Category Archives: cops

Investigation into prosecutorial misconduct means no questions asked

On April 14th, I wrote about a Kentucky prosecution for murder during the midst of which an exculpatory statement was discovered in the truck of a detective and it was made known that the statement was “accidentally” suppressed by the former prosecutor, Tom Van De Rostyne. The man who replaced Van De Rostyne, Commonwealth Attorney Wise, promised an investigation into the suppression.

Turns out, by investigation, he meant “ve vill ask ze qveschuns!

In a motion filed last week, prosecutors acknowledge that they failed to turn over a summary of an interview with Hammond’s former girlfriend, Princess Bolin, until it was discovered after Bolin had testified, but asked a judge to quash the subpoena seeking testimony from Wine about what happened.

The case ended in a mistrial and the defense has asked that it be dismissed, in part, because of prosecutorial misconduct. A hearing could be held as soon as Wednesday on whether Wine will be called to testify.

Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Dorislee Gilbert said in her motion that, “while it might be inviting to want to know the reason that this happened, the reason it happened is not relevant” to the issue before the court, which is whether the case should move forward to another trial or be dismissed.

It only matters that the evidence was not turned over; the how and why of it is irrelevant because it involves a prosecutor. The fact that the reason for withholding the exculpatory information may lead to other evidence that may have been suppressed has apparently escaped the prosecutor seeking to quash the subpoena.

This attitude is an increasingly prevalent one wherein “the people’s attorneys” are answerable to no one but themselves. When you vest that much power in the hands of people, exculpatory statements naturally find their ways into trucks.

A cop in sheep’s clothing

You’re poor. You’ve been arrested. You go to court and you can’t afford to hire a private attorney, so the court tells you to apply for a public defender. You go to their office and fill out a form and they ask you some questions. You have to tell them how much you make, how many dependents you have and how many assets you have. They thank you, give you your next court date and say that they have to complete an investigation into your finances before a final appointment is made.

That’s fine, you say. It makes sense. People shouldn’t be getting taxpayer funded services if they don’t qualify. Many states have made it a crime to lie on the application for public defender services and at least one state has held that there’s no confidentiality in the information provided in those applications.

So you go home and one day a nice man, Eric Carrizales, knocks on your door and says he’s here to investigate whether you really qualify for the public defender.

Carrizales spends a couple of hours a day at the courthouse sifting through applications and going to applicants’ homes to talk about their answers.

What a great public service. The Indigency Council that makes the appointments is tremendously happy about Carrizales’ work:

“Stop and frisk on steroids”

A terrific piece of investigative journalism by Fusion TV reveals what they call “Suspect City” – Miami Gardens in Florida, where, of a population of 110,000, nearly 65,000 people have been stopped by police since 2008.

Fusion’s analysis of more than 30,000 pages of field contact reports, shows how aggressive and far-reaching the police actions were. Some residents were stopped, questioned and written up multiple times within minutes of each other, by different officers. Children were stopped by police in playgrounds. Senior citizens were stopped and questioned near their retirement home, including a 99-year-old man deemed to be “suspicious.” Officers even wrote a report identifying a five-year-old child as a “suspicious person.”

From The Atlantic, which covered this:

After a 6-month investigation, the TV network Fusion has documented a racist, illegal policing strategy that a local public defender calls “stop and frisk on steroids.” One Miami Gardens police officer reports that his supervisor ordered him to stop all black males between the ages of 15 and 30. Just 110,754 people live in Miami Gardens, yet going back to 2008, police have stopped and questioned 56,922 people who were not arrested. There were 99,980 total stops that did not lead to arrests, and 250 individuals were stopped more than 20 times. 

Racism is alive and well, America, and it’s far more than some ads on TV or some old white guy saying racist things to someone on the phone. This is real and it’s happening under our noses and we don’t care.

 

Should I Wurie about my cell phone or is there no need to get Riled up?

I don’t want to hear anything about the “puns” in the title. Just shut it.

As you’re no doubt aware, the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument yesterday in two cases, Riley v. California [PDF] and United States v. Wurie [PDF].

As I wrote about extensively in this March 28th column in the Connecticut Law Tribune, the issue in these two cases is under what circumstances can police search the contents of your cell phone after they arrest you and what is the extent of those searches.

We’d all feared what a disaster the oral argument might turn out to be, given that the Court is made up of all really old people. Well, we need to put that aside because the Court came prepared. Aside from one really bizarre exchange about phone encryption, they were mostly spot on about the phone, the amount of content the phones have and the potential for danger if they permitted a blanket rule allowing searches.

When everyone is a criminal, you don’t need the Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. By now, it should be painfully obvious that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to anyone, because there are no more “people” left in the United States, only criminals and potential criminals. Our government spies on us willy-nilly, our legislators erode our rights on a daily basis under the banner of protecting the children and our courts continually perpetuate the notion that there are two groups in the US: “us” and “them”. It is also becoming increasingly clear that “us” refers only to law enforcement and “them” is anyone else.

Yesterday, in Navarette v. California [PDF], Justice Thomas wrote a 5-4 decision in which he upheld a police officer pulling over a car and then finding marijuana.

Now, as Popehat explains, the law before Navarette was as follows:

Seeing is disbelieving: in spite of video edition

cafe-wall-line-illusion

This is not a trick question: what do you think has superior recall of the facts – your memory or a video of the incident?

No prizes for guessing correctly. But despite that, 5 judges in the State of Indiana went with their imaginations discretion in ruling [PDF] that a car had actually swerved into oncoming traffic despite the fact that it had not, and thus a police officer was justified in pulling the driver over for the horrifying crime of having a BAC level of 0.09.

Around 1:00 a.m. on October 15, 2011, Deputy Casey Claeys of the Elkhart County   Sheriff’s Department was following another vehicle down County Road 4. Deputy Claeys later   testified he saw the vehicle “drive off the right side, which was the south side of the road, twice.”

Okay, so that’s what the cop says. What does the video say?

[T]he trial court stated it “reviewed the video on approximately ten occasions and cannot conclude from the video that the defendant’s vehicle actually left the roadway . . . but it does show the vehicle veering on two occasions onto the white fog line.”

Are you laughing or crying? I can’t tell. I’m doing both. So the video doesn’t support the proposition that the car left the roadway. Remember the officer said that it had veered off the road. Veered. Off. The. Road. Meanwhile the video shows that maybe it touched the white line.

So how do you reconcile that? Magic and the power of being a judge:

The trial court noted, however, that it was “quite possible that the officer’s actual visual observation of the defendant’s vehicle was superior to the video camera in his car.”

Got it? The officer’s memory is that much better than a video recording of the event.

This is important because if the car hadn’t actually left the roadway or god forbid, veered across a line for a second, the officer wouldn’t have any reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop, which led to the arrest.

They need some reason – a traffic violation, say – to pull you over. Then when they notice you making ‘furtive movements’ and describe your eyes as ‘glassy’, they can arrest you for being drunk.

But this? This really just obviates the need for recording, because if the video can be superseded by an obviously biased officer’s “recollection” of the incident, then they can claim that their recollection is that you were driving with your windows down, AK-47s blasting into the air while screaming “fuck tha police” and taking exaggerated swigs of Crystal while simultaneously pissing on a photo of George Washington and wiping your ass with the American flag.

That scenario is just about as absurd as what the judges ruled in this case.

But no, you keep believing in the system.

Update: Scott wrote about this earlier in the week.

In disregarding FOIA laws, CT lege has assistance from police departments

For a State that bills itself the Constitution state, Connecticut sure is running into a lot of problems with the First Amendment and Freedom of Information Laws, which seek to make government transparent.

First, the legislature, in a midnight session behind closed doors severely restricted FOI access in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting. Then there were the disingenuous arguments by the state’s attorney to keep 911 calls private, and finally a new task force that’s further scaling back the FOIA public access provisions.

But yesterday, a tremendous investigative reporting project by the New Haven Register and associated newspapers concluded that most police departments in Connecticut are doing a terrible job of complying with FOIA laws by failing to release information to the public:

Under state Freedom of Information law, the record of arrest is public information. This means the name and address of the person arrested, the date, time and place of the arrest and the offense, and at least one of the following designated by the law enforcement agency: the arrest report, the incident report, news release or other similar report of an arrest.

The law also calls police records public records, with some exemptions: the identity of informants, signed statements of witnesses, information which would be prejudicial to a law enforcement action, investigatory techniques not known to the general public, juvenile arrest records, the identity of a sexual assault victim and uncorroborated allegations.

So, of all of these, what were they able to get?

State police troops typically got a B– range by providing arrest logs, but refusing to give detailed reports out. Troop G, however, didn’t even give an arrest log during a compliance check, so it was the only state police troop to get an F.  “That’s impossible,” state police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said, when told our reporter got no information at Troop G. “Arrest logs and press releases are available to anyone in the lobby.”

Twenty-six departments got an A– rating, for both providing an arrest log and an in-depth report, though these sometimes asked for our identity, or don’t provide information online.  Overall, about 25 percent of police departments got a score in the A range.

Another 61 departments or troops, or about 59 percent of them, got a rating in the B range. These departments typically gave an arrest log, but weren’t forthcoming with in-depth reports.

Seven departments scored in the C range, such as Bristol, where they claimed FOI law prohibits them from releasing police reports on arrests until a case is adjudicated in court.  We gave out two D grades and six F grades.

Therefore, 15 percent of departments or troops scored a C+ or under.

Why, exactly, is this important, you ask? Because this is watching those that purport to protect us and have the power to change our lives drastically. Everything that police departments do should be open to public scrutiny so we can determine whether they are, indeed, serving the public or engaged in racially discriminatory tactics.