Ex F.B.I. Agent Gets Sentense For Child Porn!
Cop Block is a decentralized project supported by a diverse group of individuals united by their shared goal of police accountability. www.facebook.com/CopsKnowBest.
Showing posts with label police officer was sentenced. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police officer was sentenced. Show all posts
Friday, November 9, 2012
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Florida man caught in legal limbo for filming police
Flickr/ photographer padawan *(xava du)
Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer
Activist Post
Over a month ago, Steve Horrigan, a Florida resident, was arrested on charges of felony wiretapping for the high crime of recording video of police in public with his cell phone.
The Sarasota County, Florida State Attorney’s Office has yet to even formally file charges against Horrigan, and the North Port Police Department has not yet returned his cell phone.
Unfortunately, Horrigan’s case is not some isolated anomaly, but instead part of a much larger war on citizens who attempt to hold police accountable for their activities and do so in a wholly legal manner.
The state of Horrigan’s case has him in legal limbo wherein he cannot move forward with his lawsuit, and the state attorney has even more time before they have to file charges.
On top of the felony wiretapping, Horrigan is facing a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest without violence, something which Carlos Miller characterizes as “the usual tack-on charge in Florida when you’ve pissed off the cops.”
Under state law in Florida, an individual who was arrested for a misdemeanor must be tried within 90 days of the arrest, while a felony arrest gives a period of 175 days.
Horrigan was arrested on January 25 of this year, so the state attorney has more time to make him squirm before they have to bring him to trial.
Thankfully, Horrigan’s case is getting some attention, at least amongst the local media like the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.
Recently they ran an in-depth piece not only about Horrigan’s case, but the nationwide struggle between citizens who want to hold police accountable and those individuals who refuse to allow citizens to exercise this right.
Unfortunately, the author of the piece failed to point out the fact that there is absolutely no legal basis upon which an officer can arrest an individual for filming them in public carrying out their public duties where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Indeed, Miller points to four cases he has covered (which you can read about here, here, here and here) where residents of Florida had been arrested for recording police on video in public, all of which ended up being dismissed.
There is also the precedent set in Illinois where a judge declared their law – which is quite similar to the Florida law – unconstitutional.
North Port Police Captain Robert Estrada defended the actions of law enforcement, claiming that Horrigan crossed the line when he recorded what was supposedly a confidential conversation between officers, after having been ordered to stop.
However, Estrada admits that he has not actually seen Horrigan’s video, and he also admits that the police were operating in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy.
Estrada employs some laughably fallacious logic in stating, “If the officers there were yelling to each other loud enough for everyone to hear, that would obviously not constitute a personal conversation,” but since police did not consent to being recorded and they had to divert their attention from the traffic stop to deal with Horrigan, they arrested him.
“It is a gray area, I don’t know,” Estrada admitted. “It’s up to the courts to decide.”
Horrigan, on the other hand, agrees with Florida prosecutors (and the actual law) in saying that the law is actually black and white, without the massive gray area which Estrada would prefer to exploit.
It is completely nonsensical for Estrada to claim he knew that the conversation was confidential, or that he is at all qualified to speak on the details of the case, while also claiming that he has never actually seen the video in question.
Horrigan thinks the reasons behind his arrest are quite different than the supposed eavesdropping of a confidential conversation.
“The two guys who they stopped in the car that I was recording are fighting their charges, even though they are pretty minor. Both are 2nd degree misdemeanors, so I’ll be going to their hearings to see what’s up with that,” Horrigan writes in an email. “It’s pretty egregious that the cops arrested both of these guys even though there were two pre-toddlers in the back seat. Those poor kids were probably terrified.”
“They had to wait for a family member to get there to take the kids home, otherwise they would have called the children services. I was in handcuffs in the police car before they arrested the two brothers so I couldn’t get that recorded. That is probably why they nicked me, so that I wouldn’t have been able to record the screaming kids in the back seat after arresting Dad for driving on a restricted license. These cops have no shame at all,” he concluded.
I would not be at all surprised if prosecutors waited up until the last possible moment, holding on to his cell phone the entire time, just to never file charges and hand over his phone with no explanation whatsoever.
On top of causing considerable hardship and stress for Horrigan, this would make it much harder, if not impossible, for him to file a lawsuit since they both returned his phone and failed to actually file charges.
This is yet another instance of calculated police harassment of citizens who exercise their right to record police in public and hold them accountable for their activities.
I thought that the Illinois decision would help discourage this kind of behavior, but apparently such decisions will have to be made on a state-by-state basis before police and prosecutors start paying attention.
This article first appeared at EndtheLie.com. Read other contributed articles by Madison Ruppert here.
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on Orion Talk Radio from 8 pm -- 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com
The information in the video description says:
Seminole County.
Two Seminole County Sheriff’s Office deputies were kicked off the force after a turbulent traffic stop that was caught on the officers’ dashboard camera.
In a stinging rebuke, Sheriff Don Eslinger said deputies Erik Ducharme and Chris Clutter not only acted inappropriately at the scene but also lied and put the lives of others in danger with their irresponsible actions.Dashcam video from a May 19 traffic stop in Sanford shows the deputies getting out of their vehicles with a shotgun and Taser drawn. They immediately begin screaming and using profanity at the men in the car, who they pulled over on an alleged seatbelt violation.The men in the car said they were, in fact, wearing seat belts and did nothing to provoke the stop or what took place after.
The deputies claimed the driver did not stop right away after they started running their lights and sirens, but an internal investigation and the dashcam video showed that was not true.In the video, it does not appear that the men in any way threatened the deputies. At one point, Clutter shocked the driver with a Taser without warning.Investigative reports released on Monday included a statement from another officer who said he was in the line of fire and that things were so out of control he feared he was about to get shot by his own zone partner. Eslinger fired the deputies on Monday, and in a sharply worded notice of discipline stated, “You exercised poor judgment in the escalating levels of force you used as compared to the resistance offered by the occupants of the car. Your conduct at the scene was compounded by the dishonesty in your characterization of the incident in your report further demonstrating a lack of regard for the policies and procedures of this agency.”Both deputies had been with Seminole County for less than three years. Neither had been disciplined before.
by Julian Heicklen
Amendment VI of the U. S. Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury….” It does not say: “may enjoy.” It does not say: “if the accused chooses.” It does not say: “unless the accused declines.” It does not say: “if the judge agrees.” It does not say: “unless the Supreme Court says otherwise.” It says that there shall be a jury trial.
Everyone in the criminal legal system knows that if a defendant declines a jury trial, it is because his lawyer thinks or knows that his client is guilty. It is no longer possible for the judge to be impartial.
The reason a defendant’s lawyer declines a jury trial is because he hopes to win the case in one of three ways:
1. He has some obscure legal argument that the jury (and maybe even the judge and/or prosecutor) do not understand.
2. The judge owes the defendant’s lawyer something. The lawyers and the judge all know each other and have opinions, grudges, and obligations with each other.
3. The defense lawyer or the defendant may be in a position to help the judge’s career if he wins.
This is particularly true if the defendant holds a relevant government job.
NYPD employee handiwork
Consider the case of the killing of Sean Bell. He was killed by police on his wedding day. His bride-to-be received his corpse as a wedding present. The incident is described in detail at Wikipedia.
The Sean Bell shooting incident took place in the New York City borough of Queens on November 25, 2006, in which one Latino and two African-American men were shot at a total of fifty times by a team of both plainclothes and undercover NYPD officers (two of whom were themselves African-American), killing one of the men, Sean Bell, on the morning of his wedding day, and severely wounding two of his friends.[1] The incident sparked fierce criticism of the police from some members of the public and drew comparisons to the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo.[2] Three of the five detectives involved in the shooting went to trial [3] on charges ranging from manslaughter to reckless endangerment, and were acquitted.[4]” (see the web page for references)
The three detectives involved in the shooting were indicted by a grand jury for manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and assault. They waived a jury trial. The bench trial started on March 16, 2007. All three detectives were found not guilty of all charges by Justice Arthur J. Cooperman.
Apparently the police department did not agree with the judge’s decision. Although the detectives were acquitted, the three of them and their commanding officer were fired or forced to resign on March 24, 2012.
If there had been a jury trial, the detectives were likely to have been found guilty of something—probably not first degree murder, but at least criminal negligence. However, even it did find the police not guilty, its verdict would have been more credible.
On the other hand the judge desperately needs the police to protect him. They may save his life. There are lots of ex-criminals in the county that would like to kill him.
In a courtroom trial, there is only one impartial participant. That is the jury.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Why Firing a Bad Cop Is Damn Near Impossible
Over the summer, a still from a surveillance camera showing a police officer kicking a handcuffed woman in the head went viral on Facebook and email. The text below the picture read, "Rhode Island police officer Edward Krawetz received no jail time for this brutal assault on this seated and handcuffed woman. Now he wants his job back. Share if you don't want this to happen." The allegation was wild enough to pique the interest of the rumor-debunking site Snopes.com, which determined that the story was, in fact, true.
In 2009, Officer Edward Krawetz of the Lincoln Police Department arrested Donna Levesque for unruly behavior at a casino in Lincoln, Rhode Island. While seated on the ground with her hands cuffed behind her, Levesque kicked Krawetz in the shin. Krawetz responded by cocking back his right leg and nailing Levesque in the side of the head, knocking her over. In March 2012, Krawetz was convicted of felony battery despite his claim that he kicked Levesque in "self defense." The 10-year sentence he received was immediately suspended, and Krawetz was ordered to attend anger management classes.
But he wasn't fired from the Lincoln Police Department. Under Rhode Island law, the fate of Krawetz's job as a cop rested not with a criminal court, or even his commanding officer, but in the hands of a three-person panel composed of fellow police officers—one of whom Krawetz would get to choose. That panel would conduct the investigation into Krawetz's behavior, oversee a cross-examination, and judge whether Krawetz could keep his job. The entire incident, in other words, would be kept in the family.
The same was true for Rhode Island Police Officer Alfred Ferretti after he followed two women home while in uniform and exposed himself; for Officers Robert Neri and Robert Lobianco after they were found having a threesome while on duty; and for Officer Nichalas Laprade after two women reported that he stared at them while masturbating as he drove down I-95 in his personal vehicle.
All of these Rhode Island cops, and many more like them across the county, were able to keep their jobs and benefits—sometimes only temporarily, but always longer than they should have—thanks to model legislation written and lobbied for by well-funded police unions. That piece of legislation is called the "law enforcement bill of rights," and its sole purpose is to shield cops from the laws they're paid to enforce.
The inspiration for this legislation and its similarly named cousins across the country is the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights, introduced in 1971 by New York Rep. Mario Biaggi (D), at the behest of the Police Benevolent Association. Having once been the most decorated police officer in the country, Biaggi didn't need much convincing to put forward the union-friendly bill.
Biaggi pushed for the POBOR until March 1987, when he received two indictments back-to-back. The first was for accepting a paid vacation from Brooklyn Democratic Leader Meade H. Esposito in exchange for using federal funds to bail out a company in Esposito's neighborhood. A second indictment handed down three months later charged Biaggi with extorting $3.6 million in cash and stock options from a small Bronx machine shop called Wedtech. Both charges resulted in convictions and Biaggi's resignation from Congress.
While Biaggi's bill never made it through Congress, police unions didn't wait for city managers or police department higher-ups to write their own. Benevolent associations in Maryland successfully pushed for the passage of a police bill of rights in 1972; Florida, Rhode Island, Virginia, New Mexico, and California followed suit before the 70s were over. The 1980s, 90s, and 2000s saw still more states adopt police bill of rights at the behest of police unions.
The rights created by these bills differ from state to state, but here's how a typical police misconduct investigation works in states that have a law enforcement bill of rights in place:
A complaint is filed against an officer by a member of the public or a fellow officer. Police department leadership reviews the complaint and decides whether to investigate. If the department decides to pursue the complaint, it must inform the officer and his union. That's where the special treatment begins, but it doesn't end there.
Unlike a member of the public, the officer gets a "cooling off" period before he has to respond to any questions. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is to be interrogated "at a reasonable hour," with a union member present. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can be interrogated only "for reasonable periods," which "shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary." Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation cannot be "threatened with disciplinary action" at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against him.
What happens after the interrogation again varies from state to state. But under nearly every law enforcement bill of rights, the following additional privileges are granted to officers: Their departments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation; if the officer is cleared of wrongdoing or the charges are dropped, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place, or reveal the nature of the complaint. The officer cannot be questioned or investigated by "non-government agents," which means no civilian review boards. If the officer is suspended as a result of the investigation, he must continue to receive full pay and benefits until his case is resolved. In most states, the charging department must subsidize the accused officer's legal defense.
A violation of any of the above rights can result in dismissal—not of the officer, but of the charges against him.
Because of these special due process privileges, there's little incentive for police departments to discipline officers. In most cases, it's more financially prudent to let a District Attorney or outside law enforcement agency do the heavy lifting, and then fire the officer if he's convicted. This is the only "easy" way, under police bills of rights, for departments to get rid of bad cops--which essentially means the only way to get rid of bad cops is if some other law enforcement agency can make a felony charge stick. This is the biggest problem with law enforcement bills of rights--they encourage police departments to let external forces determine what behavior is unacceptable. That's eventually why Rhode Island's Krawetz resigned his post.
But Rhode Island is by no means an outlier.
In the last year, a Florida narcotics detective was charged with a slew of crimes ranging from rape and torture, to embezzlement and forgery; a Virginia police officer shot a retired Sunday school teacher in the back of the head and throat as she drove out of a church parking lot; six California cops beat a homeless man into a life-ending coma; a Milwaukee police officer was arrested for sodomizing suspects; a drunk man slapped a Philadelphia cop, and the cop responded by beating the drunk man's face bloody with his baton.
What do they all have in common? They were all known by their colleagues and employers to be bad cops long before they came to the public's attention.
Major Joseph Floyd was a problem cop at departments across Florida before beginning his two-year reign of terror in Crestview, Florida. Daniel Harmon-Wright was hired at the Culpeper Police Department despite a known drinking problem, and kept on the force despite complaints that he illegally entered a home and threatened its residents at gunpoint. At least one of the Fullerton PD officers who beat Kelly Thomas into a coma from which he never woke was accused of brutality the year before. Michael Vagnini's superiors in Milwaukee knew "for a couple years" that he'd been conducting illegal rectal searches. Before William J. Gress beat a drunk and unruly Oktoberfest reveler, he broke a woman's nose and spat on her outside a restaurant.
Additionally, all of those officers were working in states with a law enforcement bill of rights, and when they were all eventually disciplined, it was by a law enforcement agency other than the one they worked for.
While it's possible—maybe even likely, depending on the department—that these officers would have faced no internal discipline even if their states did not have law enforcement bills of rights, such laws discourage discipline and make it nearly impossible for the public to hold bad cops accountable.
Monday, October 22, 2012
This Week’s Corrupt Cops Stories Posted on October 22, 2012.
A St. Louis cop is headed for federal prison for re-selling seized pot, a Camden cop is heading there, too, for running amok in the drug war, a Miami cop awaits sentencing for transporting what he thought was cocaine, and a Baltimore jail guard gets popped for smuggling weed and psychedelics into the jail. Let’s get to it:
In Baltimore, a Baltimore jail guard was arrested last Friday on charges he was smuggling drugs into Central Booking. Guard Michael McCain, 44, was indicted on eight drug counts, including possession with intent to distribute marijuana and 5-methoxy-diisopropyltryptamine, better known as “Foxy Methoxy,” a psychedelic.
In Miami, a Miami-Dade police officer was convicted last Wednesday of helping to transport shipments of what he thought was cocaine on behalf of a man he believed was a South Beach club manager, but who instead turned out to be an undercover FBI agent. Officer Daniel Mack was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute multiple kilos of cocaine and using a firearm in the commission of a crime. He is looking at 15-to-life when he is sentenced in December. Mack was convicted along with two other men of transporting 19 kilos of what they thought was cocaine from Miami Beach to Aventura. They were paid $25,000 for their efforts. Mack had been suspended without pay pending trial; he will now be fired.
In Camden, New Jersey, a former Camden police officer was sentenced last Wednesday to 20 months in federal prison for stealing money during drug raids, illegally searching homes, planting evidence, and lying in court. He copped to conspiracy and deprivation of civil rights. Kevin Parry, 32, was one of four Camden police officers arrested on corruption charges in 2010. He got a reduced sentence because he testified in the trial of one of the others. Two of the others also pleaded guilty and are now doing time, while a third awaits sentencing. Camden County prosecutors dropped the charges in 210 cases in which the quartet was involved.
In St. Louis, a former St. Louis police officer was sentenced Monday to five years in federal prison for seizing marijuana, then working with his brother to sell it on the streets. Larry Davis, 46, was a supervisory agent for a unit doing drug investigations, and he admitted seizing packages containing marijuana from delivery businesses, then selling the weed. His brother also got federal prison time, but only a year.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Disgraced and greedy, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik
Disgraced and greedy! Bernard Kerik.
Disgraced and greedy, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik schlumped into the Bronx courthouse in bright orange prison T-shirt and navy blue jumpsuit, his shiny, bald head gleaming in the daylight and hands shackled uncomfortably to his waist.
Minutes later, bombastic Bernie changed his clothes and attitude. He strode purposefully to the witness stand in an oversized and expensive dark suit a couple of sizes too big for his clearly shrunken frame.
Hours later, he was reduced to tears.
FORMER NYPD BOSS HAS 'SCAM'NESIA DURING PALS' TRIAL
Kerik is a prisoner of a fine federal correctional institution in Maryland after admitting he accepted $165,000 in renovations, including a marble-framed Jacuzzi, in his Riverdale apartment.
He was unshackled yesterday to testify in the perjury trial of two allegedly mob-connected brothers accused of sprucing up Kerik’s home, free of charge, in hope of getting favors.
Kerik made it clear he’d prefer to be in a cell with a large, hairy roommate rather than here, singing like a stooge.
“Is it fair to say you’re not happy to be here?’’ asked prosecutor Stuart Levy.
“Yes,’’ Kerik groused.
Later, the swaggering ex-police chief was reduced to an ugly, blubbering mess. Prison accommodations got you down? The lack of marble showers? The cuisine?
Wrong.
Defense attorney Cathy Fleming asked if Kerik pleaded guilty to state prosecutors and the feds so he might avoid prison.
“You pleaded guilty because you thought it would end? You could move on with life?” she asked.
Kerik paused, his face turned red, his eyes welled up with tears and in a muffled, cracked voice said, “Yes, ma’am.”
Tears began rolling down his face.
A court officer brought him a tissue just in time, before we all got sick.
For four hours, Kerik, the high-school dropout who rose to be Rudy Giuliani’s correction commissioner then police commish, then almost was named George W. Bush’s director of Homeland Security, displayed selective amnesia for the riches bestowed on him by people who needed favors.
He couldn’t remember how much his pal Larry Ray paid for his 1998 wedding. ($34,000.)
Twenty-seven times in the afternoon alone he said, “I don’t know’’ or “I don’t recall.’’
He couldn’t, or wouldn’t, recall meeting with defendant Frank DiTommaso. He did notice that Frank had “gained a little weight, his hair got a little gray.” Frank’s brother and co-defendant, Peter, “also got gray.”
He remembered peevishly that DiTommaso gave him grief the first time they met.
“Two things I remember,’’ Kerik said. “One, he said he was highly insulted because I stepped in front of him during a Yankee celebration at City Hall.”
“Two, he pulled out a photo of him as a child sitting on a Harley motorcycle with his father behind him.’’ Dad was a cop.
He also clearly remembered the condition of his apartment — whose down payment (he was rejected by banks) came from another rich pal, Nathan Berman, with a series of small checks from $3,000 to $9,000. Some were made out to Bernie’s wife, Hala. Others to “Cash.”
“The whole apartment was green — green walls, green ceiling. Other walls were purple,” Kerik said.
“It was a mess?” asked the prosecutor.
“Yes.”
He also remembered vividly what the apartment was like when it was done.
A tacky marble “rotunda,” whatever that is, at the entrance. A marble Jacuzzi.
Kerik seemed to purposely forget what led to his downfall.
He said he removed his name from consideration for the job as chief of Homeland Security not because of financial shenanigans, and not because he kept a taxpayer-paid love nest for fooling around in Battery Park City, which he did.
“My wife and I had hired a domestic servant, a nanny, I did not pay employment taxes on,” he said. Say it enough times and you begin to believe it.
Bernie might as well have been testifying for the defense, not the prosecution.
In a particularly testy exchange, he refused to tell the prosecutor that Interstate, the company owned by the DiTommaso brothers, had paid for the rotunda and other gizmos at his apartment. He refused to squeal.
He also defied credibility by answering the prosecutors question, “Do you admit you did something wrong? It’s a yes or no answer.”
“No, I didn’t do anything wrong,” said Kerik.
Kerik admitted he agreed to pay $30,000 for what turned out to be more than a quarter-million dollars’ work. And even then, high-on-the-hog Bernie wasn’t satisfied.
In the end, the ungrateful wretch didn’t even appreciate the work on his apartment.
“It was much nicer than I anticipated. It wasn’t what I wanted.”
He just wanted the space “cleaned up and livable.”
I’d love to see the condition of Bernie’s prison cell.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
email me at Copsknowbest@gmail.com
YouTube http://www.youtube.com/copKnows
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/CopsKnowBest
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Texas Cops Arrest Pair for Reposting Undercover Cop’s Facebook Photo Posted on October 16, 2012.
Texas Cops Arrest Pair for Reposting Undercover Cop’s Facebook Photo
Posted on October 16, 2012.
Carlos Miller at Photography is Not a Crime posted the following article on October 13, 2012.
A Texas woman who came across a Facebook photo of an undercover cop was arrested after she posted the photo on her own Facebook page.
Melissa Walthall was charged with retaliation, a felony charge that can land her in prison for ten years.
Her friend, Bobby Stedham, who found the original photo, then turned it into a flyer, which he intended to post in public identifying the officer as an undercover cop, was also arrested for retaliation.
Walthall was arrested for posting a photo she took of the poster.
According to the statute, a person is guilty of retaliation when they commit an offense that “intentionally or knowingly harms or threatens to harm another by an unlawful act.”
The key word here is “unlawful.”
It will be hard to prove they acted unlawfully when they took a photo that was already posted on the cop’s Facebook page and outed him as an undercover cop.
Perhaps they can argue they are guilty of some type of copyright infringement but that is generally considered more of a civil violation instead of a criminal act.
And the victim would be the rightful owner of the photo, whomever snapped it, not the subject of the photo.
Police say they were retaliating against the officer for having testified against Stedham’s brother, George Pickens, whom the officer testified against in a drug case a couple of months earlier.
According to the Dallas Morning News:
Walthall did so, according to reports, because the officer had testified against her friend George Pickens about two months earlier in a drug case. Her post identified the officer as being undercover, and her caption said, “Anyone know this [expletive]?” according to a federal affidavit.
It was Pickens, 34, who found the investigator’s photograph on Facebook. He and his brother used the photo to print fliers that they were planning to display like “garage sale signs,” the affidavit said.
A caller tipped off Mesquite police to Walthall’s Facebook post on Sunday.
The caller said Walthall was an acquaintance and that she noticed the photo of the narcotics officer on her Facebook news feed.
A police investigator confirmed the photo was posted by Walthall and concluded that it posed a “viable threat to that officer’s safety,” the affidavit said.
The Mesquite Police Department, which patrols a suburb of Dallas, made the news on Photography is Not a Crime last month when they confiscated a man’s camera after he recorded the aftermath of a police shooting in which a man was shot 41 times.
They deleted his footage before returning the camera to him four days later.
Like us on Facebook!
visit us on YouTube
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
WHAT TO DO IF YOU'RE STOPPED BY POLICE, IMMIGRATION AGENTS OR THE FBI
WHAT TO DO IF YOU'RE STOPPED BY POLICE, IMMIGRATION AGENTS OR THE FBI
YOUR RIGHTS
- You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud.
- You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car or your home.
- If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.
- You have the right to a lawyer if you are arrested. Ask for one immediately.
- Regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, you have constitutional rights.
YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
- Do stay calm and be polite.
- Do not interfere with or obstruct the police.
- Do not lie or give false documents.
- Do prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested.
- Do remember the details of the encounter.
- Do file a written complaint or call your local ACLU if you feel your rights have been violated.
IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING
Stay calm. Don't run. Don't argue, resist or obstruct the police, even if you are innocent or police are violating your rights. Keep your hands where police can see them.
Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, calmly and silently walk away. If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why.
You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. In some states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself.
You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings, but police may "pat down" your clothing if they suspect a weapon. You should not physically resist, but you have the right to refuse consent for any further search. If you do consent, it can affect you later in court.
IF YOU ARE STOPPED IN YOUR CAR
Stop the car in a safe place as quickly as possible. Turn off the car, turn on the internal light, open the window part way and place your hands on the wheel.
Upon request, show police your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance.
If an officer or immigration agent asks to look inside your car, you can refuse to consent to the search. But if police believe your car contains evidence of a crime, your car can be searched without your consent.
Both drivers and passengers have the right to remain silent. If you are a passenger, you can ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, sit silently or calmly leave. Even if the officer says no, you have the right to remain silent.
IF YOU ARE QUESTIONED ABOUT YOUR IMMIGRATION STATUS
You have the right to remain silent and do not have to discuss your immigration or citizenship status with police, immigration agents or any other officials. You do not have to answer questions about where you were born, whether you are a U.S. citizen, or how you entered the country. (Separate rules apply at international borders and airports, and for individuals on certain nonimmigrant visas, including tourists and business travelers.)
If you are not a U.S. citizen and an immigration agent requests your immigration papers, you must show them if you have them with you. If you are over 18, carry your immigration documents with you at all times. If you do not have immigration papers, say you want to remain silent.
Do not lie about your citizenship status or provide fake documents.
IF THE POLICE OR IMMIGRATION AGENTS COME TO YOUR HOME
If the police or immigration agents come to your home, you do not have to let them in unless they have certain kinds of warrants.
Ask the officer to slip the warrant under the door or hold it up to the window so you can inspect it. A search warrant allows police to enter the address listed on the warrant, but officers can only search the areas and for the items listed. An arrest warrant allows police to enter the home of the person listed on the warrant if they believe the person is inside. A warrant of removal/deportation (ICE warrant) does not allow officers to enter a home without consent.
Even if officers have a warrant, you have the right to remain silent. If you choose to speak to the officers, step outside and close the door.
IF YOU ARE CONTACTED BY THE FBI
If an FBI agent comes to your home or workplace, you do not have to answer any questions. Tell the agent you want to speak to a lawyer first.
If you are asked to meet with FBI agents for an interview, you have the right to say you do not want to be interviewed. If you agree to an interview, have a lawyer present. You do not have to answer any questions you feel uncomfortable answering, and can say that you will only answer questions on a specific topic.
IF YOU ARE ARRESTED
Do not resist arrest, even if you believe the arrest is unfair.
Say you wish to remain silent and ask for a lawyer immediately. Don't give any explanations or excuses. If you can't pay for a lawyer, you have the right to a free one. Don't say anything, sign anything or make any decisions without a lawyer.
You have the right to make a local phone call. The police cannot listen if you call a lawyer.
Prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested. Memorize the phone numbers of your family and your lawyer. Make emergency plans if you have children or take medication.
Special considerations for non-citizens:
- Ask your lawyer about the effect of a criminal conviction or plea on your immigration status.
- Don't discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.
- While you are in jail, an immigration agent may visit you. Do not answer questions or sign anything before talking to a lawyer.
- Read all papers fully. If you do not understand or cannot read the papers, tell the officer you need an interpreter.
IF YOU ARE TAKEN INTO IMMIGRATION (OR "ICE") CUSTODY
You have the right to a lawyer, but the government does not have to provide one for you. If you do not have a lawyer, ask for a list of free or low-cost legal services.
You have the right to contact your consulate or have an officer inform the consulate of your arrest.
Tell the ICE agent you wish to remain silent. Do not discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.
Do not sign anything, such as a voluntary departure or stipulated removal, without talking to a lawyer. If you sign, you may be giving up your opportunity to try to stay in the U.S.
Remember your immigration number ("A" number) and give it to your family. It will help family members locate you.
Keep a copy of your immigration documents with someone you trust.
IF YOU FEEL YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED
Remember: police misconduct cannot be challenged on the street. Don't physically resist officers or threaten to file a complaint.
Write down everything you remember, including officers' badge and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from, and any other details. Get contact information for witnesses. If you are injured, take photographs of your injuries (but seek medical attention first).
File a written complaint with the agency's internal affairs division or civilian complaint board. In most cases, you can file a complaint anonymously if you wish.
Call your local ACLU or visit www.aclu.org/profiling.
Like us on FB
http://www.facebook.com/CopsKnowBestVisit us on YouTube!
Copyright [2007 or other year indicated] American Civil Liberties Union
Reprinted with permission of the
American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org
Officer Jason Elder Repeatedly Raped Minor Girl; Police Chief Knew & Did Nothing
Officer Jason Elder Repeatedly Raped Minor Girl; Police Chief Knew & Did Nothing
from Cop Block » Articles by CopBlock
This article, originally posted at Courthouse News Service, was submitted to us by Joe.
LEXINGTON, Ky. (CN) – A Harrodsburg police chief knew what was going on but never stopped an officer from repeatedly raping an underage girl, the victim claims in federal court.
From 2007 to 2010, former Harrodsburg police officer Jason Elder engaged in “unwanted sexual conduct” with S.C. while she “was a minor child, attending middle and high school in Mercer County, Kentucky,” according to the complaint.
S.C. did not sue anonymously, but Courthouse News has redacted her name in the interest of privacy.
Nearly 20 years old today, S.C. says she could not “provide or give consent to the sexual assault and battery perpetrated upon her by defendant Elder” because of her age and minor status at the time.
Harrodsburg police chief Ernie Kelty knew about Elder’s “inappropriate and illegal conduct,” but he “failed or refused to take any action to discipline” the officer, according to the complaint.
S.C.’s father allegedly informed Kelty about the abuse to no avail, but found more success with state prosecutors.
On May 11, 2011, a grand jury charged Elder “with (1) one count of rape in the first degree, (2) one count of rape in the third degree, (3) 48 counts of sodomy and (4) 96 counts of sexual abuse,” according to the complaint.
A database on state prisoners says Elder began a three-year sentence at Kentucky State Reformatory in April for third-degree rape, third-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse.
S.C. seeks damages for constitutional rights violations, assault and battery, emotional distress, negligence, and failure to report child abuse.
She is represented by Hal Friedman and Michael Cooper of Louisville, along with S. Marie Hellard of Lawrenceburg, Ky.
Elder and Kelty are named as defendants along with Harrodsburg and the city’s police department.
Jury Nullification Victories!
Jury Nullification Victories
from Cop Block » Articles by CopBlock
This write-up was authored by Eric Freerock over at OhioCopBlock.org on October 1st, 2012.
Jury Nullification – An Underused Weapon For All
Less than a week apart, the use of Jury Nullification has reigned victorious in two completely victimless crimes. One of the cases was over raw milk in Minnesota and one was over marijuana in New Hampshire. The topper on the cake for the case in NH was that one of the jurors was a Free State Project participant.
Jury Nullification is a little known right that we as citizens, and in turn jurors, have in order to be a check against the government enforcing bad laws. It is a relatively simple concept. If you are on a jury and you know beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant broke the letter of the law, you can still vote ‘not guilty’ if you don’t believe that the law should even exist in the first place. This is starting to be used more in victimless crimes, mostly in regards to drugs.
This past week a Minnesota jury exercised their right to jury nullification when they handed down a ‘not guilty’ verdict to a farmer for charges stemming from raw milk. RAW MILK! In many states in this country it is ILLEGAL to sell raw milk or raw milk products, like cheese and yogurt. Alvin Schlangen was found not guilty of selling unpasteurized milk, operating without a food license and handling adulterated or misbranded food. (How is raw milk considered “adulterated”? Isn’t pasteurized milk the product that is actually adulterated?) The jury did the right thing in sending a message that prosecuting people for simply having milk is ridiculous. This is a perfect example that everyone in this country needs to know when it comes to the citizenry fighting back against those who claim to have rule over us.
Two weeks ago a New Hampshire jury nullified the case against Doug Darrell, a Rastafarian, charged with and completely guilty of (according to what the law says) manufacturing (read ‘growing’) marijuana. Darrell was observed to have 15 marijuana plants growing on his property by a National Guard helicopter flying over his land while working with the NH State Police. (On a side note, why is the National Guard being used for domestic operations that are not defensive?) This isn’t the first marijuana case to experience a jury nullification but it’s one of the biggest to make it all the way through trial to then get nullified. In one previous case a jury pool couldn’t even be put together because everyone said that they wouldn’t even consider voting guilty for someone who was caught with marijuana, or selling it for that matter. The case was dismissed before the trial even started.
Many have started to do Jury Outreach and hand out literature to prospective jurors outside courthouses so they know their rights. Some good literature and information can be found at FIJA.org (the Fully Informed Jury Association). Jury nullification is the last check on the government. Don’t be afraid to exercise your right to nullify bad laws. You can not be punished by the state for not going along with their aggression against peaceful people. The above two cases had no victims and even the jurors said in Doug Darrell’s case, “Mr. Darrell seemed to be the only victim here.”
Related resources:
Don’t Take a Plea Deal tri-fold by FreeKeene.com to help make outreach easier
NeverTakeaAPlea.org – no victim no crime, list your court date on calendar to encourage others to join/support
A list of Quotations and Comments on Fully Informed Juries
Jury Nullification Victories is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights
This Week’s Corrupt Cops Stories
This Week’s Corrupt Cops Stories
Posted on October 09, 2012.
A former Pennsylvania prosecutor gets caught peddling pot, and a TSA agent and an Alabama cop head to prison for taking bribes from drug 
dealers. Let’s get to it:
dealers. Let’s get to it:
In Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, a former Centre County assistant DA was arraigned Tuesday on charges he distributed marijuana. Former Assistant DA Steve Sloane faces seven felony counts after he got caught accepting Fedex packages from California that contained drugs. Sloane has admitted he had been addicted to Oxycontin and also admitted receiving several packages containing hydrocodone pills and marijuana from an old friend in California. Sloane denied selling pot to anyone, but police interviewed several witnesses who said they bought from him. He is currently free on a $100,000 bond.
In Birmingham, Alabama, a former Jasper police officer was sentenced last Wednesday to 15 months in federal prison for accepting a bribe from a drug dealer. Scottie Wilkins, 30, had borrowed money from the dealer, who was on probation, then paid him back by selling him drugs out of the evidence room. He also took a bribe from the dealer to help him out with a probation matter.
In New Haven, Connecticut, a former TSA officer was sentenced Tuesday to six years and four months in federal prison for accepting bribes to allow prescription pain pills to travel unimpeded through airport security. Jonathan Best, 31, had pleaded guilty in April to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone. Best admitted accepting cash from a drug dealer to allow oxycodone pills through airport security and agreed last year to travel to Connecticut to help the trafficker launder drug proceeds. Two other former TSA officers, a former New York police officer and an ex-Florida state trooper have also pleaded guilty in the case.
Protect Your Freedom
Protect Your Freedom
This Information Will Help Answer Some Common Questions About Some Of Your Civil Rights And Civil Liberties Should You Be Stopped Or Questioned By Any United Law Enforcement Agency. Learn How To Protect Your Freedom & Stay Out Of Jail!
Click Here! To Beat A Speeding Ticket In Court! ... Discover A Remarkably Simple And Proven Speeding Ticket Defense Strategy To Legally Beat Your Case 
http://www.facebook.com/CopsKnowBest
http://www.youtube.com/user/copKnows/videos?flow=grid&view=0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)