had actually never gotten to see the suspects at the police station, Officer Naurang explained. Instead, the victim had gotten a chance to view them on the street, shortly after their arrest. That’s when the victim got out of the police vehicle in which he had been waiting, Officer Naurang said, and pointed to one of the four men, identifying him as an attacker.

This version of events, however, was at odds with the recollection of the police officer who had driven the victim to the scene of the arrest. That officer, Christopher McDonald, told prosecutors that the victim had remained in the back seat while viewing the four suspects. And Officer McDonald said that the victim couldn’t say whether they were his assailants. He thought he recognized their clothing, but wasn’t sure.

Because of Officer Naurang’s changing story, prosecutors dropped the case against the men as part of a deal in which all four pleaded guilty to charges stemming from a second mugging they were accused of the same night.


Another case in which the police gave false information about a witness identification came after a carjacking in Brooklyn in 2015. In that case, the police began to focus on two suspects based on an anonymous tip and a fingerprint. A detective, Michael Foder, testified that he had then prepared two photo lineups — one for each suspect.

Each consisted of the suspect’s photograph printed on a sheet of paper, alongside the photos of “fillers” — people of vaguely similar appearance with no connection to the crime. The hope was that the victim, a livery cabdriver, might recognize the suspect’s photo and pick him out — an outcome that prosecutors regard as a strong indicator of a suspect’s guilt.

That’s what happened, Detective Foder testified, when the victim came to the precinct to view the photo lineup for one suspect in November 2015 and returned in February 2016 to view one for the second suspect.

But the photo lineups that Detective Foder had prepared — and were submitted as evidence in federal court — were fabrications. It was a federal prosecutor who first realized that many of the photos used in the lineups were not yet available at the time Detective Foder claimed to have shown them to the victim. The reason? The photos of some of the fillers had yet to be taken.

The lineup that was said to be from November 2015 included filler photographs that were not taken until December. And the one he claimed to have administered in February featured photos that were taken in March.

Last month, Detective Foder was indicted on federal perjury charges. The indictment accuses him of lying to “conceal the fact that he had falsified documentation” related to the photo lineups. Detective Foder’s lawyer entered a plea of not guilty on the detective’s behalf.
Photo
A prosecutor discovered that many of the photos in the array Detective Foder said he had shown the victim Feb. 14, 2016, were not even taken until after that date.

Justifying a Search

Detective Foder’s actions appear to be aimed at tilting the scales toward guilt.

But more often, The Times found, false statements by the police seem intended to hide illegal searches and seizures, such as questionable car stops or entries into apartments that result in officers finding guns or drugs. If the truth were to emerge that the case began with an illegal police search, the evidence would quite likely be thrown out and the case dismissed.

Blue Lies

A series of stories examining the entrenched culture of 'testilying' in the New York Police Department.

The story that Christopher Thomas, a plainclothes police officer, told a grand jury in December 2014 sounded plausible enough. As he approached a parked car with a flashlight in hand, he said, he saw a man in the driver’s seat pull a firearm out of his waistband and stick it between the car’s center console and the front seat. The driver was indicted on gun-possession charges.

But by July 2015, as video of the encounter was about to emerge, Officer Thomas started backtracking. In conversations with the assistant district attorney on the case, Officer Thomas acknowledged that he had not seen the driver pull the gun from his waistband. In fact, he said, he had never seen the driver with his hand on the gun.

“He stated to the A.D.A. that he did not know why he had testified to those facts before the grand jury,” according to an email prosecutors later sent to a defense lawyer. This email, as well as several similar letters that prosecutors sent in other cases, were provided to The Times by Cynthia Conti-Cook, a Legal Aid Society lawyer who has been compiling a database of police misconduct allegations.

The video undermined Officer Thomas’s original claim of having seen the gun at the outset. It shows Officer Thomas and his partner approach the car and shine their flashlights inside. Their demeanor on the video suggests that they had seen nothing so far to cause alarm. One of the two officers — either Officer Thomas or his partner — is so unconcerned that he bends down for about seven seconds, and appears to tie his shoe.


Video emerged that undermined Officer Christopher Thomas’s original claim of having immediately spotted a gun in the car.

Brooklyn prosecutors dismissed the gun case and, according to the prosecutors’ email, informed the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau about the problems with Officer Thomas’s account. An internal police disciplinary process led to Officer Thomas losing 30 vacation days and being placed on dismissal probation for a year, according to a person familiar with the case.

He is now a sergeant in a narcotics unit.

Officer Thomas is not the only officer to have tried to withdraw earlier testimony as soon as video of an encounter emerged, or was about to.


“I misspoke when I was in grand jury,” Sean Kinane, an officer with the 52nd Precinct in the Bronx, testified in federal court in 2016. That was all the explanation he gave, or was asked to give, for why he was recanting his earlier testimony about witnessing what appeared to be narcotics transactions in the moments before he stopped a heroin dealer in the street.

That claim, if true, would have given the police justification to stop the man, who was discovered to be carrying 153 glassine envelopes of heroin and eight bags of crack cocaine. But after the drug dealer managed to get a video recording of the encounter, Officer Kinane’s story changed. He had misspoken.

Reached by telephone for comment, Detective Kinane — he was promoted in 2017 — hung up.

‘No Fear of Being Caught’

Many police officials and experts express optimism that the prevalence of cameras will reduce police lying. As officers begin to accept that digital evidence of an encounter will emerge, lying will be perceived as too risky — or so the thinking goes.

“Basically it’s harder for a cop to lie today,” the Police Department’s top legal official, Lawrence Byrne, said last year at a New York City Bar Association event, noting that there were millions of cellphones on the streets of New York, each with a camera. “There is virtually no enforcement encounter where there isn’t immediate video of what the officers are doing.”

As more police encounters are recorded — whether on the cellphones of bystanders or the body-worn cameras of officers — false police testimony is being exposed in cases where the officer’s word might once have carried the day. That is true for run-of-the-mill drug cases as well as for police shootings so notorious that they are seared into the national consciousness.

Yet interviews with officers suggest the prevalence of cameras alone won’t end police lying. That’s because even with cameras present, some officers still figure — with good reason — that a lie is unlikely to be exposed. Because plea deals are a typical outcome, it’s rare for a case to develop to the point where the defendant can question an officer’s version of events at a hearing.

“There’s no fear of being caught,” said one Brooklyn officer who has been on the force for roughly a decade. “You’re not going to go to trial and nobody is going to be cross-examined.”

The percentage of cases that progress to the point where an officer is cross-examined is tiny. In 2016, for instance, there were slightly more than 185 guilty pleas, dismissals or other non-trial outcomes for each criminal case in New York City that went to trial and reached a verdict. There were 1,460 trial verdicts in criminal cases that year, while 270,304 criminal cases were resolved without a trial.

To be sure, officers are sometimes called to testify before trial at so-called suppression hearings in which the legality of police conduct is evaluated. But those are rare. In Manhattan, about 2.4 percent of felony criminal cases have a suppression hearing, according to data from the Manhattan district attorney’s office. The rate for non-felony cases is slightly more than one-tenth of 1 percent.

Officer Pedro Serrano said he doesn’t engage in “testilying,” but he said it remains a problem in the New York City Police Department. “You take the truth and stretch it out a little bit.” Credit Karsten Moran for The New York Times

A Crucial Court Decision

Several officers, all working in the Bronx and Brooklyn, candidly described in interviews how the practice of lying runs like a fault line through precincts. “You’re either a ‘lie guy’ or you’re not,” said the Brooklyn officer. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he described how he avoided certain officers and units in his precinct based on his discomfort with the arrests they made.

Earlier in his career, he said, a supervisor and a detective had each encouraged him to lie about the circumstances of drug arrests. Another time, he said, he had worked with an officer who, after discovering drugs while searching a suspect without cause, turned to the other officers present with a question — “How did we find this?” — and sought their help devising a false story.

Countless police officers have struggled with that question — “How did we find this?” — ever since 1961, when the Supreme Court ruled, in Mapp v. Ohio, that state judges must throw out evidence from illegal searches and seizures. Before this ruling, New York City officers could stop someone they thought might be dealing or using drugs, search their pockets and clothing, describe the encounter truthfully, and not worry that a court would throw out the drugs that they had discovered, even though the stop and search had been, strictly speaking, illegal. That changed with the Mapp decision, which greatly expanded the reach of the Fourth Amendment.

Immediately after the Mapp case, police officers saw many narcotics cases be dismissed. Then they made what one judge called “the great discovery.” If they testified that the suspect had dropped a bag of drugs on the ground as the police approached, courts would generally deem those arrests legal.

Within a year of the Mapp decision, courts in New York City were seeing a marked increase in what became known as “dropsy” testimony — in some units “dropsy” cases increased more than 70 percent, according to one 1968 study.

There was little reason to think drug users had grown more skittish. Rather, the influx of these cases was understood to be a sign that police officers were lying in a substantial number of cases. Ever since, courts in New York have been plagued with officers lying about how they came to discover that a suspect was carrying drugs or guns.

By 1994, a commission appointed to investigate police corruption noted that lying to make cases stick was common enough for “testilying” to become a well-known portmanteau.

The report by the Mollen Commission noted a few established patterns of falsehoods. Officers who illegally searched a car might later say they discovered contraband in “plain view.” Or an officer who found a gun or drugs in someone’s clothing during an illegal search might falsely claim to have seen “a bulge in the person’s pocket.”

Just like the dropsy testimony a few decades earlier, these stories of “plain view” and “suspicious bulges” became scripts that many police officers stuck to. They were rarely challenged, not even as officers in New York City began repeating them tens and then hundreds of thousands of times as police stops of mainly black and Latino men skyrocketed during the years Michael R. Bloomberg was mayor.

Embellished Narratives

In recent years, the number of times police stopped and frisked pedestrians has declined precipitously. But certain plainclothes units, such as the so-called anti-crime teams, still engage in an aggressive style of policing that relies heavily on stop-and-frisk tactics. These teams make a disproportionate number of gun arrests, but they are also responsible for a substantial number of dubious stops of pedestrians and drivers, police officers and legal experts said in interviews.

Several uniformed patrol officers said they have long suspected that the track record of plainclothes anti-crime teams for making weapons and drug arrests was bolstered by illegal searches and a tolerance for lying about them.

These officers described a familiar scene: a group of black men ordered out of a vehicle for little reason and made to sit on the curb or lean against the bumper, as officers search the vehicle for guns and drugs.

“Certain car stops, certain cops will say there is odor of marijuana. And when I get to the scene, I immediately don’t smell anything,” said Officer Serrano, one of the few officers interviewed who was willing to speak on the record. “I can’t tell you what you smelled, but it’s obvious to me there is no smell of marijuana.”

Mr. Serrano’s testimony about a secret station-house recording he made was crucial evidence in a landmark stop-and-frisk trial in 2013. He and nearly a dozen other current and former officers are suing the Police Department over what they describe as arrest quotas.




“It’s the anti-crime teams, the plainclothes officers, everyone knows they will violate the law, get what they want and then write it to fit the narrative,” said Edwin Raymond, a police sergeant who is also a plaintiff in the arrest-quota case. “The narratives will be embellished to fit the parameters of probable cause, if need be.”
‘A Surreal Journey’

To be sure, there are other motives for lying, other than to cover up illegal searches.

Some police officers have said they faced pressure from commanders to write more tickets or make more arrests. A decade ago, narcotics detectives were found to have falsely accused people of dealing drugs in order to meet arrest quotas.

And there is pressure to solve — or at least close — cases. That may have motivated Officer Martinez’s gun-in-the-laundry-bag-in-the-doorway story.

What appears to have actually happened is that Officer Martinez and other officers searched inside the apartment for evidence from a nearby shooting. They had good reason to focus on that apartment. The victim, after being shot, had rushed there, along with others. Crime-scene photos taken by the department’s Evidence Collection Team suggest that a gun was found inside the apartment, in or near a laundry bag on the floor.

But whose gun was it? That was not clear. A number of people had been in the apartment in the preceding hours. And Ms. Thomas, who lived more than a mile away and arrived about an hour after the shooting, was one of the few people there when Officer Martinez showed up.

There is little, if any, evidence tying Ms. Thomas to the gun other than Officer Martinez’s false testimony that placed her in the doorway with the laundry bag in her arms. Prosecutors acknowledged that DNA testing indicates that Ms. Thomas did not handle the gun. Moreover, court papers that prosecutors filed after the case fell apart noted that the police appear to have focused on Ms. Thomas while ignoring other potential suspects. Several other people had entered the apartment shortly before Ms. Thomas — “none of whom are questioned by the police,” the prosecutors’ papers noted.

As for Officer Martinez’s false story of the laundry bag in the doorway, the prosecution’s legal papers noted only that “there are clear inconsistencies” between Officer Martinez’s “recollection of events and the video.”

“At no time in this video is there a laundry bag in the defendant’s hands,” the prosecution’s legal papers noted. “Neither is there a bag in the doorway of the apartment, and at no time is the arresting officer observed moving a bag before entering the apartment.”

By the time prosecutors officially dropped the case in November 2017, Ms. Thomas had already appeared in court 16 times, according to a tally of appearances kept by one of her lawyers, Alexandra Conlon, of the Bronx Defenders. On the last appearance, Ms. Thomas, 39, asked to address the court. “For 396 days I have been fighting for my life, my freedom and my sanity,” she said. “This has been such a surreal journey that I don’t wish on anyone.”

Officer Martinez remains in good standing at the 41st Precinct. Shortly after the case was dismissed, he was promoted to detective and given his gold shield. When a reporter tried to interview him in January about his testimony in the case, he declined to comment, saying, “That’s not something I can speak about directly with you.”
Title: Profiling!
Post by: G M on May 19, 2018, 06:43:15 AM
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article211166024.html

A major reason body cams are a good idea.
Title: Why cops are standing down
Post by: G M on June 03, 2018, 09:20:57 PM
https://nypost.com/2018/05/30/why-cops-are-standing-down-all-across-america/
Title: Why Baltimore Police Have 'Stopped Noticing Crime'
Post by: G M on July 14, 2018, 06:13:54 AM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/why-baltimore-police-have-stopped-noticing-crime/

Why Baltimore Police Have 'Stopped Noticing Crime'
BY JACK DUNPHY JULY 13, 2018

Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby (AP Photo/Steve Ruark)

An interesting news story ran in Thursday’s USA Today. “Baltimore police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death,” read the headline. “A wave of killings followed.”

What I found most interesting about it, though, was not the facts that were reported but rather that anyone should have found them surprising. “Just before a wave of violence turned Baltimore into the nation’s deadliest big city,” the story begins, “a curious thing happened to its police force: officers suddenly seemed to stop noticing crime.”

The story goes on to describe how Baltimore’s police officers reported seeing fewer drug dealers out and about, fewer traffic violators, fewer people with arrest warrants, fewer of any type of person who previously would have attracted their attention. Note that the story does not say there were fewer of these lawbreakers, only that the police did not report seeing as many.

Surely if the officers were being candid, they would say they saw just as many as ever, but that they made the decision not to do anything about them.

And who can blame them?

For about one third of my career with the Los Angeles Police Department, I was a uniformed sergeant at four different stations in the city. The challenge I and my fellow supervisors faced every day was how to motivate the officers in our charge to go out and practice the type of proactive police work that reduces crime and the fear of crime for the law-abiding citizenry. To that end, we had to make sure the officers were properly trained and equipped for the mission. Equally as important, we had to instill in them the belief that if they received a complaint (and complaints are a tool for lawbreakers to inhibit police activity), it would be investigated fairly and expeditiously.

The most difficult times I faced during my years with the LAPD were during the years Bernard Parks served as its chief. Parks, in an overreaction to the Rampart scandal (which, though a genuine scandal, was confined to a handful of officers at a single police station), had disbanded the LAPD’s gang units and instituted a disciplinary system that placed a penalty on proactive police work. It was under Chief Parks that I attended a supervisors’ meeting after a week in which my patrol division had seen four murders and a wave of lesser crimes. Despite these grim statistics, not a single word at this meeting touched on the subject of crime. What did we talk about? Citizen complaints. And even at that we didn’t discuss them in terms of the corrosive effect they were having on officer morale. Instead, we talked about the processing of the paperwork and the minutia of formatting the reports. Fighting crime, it seemed, had taken a back seat to dealing with citizen complaints, even the most frivolous of which required hours and hours of a supervisor’s time to investigate and complete the required reports.

As one might have expected, officers reacted to these disincentives by practicing “drive-and-wave” policing. Yes, they responded to radio calls as ever, but it became all but impossible to coax them out of their cars to investigate suspicious activity when they came upon it. As one might also have expected, the crime numbers reflected this change in police attitudes. Violent crime, which had been falling for seven years, began to increase and continued to increase until Bernard Parks was let go and replaced by William Bratton.

Which brings us back to Baltimore, where, USA Today informs us, 342 people were murdered in 2017, bringing its murder rate to an all-time high and making it the deadliest large city in America. (Baltimore’s population last year was about 611,000. In Los Angeles, by comparison, with a population of about 3.8 million, there were 293 murders last year.)

The Baltimore crime wave can be traced, almost to the very day in April 2015, that Freddie Gray, a small-time drug dealer and petty criminal, died in police custody. When Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby made the ill-considered decision to charge six officers in Gray’s death, she sent a clear message to the rest of the city’s police officers: concerns about crime and disorder will be subordinated to the quest for social justice.

As was the case in Los Angeles years ago, the result was entirely predictable. Officers disengaged from proactive police work, minimizing their risk of being the next cop to be seated in the defendant’s chair in some Marilyn Mosby show trial. The prevailing thought among Baltimore’s cops was something like this: They can make me come to work, they can make me handle my calls and take my reports, but they can’t make me chase the next hoodlum with a gun I come across, because if I chase him I might catch him, and if I catch him I might have to hit him or, heaven forbid, shoot him. And if that happens and Marilyn Mosby comes to the opinion that I transgressed in any way . . . well, forget it. Let the bodies fall where they may, and I’ll be happy to put up the crime-scene tape and wait for the detectives and the coroner to show up.

None of this is to excuse the corruption that has been uncovered in the Baltimore Police Department, the result not only of moral defects in the involved cops but also of spectacular failures in the agency’s leadership. But it is the political establishment of Baltimore that allowed the Police Department to go so far astray, to the horror of the city’s honest cops and its vulnerable citizens.

The people of Baltimore, at least those who have supported this political establishment, have gotten what they wanted. The police are stopping fewer people and getting fewer complaints, and if the price to be paid is an all-time high murder rate, that’s just the cost of social justice. For this to change, some brave politician is going to have to stand up and say, “Enough.”

Title: Vets' attitudes towards police
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 17, 2018, 02:05:09 PM
https://taskandpurpose.com/veterans-dislike-police-officers/?bsft_eid=6bf83495-323c-4e87-a849-2a6f864fd212&bsft_pid=0c46bbb1-fbfb-44f6-84aa-bc6e5e6e5373&utm_campaign=tp_daily_thursday_pm&utm_source=blueshift&utm_medium=email&utm_content=tp_daily_pm_ricks&bsft_clkid=a8df77b7-0f67-4325-84c1-fc0641d788e5&bsft_uid=74df6c17-3bc9-4427-b2cc-7fcda9e445f3&bsft_mid=f7cc4445-5de9-4529-82d5-304fdc527d74&bsft_pp=5
Title: David French: I've changed the way I cover
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 13, 2018, 11:10:41 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/police-shootings-david-french-changed-writing/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-09-12&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
Title: Was a CCW holder shot by mistake?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 24, 2018, 12:55:01 PM
https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2018/11/man-killed-in-alabama-mall-shooting-likely-did-not-fire-the-rounds-that-injured-2-others-police-said.html?fbclid=IwAR3rGvuFTQsK8O6W1dFnwd2LG-ubQXqAfCLYZy56t2Nqb8c1jg3r0Ygg2yg
Title: Karate expert defends damsel in distress
Post by: ccp on January 06, 2019, 07:19:18 AM
Is this not every martial artist's fantasy?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/05/man-trying-to-kidnap-woman-chases-her-into-wrong-karate-studio/
Title: Case Study: Passenger Side Approach
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2019, 06:13:18 PM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irPrIAVnjqU&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR035c5WV8CpyTuGa9KTgs-yI9GR537jX4ujgcryUzQRueV0hhK7Imzwgb0
Title: Modern policing
Post by: G M on January 12, 2019, 06:52:13 PM
(https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/01/IMG_1142.jpg?w=532&ssl=1)
Title: DEA impersonators try home invasion
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 29, 2019, 08:43:13 PM
https://www.khou.com/article/news/crime/video-fake-dea-agents-caught-on-camera-outside-home-in-pearland/285-3e7802c5-1649-4af1-9097-5a99b4c49075
Title: I smell a lawsuit here, and maybe a prosecution
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 26, 2019, 09:00:56 AM
https://calcoastnews.com/2019/07/san-luis-obispo-police-chief-accused-of-coverup-over-stolen-gun/?fbclid=IwAR23WNYASfy_5BDP_liZZV5hoAw6FWD6kddnyU8NQEwv21LRA8Axc4959uE
Title: Citizen-Police interactions, Minneapolis, Uh oh
Post by: DougMacG on May 26, 2020, 03:39:20 PM
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/26/mpd-chief-arradondo-4-police-officers-fired-following-death-of-george-floyd/
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions, Minneapolis, Uh oh
Post by: G M on May 26, 2020, 09:53:23 PM
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/26/mpd-chief-arradondo-4-police-officers-fired-following-death-of-george-floyd/

And Minneapolis just finished rebuilding from the Justine Damond riots...
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions, Minneapolis, Uh oh
Post by: DougMacG on May 27, 2020, 05:09:47 AM
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/26/mpd-chief-arradondo-4-police-officers-fired-following-death-of-george-floyd/

And Minneapolis just finished rebuilding from the Justine Damond riots...

Yes, I wonder who pays for this stuff...

What was the right way to hold him down, not a knee on the neck?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 27, 2020, 07:18:20 AM
We are having a big discussion about this case on DBMA FB.  All the LEOs there are agreed-- this was fuct up.

Here's an intelligent discussion by a friend of friends-- a man with serious track record-- of the Arbrey case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9PQjo2tJ-g&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions, Minneapolis brutality case
Post by: DougMacG on May 28, 2020, 07:59:39 AM
Last time this happened the cop was black [Somalian-American] and the victim was white foreign national.  Here the video shows the cop is white, the cop watching is white and the man being held down who died is black.  The race of the other two cops? I don't know yet.  [The four officers fired are identified as Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, Tou Thao and J. Alexander Kueng.]
-----------------
"The issue isn’t racism, it is incompetence."
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/05/death-in-minneapolis-revives-blacklivesmatter.php
-----------------
Twitter feed inside the riots and looting:
https://twitter.com/KyleHooten2
It makes perfect sense if you offended by race apparent police brutality that you vandalize or rob the privately owned stores in your area, or the precinct station that already fired everyone involved.


Title: What a curious coincidence
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 29, 2020, 11:05:53 AM
https://anewspost.com/george-floyd-worked-security-at-the-same-nightclub-as-the-cop-who-killed-him/
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions, George Floyd 911 call
Post by: DougMacG on May 29, 2020, 05:20:25 PM
Operator: 911 what's the address of the emergency?
Caller: This is ah 3759 Chicago Ave.
Operator: How can I help you?
Caller: Um someone comes our store and give us fake bills and we realize it before he left the store, and we ran back outside, they was sitting on their car. We tell them to give us their phone, put their (inaudible) thing back and everything and he was also drunk and everything and return to give us our cigarettes back and so he can, so he can go home but he doesn't want to do that, and he's sitting on his car cause he is awfully drunk and he's not in control of himself.
Operator: Okay, what type of vehicle does he have?
Caller: And .... um he's got a vehicle that is ah ... one second let me see if I can see the license. The driver license is BRJ026.
Operator: Okay, what color is it?
Caller: It's a blue color. It's a blue van.
Operator: Blue van?
Caller: Yes, van.
Operator: Alright blue van, gotcha. Is it out front or is it on 38th St.?
Caller: Ah it's on 38th St.
Operator: On 38th St. So, this guy gave a counterfeit bill, has your cigarettes, and he's under the influence of something?
Caller: Something like that, yes. He is not acting right.
Operator: What's he look like, what race?
Caller: Um, he's a tall guy. He's like tall and bald, about like 6 ... 6 1/2, and she's not acting right so and she started to go, drive the car.
Operator: Okay so, female or a male?
Caller: Um...
Operator: Is it a girl or a boy?
Caller: (Talking to somebody else) — he's asking (inaudible) one second. Hello?
Operator: Is it a girl or a boy that did this?
Caller: It is a man.
Operator: Okay. Is he white, black, Native, Hispanic, Asian?
Caller: Something like that.
Operator: Which one? White, black, Native, Hispanic, Asian?
Caller: No, he's a black guy.
Operator: Alright
https://www.insider.com/minneapolis-pd-release-call-transcript-in-george-floyd-arrest-2020-5
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions, Medical examiner, George Floyd
Post by: DougMacG on May 29, 2020, 05:29:42 PM
The full report of the ME is pending but the ME has made the following preliminary findings. The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/05/medical-examiner-george-floyd-wasnt-asphyxiated.php :?
Title: Neck hold was approved policy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 29, 2020, 09:55:42 PM
https://www.lawofficer.com/neck-hold-used-by-minneapolis-officer-was-approved-by-department-policy/
Title: Re: Neck hold was approved policy
Post by: G M on May 29, 2020, 10:01:34 PM
https://www.lawofficer.com/neck-hold-used-by-minneapolis-officer-was-approved-by-department-policy/

Wow! I am very surprised to read this. None of the training I ever had would have approved of this technique. Pinning a shoulder is quite different than placing weight on the neck.
Title: Minnesota Derek Chauvin
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 30, 2020, 02:33:57 PM
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6933246/Derek-Chauvin-Complaint.pdf
Title: Re: Neck hold was approved policy
Post by: DougMacG on May 30, 2020, 02:58:15 PM
https://www.lawofficer.com/neck-hold-used-by-minneapolis-officer-was-approved-by-department-policy/

There it is.  This doesn't make anyone innocent but it the elements required here be the central issue in the trial.  0% of the protesters in this 100% liberal controlled city are aware that knee on the neck is an approved and trained hold for police to use in their city in a narrowly defined situation.

From the link:
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=8028deff4535b493725eb649d36c3b7e00941797-1590851457-0-AYmLk4y8QkESEAP-vrNGC-RkLNDU2TPuK3Z5gng_Xjo1--QI2QTH4vC-cIHQSl8UQ-pioW8NOuxAzUlPxDSDSg5nbwSC3K5l4h2yCpj23lE4SinjYdQ5dh-XpxfLPcmdi1gGYW_vtLI-alrCoF7w7TL6C8JNzhuzbC3jGBZ0siyij-YoHczuAnwwj9O8zaDE0Jx6QWMtg7-BtxW1Wvsfi4l5qHL_T1J_5ZN745fxc6DefO8MP0qn1RlpNtbUKP9BxPwt03BEqWQp2P_n1y43tyOPVZHTmXt4_qHsg1boSQpfaVe5Yn84xPS9gGtn0AZStQ
5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12)

DEFINITIONS I.

Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person’s trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway (04/16/12)

Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)

Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)

Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12)

PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.

The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting. (04/16/12)
The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)
On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;
For life saving purposes, or;
On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.
Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)
After Care Guidelines (04/16/12)
After a neck restraint or choke hold has been used on a subject, sworn MPD employees shall keep them under close observation until they are released to medical or other law enforcement personnel.
An officer who has used a neck restraint or choke hold shall inform individuals accepting custody of the subject, that the technique was used on the subject.
Title: Re: Minnesota Derek Chauvin
Post by: DougMacG on May 30, 2020, 03:52:23 PM
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6933246/Derek-Chauvin-Complaint.pdf

Many examples of Floyd resisting in the complaint. 

"As Officer Lane began speaking with Mr. Floyd, he pulled his gun
out and pointed it at Mr. Floyd’s open window and directed Mr. Floyd to show his hands. When Mr. Floyd
put his hands in the steering wheel, Lane put his gun back in its holster. "
   - Implies resistance before defendant arrived

"Mr. Floyd actively resisted being handcuffed."

"Officers Kueng and Lane stood Mr. Floyd up and attempted to walk Mr. Floyd to their squad car (MPD 320) at 8:14 p.m. Mr. Floyd stiffened up, fell to the ground, and told the officers he was claustrophobic. "    = resistance

"The officers made several attempts to get Mr. Floyd in the backseat of squad 320 from the driver’s side.  Mr. Floyd did not voluntarily get in the car and struggled with the officers by intentionally falling down, saying he was not going in the car, and refusing to stand still. Mr. Floyd is over six feet tall and weighs more than 200 pounds."
    - Major resistance

While standing outside the car, Mr. Floyd began saying and repeating that he could not breathe.
    - This was before being on the ground, before the knee to the neck.

"The defendant pulled Mr. Floyd out of the passenger side of the squad car at 8:19:38 p.m. and Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down and still handcuffed."
    - Either resistance or medical or intoxication drop.

"Kueng held Mr. Floyd’s back and Lane held his legs."
    - Implies resistance.
--------------------------------------------------------
The part bothering most people as much as the visual of the knee to the neck:
**Mr. Floyd said, “I can’t breathe” multiple times**
But he was breathing, right? Multiple times.

"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had
underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely
contributed to his death."

The Complaint reads like a defense exhibit.  I'm not taking the officer's side but the trial is not the slam dunk that people think.
Title: Floyd's criminal record
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 30, 2020, 11:22:21 PM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8366533/George-Floyd-moved-Minneapolis-start-new-life-released-prison-Texas.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead
Title: Circular firing squad of stupidity
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 02, 2020, 12:43:52 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifqd-MQN5bQ
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions, toxic narrative is wrong
Post by: DougMacG on June 03, 2020, 04:04:14 AM
https://www.city-journal.org/toxic-narrative-about-police-is-wrong
Title: Heather Mac Donald: The Myth of Systemic Police Racism
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2020, 08:30:03 AM
The Myth of Systemic Police Racism
Hold officers accountable who use excessive force. But there’s no evidence of widespread racial bias.
By Heather Mac Donald
June 2, 2020 1:44 pm ET

George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis has revived the Obama-era narrative that law enforcement is endemically racist. On Friday, Barack Obama tweeted that for millions of black Americans, being treated differently by the criminal justice system on account of race is “tragically, painfully, maddeningly ‘normal.’ ” Mr. Obama called on the police and the public to create a “new normal,” in which bigotry no longer “infects our institutions and our hearts.”

Joe Biden released a video the same day in which he asserted that all African-Americans fear for their safety from “bad police” and black children must be instructed to tolerate police abuse just so they can “make it home.” That echoed a claim Mr. Obama made after the ambush murder of five Dallas officers in July 2016. During their memorial service, the president said African-American parents were right to fear that their children may be killed by police officers whenever they go outside.


Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz denounced the “stain . . . of fundamental, institutional racism” on law enforcement during a Friday press conference. He claimed blacks were right to dismiss promises of police reform as empty verbiage.

This charge of systemic police bias was wrong during the Obama years and remains so today. However sickening the video of Floyd’s arrest, it isn’t representative of the 375 million annual contacts that police officers have with civilians. A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing. Crime and suspect behavior, not race, determine most police actions.

In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.

The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

On Memorial Day weekend in Chicago alone, 10 African-Americans were killed in drive-by shootings. Such routine violence has continued—a 72-year-old Chicago man shot in the face on May 29 by a gunman who fired about a dozen shots into a residence; two 19-year-old women on the South Side shot to death as they sat in a parked car a few hours earlier; a 16-year-old boy fatally stabbed with his own knife that same day. This past weekend, 80 Chicagoans were shot in drive-by shootings, 21 fatally, the victims overwhelmingly black. Police shootings are not the reason that blacks die of homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined; criminal violence is.

The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is “no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police,” they concluded.

A 2015 Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found that white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects. Research by Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. also found no evidence of racial discrimination in shootings. Any evidence to the contrary fails to take into account crime rates and civilian behavior before and during interactions with police.

The false narrative of systemic police bias resulted in targeted killings of officers during the Obama presidency. The pattern may be repeating itself. Officers are being assaulted and shot at while they try to arrest gun suspects or respond to the growing riots. Police precincts and courthouses have been destroyed with impunity, which will encourage more civilization-destroying violence. If the Ferguson effect of officers backing off law enforcement in minority neighborhoods is reborn as the Minneapolis effect, the thousands of law-abiding African-Americans who depend on the police for basic safety will once again be the victims.

The Minneapolis officers who arrested George Floyd must be held accountable for their excessive use of force and callous indifference to his distress. Police training needs to double down on de-escalation tactics. But Floyd’s death should not undermine the legitimacy of American law enforcement, without which we will continue on a path toward chaos.

Ms. Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of “The War on Cops,” (Encounter Books, 2016).
Title: Mises: Why abusive cops so often keep their jobs
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2020, 08:31:54 AM
second post

https://mises.org/wire/why-abusive-cops-so-often-keep-their-jobs
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions, charges upgraded
Post by: DougMacG on June 04, 2020, 05:01:27 AM
https://www.fox9.com/news/3-other-minneapolis-police-officers-charged-in-george-floyds-death-chauvin-charges-upgraded

Looks like riot incite AG Ellison wants the mob to hear the words 'not guilty'.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions, Heather MacDonald, WSJ, not systemic
Post by: DougMacG on June 04, 2020, 05:03:09 AM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883?mod=markets_trending_now_article_pos1
In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.

The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.
---------------------------------------
Study referred to in above article:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877
Title: NYPD just following orders
Post by: G M on June 04, 2020, 07:55:34 PM
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/06/04/as-rioters-destroy-new-york-cops-disperse-jewish-families-at-a-playground-n495368
Title: Anything to this (Duncan Lemp)?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 06, 2020, 08:00:12 AM
https://pjmedia.com/columns/megan-fox/2020/06/02/we-dont-have-a-racism-problem-we-have-a-deep-state-problem-the-hideous-police-killing-of-duncan-lemp-n484233
Title: Re: Anything to this (Duncan Lemp)?
Post by: G M on June 06, 2020, 07:27:07 PM
https://pjmedia.com/columns/megan-fox/2020/06/02/we-dont-have-a-racism-problem-we-have-a-deep-state-problem-the-hideous-police-killing-of-duncan-lemp-n484233

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-mystery-deepens-over-the-pre-dawn-police-killing-of-duncan-lemp/
Title: Case Study in Cowardice
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 06, 2020, 08:36:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=81&v=iwyrcounlgk&feature=emb_logo

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/video-man-with-knife-robs-deli-as-cops-watch-gets-disarmed-by-clerk-then-shot-uDMc8BGTXkOfPIoKBp0sIg
Title: Black Cops shoot unarmed white man in Chicago
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 07, 2020, 05:35:29 PM


https://thesource.com/2020/03/02/watch-black-cop-shoots-unarmed-white-man-in-chicago/
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: DougMacG on June 08, 2020, 06:21:52 AM
As Minneapolis votes to end the knee to neck restraint as a legal, trained, published, accepted tactic - AFTER - the death of George Floyd, doesn't that lose this soon to be all important court case for them? 

https://www.startribune.com/good-riddance-to-neck-restraint-tactic/571059552/

Worst case for the officer IMHO, he is guilty of the manslaughter charge, which means a Not Guilty verdict for the two higher charges including intentional murder, and a Not Guilty verdict for at least two of the other three officers.

Meanwhile, the state government who has taken over the prosecution of this case and elevated the charges to intentional murder lists George Floyd as a COVID death casualty. 

In this mess, we have:
George Floyd who was too intoxicated to stand up, sitting in the driver's seat on a city street now named for him, resisting police,
the officer who mis-applied a trained procedure to the wrong situation with a worse than bad outcome,
officers in training helping him,
the state government who classify people who died with COVIDsame as people who died of COVID,
protesters chasing a false narrative,
inflamed by dishonest media,
in a City who votes to disband their police department,
and a state AG who elevated charges to the point of absurd.

Who is the incompetent one here?

All of the above.
Title: Not a good look , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 08, 2020, 12:48:15 PM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZaoz9ZRVOc&feature=share
Title: Wave goodbye
Post by: G M on June 09, 2020, 07:17:14 PM
https://www.lawofficer.com/america-we-are-leaving/

Plan accordingly.
Title: Nothing business, it was personal: Chauvin & Floyd
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 10, 2020, 06:35:38 AM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-derek-chauvin-nightclub-bumped-heads/
Title: Re: Nothing business, it was personal: Chauvin & Floyd
Post by: DougMacG on June 10, 2020, 09:00:40 AM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-derek-chauvin-nightclub-bumped-heads/

So much of what happened we still don't know.  Why did two other officers also feel the need to help hold him down too.  The initial complaint says active resistance.  Why were so many sent to the scene of such a small crime.  There is much more footage we haven't seen.   They knew they were being watched, had to know they were being filmed.  Who called the ambulance?  When?  Why?  Because he was unarrestable by 4 officers and additional Park Police on scene in his condition and with his resistance.

The only hint of race being a factor in the incident is a bystander saying it's because he's black.  The hold is a shin, not a knee?  The hold was justified while he was resisting but not justified after the resistance stopped?  Isn't that too late if the hold was the cause of death?  The deceased had meth, opioid intoxication, Covid, hypertension and  exerting "active resistance" to the arrest.  Did his active resistance contribute to the death?  What percentage, enough that he wouldn't have died if he hadn't resisted? 

The deceased has both good and bad stuff on his background.  Same for the officer.  All previous complaints were dismissed. TwinCities.com (St. Paul paper) reported in 2008 that Chauvin "received a department medal of valor for his response in an incident involving a man armed with a gun.”

https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/derek-chauvin/
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: DougMacG on June 15, 2020, 09:15:19 AM
Police brutality epidemic?

(https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2020/06/IMG_0068.jpeg?w=789&ssl=1)
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/06/chronicles-of-the-crazy-times-4.php

Believe it or not, the United States is arguably underpoliced. At least compared to European nations. On a per capita basis, the United States has one-third fewer police officers than the European average.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/06/underpoliced-and-overprisoned-revisited.html
Title: Why Chauvin may get off
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 15, 2020, 10:46:45 PM
https://medium.com/@gavrilodavid/why-derek-chauvin-may-get-off-his-murder-charge-2e2ad8d0911
Title: Just another day on the Thin Blue Line
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 18, 2020, 07:51:00 PM
https://bluelivesmatter.blue/video-man-with-knife-chases-lone-cop-around-car-before-she-shoots-him/
Title: Citizen-Police interactions, Rayshard Brooks, Atlanta, Wendy's drive through,
Post by: DougMacG on June 19, 2020, 05:18:30 AM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8431801/Rayshard-Brooks-probation-faced-going-prison-charged-DUI.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/18/brooks-floyd-deaths-police-misconduct-not-always-racist-column/3206372001/

Another "gentle giant"?  What a whole bunch of these incidents have in common is that the apprehended, who is resisting, is so much bigger and stronger than the arresting officers.  To me, those facts, big, strong and actively resisting arrest, are much more relevant to the situation than race.  Obviously, if he hadn't resisted, he'd be alive.  Also, if he was of ordinary size and strength and resisted, he would have been subdued rather easily by the two officers willing to wrestle him to the ground, and he would likely be safe in police custody facing one extra charge for resisting, instead of dead.

Lies of the media inciters:  He was shot for being asleep in the drive through.  Or he was shot in the back while fleeing?  He was shot while firing a disabling weapon at the officer who shot him.  If he was just "fleeing", he would have been shot.  Why lie, except to incite and fit a narrative.  And what the hell did race have to do with it?  Just that everyone in the story has a race if have to put people in these categories. If it takes falsehoods to fit the narrative, maybe the narrative is false.

If we're going to second guess everything, maybe drunk driving laws shouldn't apply to people who are asleep in their car. - on private, commercial property.  Maybe the .08 law is the wrong measure of drunk.  This guy wasn't that intoxicated, but was headed back to prison if arrested.

I don't want to live in a police state full of all kinds of unnecessary laws  for victimless crimes.  But worse yet is to live in a society where the forces of the street thugs are more powerful than law enforcement.
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 19, 2020, 05:36:03 AM
Looks like FB is blocking me from posting this on the DBMA FB page:
===================

Nir Maman
14 hrs ·

Lately, I have been tirelessly getting dragged into ‘debates’ on Police application of lethal force, by of course, none other than the social media tactical force science guru experts who simply know nothing as it relates to Policing, because well, their Policing training and experience comes from the CNN Police academy!

The funny thing is, when you call these buffoons out on the fact that they’re not qualified to even form an opinion on the matter, they throw a tantrum, then a hissy fit, then they de-friend and block you on Facebook! LOL!

In any event, there absolutely are more than enough people on here, who don’t come from the profession of Law Enforcement profession that have legitimate questions, which I am always more than happy to take the time to answer when I can to help better educate people on the realities of our profession.

One such subject that has come up quite a bit in the past week, is the subject of Police Officers “shooting someone in the back”.

There’s a lot more that should be presented on the subject, but in short, here is an explanation I provided to hopefully help people understand how it ends up that subjects are shot in the back **in justifiable Police shootings**:
(And yes, there sure is some attitude on my part that seeps through in my explanation, for as I explained, unfortunately too many people believe they can formulate opinions and judge on subjects they know NOTHING about. And well, that’s not only irresponsible, negligent, and dumb...but it’s also frustrating)
—————-

The arguments on the subject of ‘Officers shooting a subject in the back’ is one that way too many people latch onto while having absolutely ZERO knowledge, experience, or intellect on all the variables that factually occur in a dynamic stress induced life and death situation.

People allow themselves to look at freeze frames of an unfolding and rolling dynamic scenario, from a third party point of view, where in addition to lacking any of the expertise and training on how to assess and address that scenario from beginning to end, they are also entirely deprived of all the emotional, physiological, psychological, and human factors that each Police Officer is bound by, given that we’re always a human under that uniform before anything else, and while entirely deprived of all those crucial factors, think they can decide what has factually happened.

Without going into the many variables that goes through an Officer’s mind and physiology when they’re in that exact moment of pulling the trigger on an individual that has just attempted to incapacitate or kill you, I will explain what happens to these subjects that end up getting shot in the back:

Legally, There are quite a few scenarios that on face value warrant an Officer shooting a subject in the back, with intent to shoot them in the back, when the subject has demonstrated that they have the intent and means to kill someone (including the Officer) and they are still fully capable of carrying out that threat while they are running and may potentially be able to enact their deadly force on any other person reasonablly accessible to them immediately or potentially if they manage to get away from the Officer.

That said, in practically every single case where you see a subject shot in the back, the moment in time the Officer pulled the trigger, the subject did not have their backs turned to the Officer.

The transition between a point where an Officer is facing a subject’s empty hands and where suddenly one of those subject’s hands is now holding a gun pointed at the Officer’s face, happens in milliseconds.

There are seconds added to an Officer’s ability to perceive that change in the subject’s behavior, process the sudden existence of a deadly threat in that scenario, and respond physically (which takes seconds).

All this while the Officer has to also contend with the immediate impact of life and death stress which affects us in numerous physiological ways.

Take all the above, and now add what the vermin scumbags do:

When scumbags pull guns/weapons on us, 100% of EVERY SINGLE TIME, it’s for no other reason than because they committed a crime, we caught them, they’re about to go to jail, as far as they’re conserned they are not going to jail, they have made up their minds that they are willing and going to kill us in order to escape, and then, they put all that into kinetic action.

When they enact their deadly force (or threat of) against us, they usually do so while also beginning the process of RUNNING AWAY!

When they run away...they turn and face away from us.

Sometimes, they

1. fire their weapon at us,

2. stop firing,

3. then turn, and

4. run.

however, where as you’re reading those last four steps in four separate actions separated by comas, in real life, those four steps are dynamically executed in as close to one continuous motion. Meaning, it all happens at once, especially to the perception capability of the human facing the subject who is enacting all those steps against him/her.

Somewhere within those four steps of action being enacted by the subject, the Officer perceives, analyzes, and produces their weapon to return fire to save their lives.

All this happens in fractions of seconds!

And the two sets of actions (the subject’s and the Officer’s) take place at varying points in relation to one another....but the order never changes, it’s Officers who react to the subject’s decided upon actions.

Additionally, as the human mind’s reaction process will always dictate, it takes an Officer as much time and processing to identify that the subject’s behavior has changed...i.e: the subject has now turned, the subject has stopped shooting at the Officer, the subject’s weapon arm has lowered or has turned away, to name a few.

Because of how dynamically all this unfolds, it is sometimes entirely unavoidable to shoot a subject in the back.

It is not the Officer who shoots the subject in the back, but the subject who dictates by decisive action against the Officer, that the Officer will have to shoot them, and once putting the Officer on that course of action, the subject ends up turning their back to the Officer during the Officer’s enactment of his/her life saving actions.

In other words, it’s unavoidable. This is why practically every single case you see in the news of an Officer shooting a subject in the back, the Officers are deemed to have justifiably applied lethal force and are cleared by the investigation.

There are also the incidents, more than enough of them that occur, where subjects actually intently and continuously shoot at the Officers while running away...meaning their backs are constantly exposed to the the Officer throughout the lethal exchange both ways.

As it specifically relates to the Atlanta incident with Officer Rolfe: brooks was running away, he demonstrates more than enough of the requisite variables that he was an immediate threat to the safety and life of the Officers, he disarmed one of the Officers (was now in known possession of a weapon - a deadly only one his hands), made it clear from the moment he began resisting arrest that he was willing to escape the law at any cost, was actively running away from the Officers, turned and fired the taser at Officer Rolfe’s face while still actively running away, began to swing his arm back towards his front as Officer Rolfe deployed his firearm and fired.

There are numerous extenuating circumstances here as well, such as the fact that Officer Rolfe may have reasonably not known if the weapon brook’s discharged at him was in fact the taser he took from the Officer or a handgun he may have had concealed and accessed while running.

It was a 100% ethically, morally, and legally justifiable shooting by the Officer, and he will end up being acquitted, if those charges aren’t even dropped before it reaches court.

People need to stop judging and reaching conclusions on subjects they have no business judging. Period.
Title: Unarmed Black Men killed by cops?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 28, 2020, 11:19:16 AM
https://patriotpost.us/articles/72453-about-those-unarmed-black-men-killed-by-cops-dot-dot-dot-2020-07-28?mailing_id=5221&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.5221&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
Title: That car sure looked like a motorcycle , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 04, 2020, 12:48:47 PM
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/aurora-police-detain-black-family-after-mistaking-their-vehicle-as-stolen
Title: Re: That car sure looked like a motorcycle , , ,
Post by: G M on August 04, 2020, 01:12:57 PM
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/aurora-police-detain-black-family-after-mistaking-their-vehicle-as-stolen

That's all we need...

No common sense. You ALWAYS confirm what comes back on the MDC.

Title: New George Floyd footage
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 04, 2020, 03:20:08 PM


https://www.dailywire.com/news/george-floyd-body-cam-footage-is-out/
Title: Re: That car sure looked like a motorcycle , , ,
Post by: DougMacG on August 05, 2020, 04:33:16 AM
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/aurora-police-detain-black-family-after-mistaking-their-vehicle-as-stolen

"I totally understand that anger, and don’t want to diminish that anger, but I will say it wasn’t a profiling incident. It was a hit that came through the system"

The problem IMHO is presumed guilty police tactics.  Police should, in my view, shoot the plate scanner or the radar gun AFTER they observe the vehicle do something wrong, not shoot every car just for being there.
Title: Re: That car sure looked like a motorcycle , , ,
Post by: G M on August 05, 2020, 02:22:54 PM
ALPR (Automated License Plate Reader) cameras are usually always on. Officers with the technology will cruise through parking lots and find lots of stolen cars, warrants.


https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/aurora-police-detain-black-family-after-mistaking-their-vehicle-as-stolen

"I totally understand that anger, and don’t want to diminish that anger, but I will say it wasn’t a profiling incident. It was a hit that came through the system"

The problem IMHO is presumed guilty police tactics.  Police should, in my view, shoot the plate scanner or the radar gun AFTER they observe the vehicle do something wrong, not shoot every car just for being there.
Title: Re: That car sure looked like a motorcycle , , ,
Post by: G M on August 05, 2020, 05:35:08 PM
ALPR (Automated License Plate Reader) cameras are usually always on. Officers with the technology will cruise through parking lots and find lots of stolen cars, warrants.


https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/aurora-police-detain-black-family-after-mistaking-their-vehicle-as-stolen

"I totally understand that anger, and don’t want to diminish that anger, but I will say it wasn’t a profiling incident. It was a hit that came through the system"

The problem IMHO is presumed guilty police tactics.  Police should, in my view, shoot the plate scanner or the radar gun AFTER they observe the vehicle do something wrong, not shoot every car just for being there.

https://www.theiacp.org/projects/automated-license-plate-recognition
Title: No power vacuums in human affairs
Post by: G M on August 11, 2020, 07:43:29 AM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/08/11/policing-ugly-truth-neighborhood-patrols-failures-column/3334613001/
Title: Kenosha: Blake had knife in car
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 26, 2020, 09:24:15 PM


https://www.foxnews.com/us/blake-had-knife-in-car-when-kenosha-cop-shot-him-wisconsin-doj
Title: The Blake Case
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 28, 2020, 09:31:55 AM
From May 2020

https://archive.is/YcYRU

Were the officers on the scene when he was shot aware of this?
Title: Re: Citizen-Police interactions, Heather MacDonald video
Post by: DougMacG on August 30, 2020, 03:25:39 PM
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/07/youtube-throws-in-the-towel.php

Youtube previously banned this video full of facts and truth.
Title: Jacob Blake's record
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 30, 2020, 04:40:40 PM
https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-before-you-honor-jacob-blake-as-a-martyr-read-the-criminal-complaint-against-him/
Title: NJ: Bad Cops
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 31, 2020, 12:03:59 PM
https://www.insider.com/cops-admitted-vandalized-cars-man-filed-complaints-2020-8
Title: Breona Taylor case
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 24, 2020, 10:49:47 AM
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/63943132/breonna-taylor-summary-redacted1
Title: VA bans no knock warrants
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 29, 2020, 04:46:47 AM
https://www.theepochtimes.com/virginia-governor-signs-bill-banning-no-knock-warrants_3557097.html

Good!!!
Title: Tacoma PD runs over mob
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 24, 2021, 05:08:16 PM
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tacoma-police-cruiser-plows-through-crowd-hooligans-illegal-street-race?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter