Post by: vernal45 on May 12, 2008, 05:51:55 PM
i think, IMO, this article sums up police officers today. The minority are the good ones, and good only because the do not act the way the bad officers do. Yet they are just as bad as the rotten officers because they do nothing to stop them...
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/nyregion/12guns.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin/url]
Police in Gun Searches Face Disbelief in Court
By BENJAMIN WEISER
After listening carefully to the two policemen, the judge had a problem: He did not believe them.
The officers, who had stopped a man in the Bronx and found a .22-caliber pistol in his fanny pack, testified that they had several reasons to search him: He was loitering, sweating nervously and had a bulge under his jacket.
But the judge, John E. Sprizzo of United States District Court in Manhattan, concluded that the police had simply reached into the pack without cause, found the gun, then tailored testimony to justify the illegal search. You cant have open season on searches, said Judge Sprizzo, who refused to allow the gun as evidence, prompting prosecutors to drop the case last May.
Yet for all his disapproval of what the police had done, the judge said he hated to make negative rulings about officers credibility. I dont like to jeopardize their career and all the rest of it, he said.
He need not have worried. The Police Department never learned of his criticism, and the officers like many others whose word has been called into question faced no disciplinary action or inquiry.
Over the last six years, the police and prosecutors have cooperated in a broad effort that allows convicted felons found with a firearm to be tried in federal court, where sentences are much harsher than in state court. Officials say the initiative has taken hundreds of armed criminals off the street, mostly in the Bronx and Brooklyn, and turned some into informers who have helped solve more serious crimes.
But a closer look at those prosecutions reveals something that has not been trumpeted: more than 20 cases in which judges found police officers testimony to be unreliable, inconsistent, twisting the truth, or just plain false. The judges language was often withering: patently incredible, riddled with exaggerations, unworthy of belief.
The outrage usually stopped there. With few exceptions, judges did not ask prosecutors to determine whether the officers had broken the law, and prosecutors did not notify police authorities about the judges findings. The Police Department said it did not monitor the rulings and was aware of only one of them; after it learned about the cases recently from a reporter, a spokesman said the department would decide whether further review was needed.
Though the number of cases is small, the lack of consequences for officers may seem surprising, given that a city commission on police corruption in the 1990s pinpointed tainted testimony as a problem so pervasive that the police even had a word for it: testilying.
And these cases may fuel another longtime concern that flared up again in recent days: suspicions that the police routinely subject people to unjustified searches, frisks or stops. Last week, the Police Department reported a spike in street stops, which it said were an essential law enforcement tool : 145,098 from January through March, more than during any quarter in six years.
The judges rulings emerge from what are called suppression hearings, in which defendants, before trial, can argue that evidence was seized illegally. The Fourth Amendment sets limits on the conditions that permit a search; if they are not met, judges must exclude the evidence, even if that means allowing a guilty person to go free.
Prosecutors and police officials say many of the suppressions stem from difficult, split-second judgments that officers must make in potentially dangerous situations about whether to search someone for a weapon decisions that are not always easy to reconstruct in a courtroom.
But one former federal judge, John S. Martin Jr., said the rulings are meant to deter serious abuses by the police. The reason you suppress, he said, is to stop cops from going up to people and searching them when they dont have reason.
Federal judges rarely suppress evidence, Judge Martin said, and the unusual number of suppressions in New York City gun cases raises questions about whether such tactics may be common. We dont have the statistics for all the people who are hassled, no gun is found, and they never get into the system, he said.
Whatever one makes of the legal debate, these cases offer a revealing glimpse into some police practices in the street and on the witness stand that have gone largely unexamined outside the courtroom.
A Dismal Record
In one case, the officer explained that he had a special technique for detecting who was hiding a gun. He had learned it from a newspaper article that described certain clues to watch for: a hand brushing a pocket, a lopsided gait, a jacket or sweater that seems mismatched or out of season.
That was one reason, he told a judge, that he was certain the man he saw outside a Brooklyn housing project last September was concealing a gun. The man, Anthony McCrae, had moved his hand along the front of his waistband, as if moving a weapon, the officer said. Sure enough, a search turned up a gun.
The judge, John Gleeson of Brooklyn federal court, asked the officer, Kaz Daughtry, how successful his method had been in other cases.
Officer Daughtry replied that over a three-day period, he and his partner had stopped 30 to 50 people. One had a gun.
Calling that a dismal record, the judge said the officers technique was little more than guesswork.
Moreover, Judge Gleeson said he did not believe that Officer Daughtry could even have seen the gesture he found so suspicious: Mr. McCraes hand was in front of him and the officer was about 30 feet behind.
The judge would not allow the gun as evidence, and on April 24, federal prosecutors dropped the charges. A law enforcement official said the Brooklyn district attorneys office learned of the ruling and was reviewing Officer Daughtrys other cases to see if there were problems.
The Police Department declined to make Officer Daughtry, or any other officers, available for comment.
The decisions to suppress, which The New York Times found by interviewing lawyers and examining more than 1,000 court dockets since 2002, came from 18 federal judges in Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Several rulings involved police raids on homes without warrants and judges doubts that the owners had consented to a search, as the police claimed and the law requires.
In one case, a group of officers investigating a fatal shooting in 2002 entered an apartment in the Bronx and arrested a man named Justice Taylor after finding a shotgun in a bedroom. Sgt. Brian Branigan, who led the search, testified in federal court in Manhattan that Mr. Taylor had given the officers permission to enter.
But Mr. Taylor denied that. Two other officers did not mention his giving consent. And the judge, Jed S. Rakoff, said that Sergeant Branigan felt the need to embellish his account with details indicating consent that the court finds unbelievable.
Judge Rakoff even took issue with the demeanor of the sergeant, whose cockiness was evident even on the stand. His apparent disregard for niceties, the judge wrote, made it wholly plausible that he had forced his way into the apartment.
The case was dismissed, and the city, while denying liability, paid $280,000 to settle a civil rights lawsuit by Mr. Taylor and others in the apartment.
In another case, a judge did more than cast doubt on an officers testimony. She proved it wrong.
The judge, Laura Taylor Swain, heard the officer, Sean Lynch, testify that he had shined his flashlight through the window of a parked sport utility vehicle one night in the Bronx and had seen a gun. The drivers lawyer said that Officer Lynch could not have seen the gun because the cars windows were heavily tinted.
So after sunset one evening in January 2006, the judge walked outside the Manhattan federal courthouse and shined a flashlight into the vehicle. She could see nothing.
Her inspection and other evidence, she wrote, give the lie to Officer Lynchs account, which she called impossible. Prosecutors dropped the case.
The police, to be sure, have a difficult job trying to root out guns without overstepping the law. Some judges acknowledged this in court, saying they believed not that officers had lied, but rather that they had failed to recall an event accurately, perhaps because of its brevity, a limited vantage point or the subsequent passage of time.
And some expressed sympathy for the police. Judge Gleeson said in one case that while he found two officers testimony contradictory, he did not want to imply they had lied.
Im always reluctant in these circumstances, having been in the executive branch myself, having a feel for the consequences of an adverse credibility determination Im sensitive to it, he said last November.
Judges typically do not discuss cases, but some have said that, in general, it is not their responsibility to follow up their criticisms of officers. The rulings are on the record, for prosecutors or others to act on if they wish.
Paul J. Browne, the Police Departments chief spokesman, said that only one of the critical rulings had been reported to the police, by a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn who said he had no doubts about the officers truthfulness. The police took no action.
More broadly, Mr. Browne said an officers failure to convince a judge that his suspicions were justified doesnt necessarily mean the officer did something wrong.
In each case, he added, the suspect in fact had a gun.
Federal prosecutors would not comment on individual cases. But Michael J. Garcia, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said his office reviews any negative rulings about an officers credibility to decide whether any action is necessary.
Any time evidence gets suppressed is a serious thing, he said.
In court, prosecutors have vigorously defended the officers conduct and testimony. In one brief, a prosecutor argued that a police lieutenant had no reason to lie, because that could jeopardize a fast-moving N.Y.P.D. career. But writing in response, a federal defender, Deirdre von Dornum, cited cases in which officers faced no repercussions not the loss of their jobs, not disciplinary action.
Still, one judge was so struck by what he said were an officers lies that he tried to do something about it.
Two officers had arrested a man and confiscated a gun in a Bronx apartment in 2002. But Judge Martin, then on the Manhattan federal court, was troubled that one officer had given the district attorneys office an account of how she gained entry to the apartment, then largely contradicted it on the stand.
This has to be one of the most blatant cases of perjury Ive seen, Judge Martin, a former United States attorney, said in his courtroom in September 2003. He said he doubted the officer, Kim Carillo, had any use for the truth.
She will tell it, I think, whatever way it suits her to tell it, he added.
The judge told the prosecutor to ask his superiors to review Officer Carillos testimony. They later replied that they had found no perjury, he said, and that the officer was not at fault.
Side Effects
If the fallout for police officers has been slight, the judges rulings have exacted other costs.
For one thing, they may free a weapons offender, and scuttle the chance to win his cooperation in more significant prosecutions, like investigations into violent gangs or gun trafficking. The lost value of those bigger cases is really incalculable, said Alan Vinegrad, a former United States attorney in Brooklyn.
Questions about police credibility can also hamper other cases. When a judge finds, for example, that an officer has lied, prosecutors must alert defense lawyers in other cases involving that officer.
Judge David G. Trager of Brooklyn federal court was so indignant over what he called an officers blatantly false testimony in an October 2005 suppression hearing that he told prosecutors, I hope you wont darken my courtroom with this police officers testimony again.
Judge Trager did not suppress the gun, concluding that some of the officers testimony had been credible. But the officer, Herbert Martin, was about to testify in a federal trial stemming from another gun arrest.
The defense lawyer in that case, Howard Greenberg, said that learning of Judge Tragers findings was like manna from heaven.
When Officer Martin took the stand in that trial, Mr. Greenberg confronted him, asking, Didnt you commit perjury a week ago when you said in this very building, in an altogether different case, that someone had a gun in his waist?
The officer denied that he had lied. But Mr. Greenberg said he believed that his question made an impression on the jury. His client was acquitted.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 12, 2008, 07:11:04 PM
more than 20 cases in which judges found police officers testimony to be unreliable, inconsistent, twisting the truth, or just plain false. The judges language was often withering: patently incredible, riddled with exaggerations, unworthy of belief.
Last week, the Police Department reported a spike in street stops, which it said were an essential law enforcement tool : 145,098 from January through March,
20 cases outa more than a 1/2 million stops and you "THINK" IMO, this article sums up police officers today. The minority are the good ones, and good only because the do not act the way the bad officers do. Yet they are just as bad as the rotten officers because they do nothing to stop them..."
how do you "think" that. especially extrapolated from those kinda numbers
Post by: vernal45 on May 12, 2008, 08:01:20 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 12, 2008, 08:22:28 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on May 13, 2008, 04:15:39 AM
New York would have a hissing fit to end all hissing fits.
Post by: griz on May 13, 2008, 05:03:10 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 05:08:28 AM
Post by: taurusowner on May 13, 2008, 05:47:17 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 06:08:12 AM
Post by: ilbob on May 13, 2008, 06:16:00 AM
OP, don't ever call the police if something happens to you or your family. Since they're so untrustworthy, just handle it yourself. House gets broken into, don't report it. Daughter gets kidnapped, look yourself, don't call the FBI. Since the whole concept of police is such a bad idea, you'd be best to just detach yourself completely and handle everything yourself.
In an ideal world you would have that option. Since LE has a virtual monopoly in these areas, you don't even have the option.
Post by: K Frame on May 13, 2008, 08:20:42 AM
Post by: taurusowner on May 13, 2008, 08:34:01 AM
Post by: K Frame on May 13, 2008, 08:36:17 AM
Post by: ilbob on May 13, 2008, 08:49:20 AM
No, I moved it from Politics.
That must mean mike has decided this subject is not political in nature.
Post by: cordex on May 13, 2008, 10:28:17 AM
more than 20 cases in which judges found police officers testimony to be unreliable, inconsistent, twisting the truth, or just plain false. The judges language was often withering: patently incredible, riddled with exaggerations, unworthy of belief.
Last week, the Police Department reported a spike in street stops, which it said were an essential law enforcement tool : 145,098 from January through March,
20 cases outa more than a 1/2 million stops and you "THINK" IMO, this article sums up police officers today. The minority are the good ones, and good only because the do not act the way the bad officers do. Yet they are just as bad as the rotten officers because they do nothing to stop them..."
You're using pretty crappy math there, Cassandra.Last week, the Police Department reported a spike in street stops, which it said were an essential law enforcement tool : 145,098 from January through March,
20 cases outa more than a 1/2 million stops and you "THINK" IMO, this article sums up police officers today. The minority are the good ones, and good only because the do not act the way the bad officers do. Yet they are just as bad as the rotten officers because they do nothing to stop them..."
First, and most obviously, 145,098 is considerably less than 1/2 million. I think the fraction you're looking for is 1/4.
Secondly, we're not talking about 20 out of 145,098, we're talking about 20 out of "more than 1,000". See here:
Quote
The decisions to suppress, which The New York Times found by interviewing lawyers and examining more than 1,000 court dockets since 2002, came from 18 federal judges in Manhattan and Brooklyn.
That's close to 2 percent in which the judge excluded evidence. Anyway, you're right that it is a small percentage of the total number of cases, but I do share the concern regarding the exclusionary rule.The figure you cited (145,098) is the number of "street stops", which I'm sure covers a variety of police/citizen interactions, but while they may be reported by the officer, they don't necessarily even make it to the courtroom. For instance:
Quote
The judge, John Gleeson of Brooklyn federal court, asked the officer, Kaz Daughtry, how successful his method had been in other cases.
Officer Daughtry replied that over a three-day period, he and his partner had stopped 30 to 50 people. One had a gun.
So, about 40 people were searched based on a police officer's "technique" for determining probable cause and out of those, all but one were searched based on a laughable "technique". So one guilty guy goes free after 29 to 49 innocent people were selected for a search in a manner that a judge considered illicit? Where is the incentive for the police officer to change his strategy?Officer Daughtry replied that over a three-day period, he and his partner had stopped 30 to 50 people. One had a gun.
I'd like to see a better considered system for protecting civil rights as opposed to one that simply allows guilty parties to go free when an officer screws up, and no penalties at all if the case doesn't make it to court. Better in my opinion to provide for criminal charges against an officer if and when they violate the law. That way all the criminals go to jail instead of some going free.
Sound fair?
Post by: K Frame on May 13, 2008, 10:29:14 AM
No, I moved it from Politics.
That must mean mike has decided this subject is not political in nature.NO!
Ya think?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 10:33:41 AM
was for 3 months stops
"So, about 40 people were searched based on a police officer's "technique" for determining probable cause and out of those, all but one were searched based on a laughable "technique". So one guilty guy goes free after 29 to 49 innocent people were selected for a search in a manner that a judge considered illicit? Where is the incentive for the police officer to change his strategy?"
here do you imagine they searched all those folks? big difference between a search and a stop but heck "it coulda happened that way" as charlene drew jarvis would put it
Post by: vernal45 on May 13, 2008, 10:41:10 AM
I do not want to interact with cops, at all, and will no unless I must. I do not trust them. Not one of them. They do not do their jobs, we are seeing more and more of this around the nation. Cops that break laws that would put me in jail, and nothing happens to them, save maybe a Non Judicial punishment, ala military style, paper put in their jacket.
Get your head out of the sand. I am not worried about someone coming into my house to where I need to call the cops. I am worried about the cops busting in my house because they have the wrong address, throw my wife, daughter and son on the ground, assault them while cuffing them (since the should not have been there in the first place) and killing me, because I think my home is being invaded and I grab my nearest firearm and attempt to protect my family. And yes, I know if that happened I would die, sure thing. But I would also have a very good chance of taking an invader or 2 out with me. That is losing on both sides..
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 13, 2008, 12:50:14 PM
This WILL NOT descend into a cop-bashing thread.
If it does, I guarantee that the thread will disappear, and that those responsible for the infraction will find themselves on the wrong end of a certain moderator with a law-enforcement background. Understand?
Good. Play nice, y'all.
Post by: vernal45 on May 13, 2008, 01:50:19 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 02:08:25 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 13, 2008, 02:24:25 PM
We can rationally discuss problems with law enforcement. We can rationally discuss problems with priests, altar boys, and volume discounts on candy bars. We can rationally discuss problems with all of the bad apples that comprise a portion of every vocation on Gawd's Green Earth. But we will do it rationally here on APS, or else. As a former Chief of a B-52 Stan/Eval and also somebody who knows how internal affairs works in his own sheriff's department while he worked as a deputy sheriff, the "All cops are bad to the core, M'Kay" bit gets a bit tiresome the first time or three it's played out here on APS.
Likewise, I fully expect, given your adament distrust of all things law enforcement, that you will not be availing yourself of their response services if you have an automobile accident, a home break-in, or somebody does something criminal to your person. I mean, the majority of cops are bad and all, right? You certainly don't want to appear as a hypocrite after going on public record in this thread.
Don't like 'em? Fine. Don't use 'em, join the Free Staters, and stock up on extra copies of Unintended Consequences. In the meantime, this is Armed Polite Society, and your audience here is comprised of folks from many walks of life - never forget that. The mods and admins here are very much aware of it, and do their best to keep things on an even keel.
Post by: anygunanywhere on May 13, 2008, 02:45:09 PM
I admire a man that can dish out a quallity arse eatin'.
That one is a classic. Nicely done.
Anygunanywhere
Post by: vernal45 on May 13, 2008, 03:29:53 PM
Like I said, I stay away from any cops, dont call them, dont want to be around them, so yes, I do not want to avail myself to their services, and would like them to stay the hell away from me as well. So, if I stay away from the cops, and they dont interfere with my life, can I keep my tax money that goes to them?
And I used to be a cop, so IMO if a department like the NYPD described in the above article is indicative of LE, which most departments are the same. Same basic structure, same bravado, same attitudes, same alpha types. So with that said, and like the article stated, other police, judges and DA's know about these bad apples, yet do not do anything about it, says volumes. Lets not even get into all the cases that could be overturned because of bad conduct on the officers part, or the rights violations that occur because these people, these good people in LE (remember those judges, DA's and other officers) do not want to tarnish a career, do not want to call an officer a liar. It is a very serious problem in LE, one of the reasons I left the PD. When you work with someone that will turn a blind eye to a fellow officer screwing up, yet 30 minutes later arrest a citizen for the exact same thing, we have a serious problem.
Back to me not using police services, I could only wish that somewhere I could opt for that. But the way the laws are constructed, again with input form judges, DA's, police, elected officials, you can not not interact. So your hypocrite analysis is lacking.
I just wanted to post an article, that took a large police department and studied its perfromance or lack there of to see what really goes on. Some of us would like to know why we would be jailed for an offense and yet another person is not, only because he/she wears a badge.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 03:40:00 PM
when you encountered that you did speak up and make sure justice was done.... right?
Post by: vernal45 on May 13, 2008, 03:42:58 PM
I will make a promise, right now. I will not post another discussion about LE, ever again on this forum.. Good enough....
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 03:45:26 PM
Post by: vernal45 on May 13, 2008, 03:57:04 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 04:11:31 PM
Post by: vernal45 on May 13, 2008, 04:28:22 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 04:32:34 PM
Post by: Hawkmoon on May 13, 2008, 04:59:27 PM
Though the number of cases is small,
more than 20 cases in which judges found police officers testimony to be unreliable, inconsistent, twisting the truth, or just plain false. The judges language was often withering: patently incredible, riddled with exaggerations, unworthy of belief.
Last week, the Police Department reported a spike in street stops, which it said were an essential law enforcement tool : 145,098 from January through March,
20 cases outa more than a 1/2 million stops and you "THINK" IMO, this article sums up police officers today. The minority are the good ones, and good only because the do not act the way the bad officers do. Yet they are just as bad as the rotten officers because they do nothing to stop them..."
how do you "think" that. especially extrapolated from those kinda numbers
more than 20 cases in which judges found police officers testimony to be unreliable, inconsistent, twisting the truth, or just plain false. The judges language was often withering: patently incredible, riddled with exaggerations, unworthy of belief.
Last week, the Police Department reported a spike in street stops, which it said were an essential law enforcement tool : 145,098 from January through March,
20 cases outa more than a 1/2 million stops and you "THINK" IMO, this article sums up police officers today. The minority are the good ones, and good only because the do not act the way the bad officers do. Yet they are just as bad as the rotten officers because they do nothing to stop them..."
how do you "think" that. especially extrapolated from those kinda numbers
Well, how about looking at that one cop's testimony? He said he and his partner made 50 stops in 3 days, and found one gun. Remember, the stops that didn't turn up a gun (or drugs) never make it to court -- but that doesn't make them legal stops.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 05:01:54 PM
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on May 13, 2008, 05:07:42 PM
Post by: vernal45 on May 13, 2008, 07:47:56 PM
The lawbis the law. No exceptions. When I wore a badge we were taught to enforce the law by example first. You can't have a cop not even see a booking room and a night in jail when any normal unbadged citizen would. Cops WILL not police their own. So we as citizens, their employers, we need to raise hell, make our feelings known. That is the only way a change will happen.
Post by: LadySmith on May 14, 2008, 12:07:45 AM
No admin actions at all, except for the smallest of problems. No cops investigating cops. If it is a crime that a citizen would be arrested for, jailed, tried in front of a judgen and jury, it should apply to cops. Period.
The lawbis the law. No exceptions. When I wore a badge we were taught to enforce the law by example first. You can't have a cop not even see a booking room and a night in jail when any normal unbadged citizen would. Cops WILL not police their own. So we as citizens, their employers, we need to raise hell, make our feelings known. That is the only way a change will happen.
Makes sense to me.The lawbis the law. No exceptions. When I wore a badge we were taught to enforce the law by example first. You can't have a cop not even see a booking room and a night in jail when any normal unbadged citizen would. Cops WILL not police their own. So we as citizens, their employers, we need to raise hell, make our feelings known. That is the only way a change will happen.
Vernal45, it seems like you were a credit to the force. I'm sorry they lost you.
Post by: ilbob on May 14, 2008, 04:34:40 AM
from your expert perspective, as an author how would you have the cops conduct their buisness
I don't think there is a good answer to dealing with LE misconduct. As long as the people who are doing the investigating are from the same subset of people who may or may not have committed some misconduct, there is little chance of getting a fair investigation.There are practical issues here too. if every cop who did something rotten got fired, you would run out of cops pretty quick. So as a practical matter, you have to give them a pass most of the time.
Post by: cordex on May 14, 2008, 06:46:00 AM
The figure you cited (145,098)
was for 3 months stops
I see how you're getting half a million now, but considering the sample of 20 cases was out of a universe of "more than 1,000 cases" and not even every case tried (much less all the stops), your extrapolation was pretty poor. 20 out of 1,000 is very different than 20 out of 145,098 or 20 out of 580,000 ...was for 3 months stops
Quote
"So, about 40 people were searched based on a police officer's "technique" for determining probable cause and out of those, all but one were searched based on a laughable "technique". So one guilty guy goes free after 29 to 49 innocent people were selected for a search in a manner that a judge considered illicit? Where is the incentive for the police officer to change his strategy?"
here do you imagine they searched all those folks? big difference between a search and a stop but heck "it coulda happened that way" as charlene drew jarvis would put it
Considering the context (relating the effectiveness of a technique to determine if someone was carrying a firearm), I assumed that some sort of search was conducted to determine if those people targeted by the officer's technique were in fact carrying a weapon. If not, it's hard to imagine why the officer would have brought up that figure.
here do you imagine they searched all those folks? big difference between a search and a stop but heck "it coulda happened that way" as charlene drew jarvis would put it
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 14, 2008, 12:40:52 PM
Post by: cordex on May 14, 2008, 01:46:06 PM
i was in the same biz as vernal other side of the street though. have extensive arrest search etc experience. most stops i've seen in the areas where i played were real fast. often no more than who are you why you here. and the cops aren't paying as much attention to what you say as how your pupils look how you smell and a bunch of less definitive lil clues that they may not be able to articulate, much less justify to someone who isn't familiar with the game. street sense is a requirement for folks on both sides of the crime game.its a fine line to walk though and some lazy less gifted cops cross over it.once they cross the line its a slippery slope for them. its a game with the cops on one side and lawyers and crooks on the other. stakes are high for 2 outa three of those folks.
Frankly, this isn't very relevant. The issue is that in 2% of the examined cases, judges exercised the exclusionary rule which by definition applies to illegal activities on the part of police and prosecutors. In other words, a judge examined the case and said "Officer Friendly broke the law when he did [ ... ] so you can't use the evidence he found while doing it."if you really imagine those 2 cops search that many folks in a day you give em credit for working real hard. maybe get someone to bodyguard you and go hang out in the hood sometime and check it out. a whole lotta important busts happen cause the cops get lucky working the streets.
The problem is that you're ignoring that in the judge's opinion, the strategy was hardly better than randomly guessing who might have a gun and the officers' behavior while utilizing the technique was bad enough that evidence necessary to the prosecution of this criminal was suppressed. This is not based on my analysis of police techniques, nor on your intimate knowledge of the case, just what a news report states that a judge is on record saying.i know that it hurts some folks feelings when its them getting caught with a bag of weed but hey thats all part of the game don't cry. and if the trauma is too bad get the laws changed . hate the game not the player
The actions in question are already against the law, which is why the exclusionary rule exists at all.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 14, 2008, 02:44:48 PM
ahhh yes the judges opinion same offer judge gets a bodyguard and goes to hang in the hood. heck most of em would wet themselves. bear in mind i liked judges back in the day. they were an important force helping me keep getting high. i'm sure the economy of south america appreciated it too
Post by: Nitrogen on May 14, 2008, 03:21:14 PM
OP, don't ever call the police if something happens to you or your family. Since they're so untrustworthy, just handle it yourself. House gets broken into, don't report it. Daughter gets kidnapped, look yourself, don't call the FBI. Since the whole concept of police is such a bad idea, you'd be best to just detach yourself completely and handle everything yourself.
Not a bad idea, unless your daughter is lucky enough to be attractive and blonde, and luckier enough still to get Fox News's attention.
I'd probably report it to the police, but not expect anything.
Post by: vernal45 on May 14, 2008, 08:19:18 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355796,00.html
Former Atlanta Police Officer Admits Covering Up Botched Raid that Killed Elderly Woman
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
AP
ADVERTISEMENT
ATLANTA
A former Atlanta police officer on trial for a botched drug raid that led to the death of a 92-year-old woman said Wednesday he went along with a cover-up because he felt threatened by his fellow officers.
Kathryn Johnston was shot 39 times as plainclothes narcotics officers busted into her house using a "no-knock" warrant on Nov. 26, 2006. During nearly eight hours of testimony, Arthur Tesler said he was instructed by two other officers after the shooting to memorize a cover-up story that they had witnessed an informant buying drugs at Johnston's home.
Tesler also told the jury in Fulton County Superior Court that he didn't know officer Jason R. Smith had lied to a judge to get the warrant and then planted drugs in Johnston's basement to back up the story. In his often tearful testimony, Tesler said he eventually decided to cooperate with federal investigators because he "couldn't take it anymore."
"A woman was dead and they were trying to implicate me in their story," Tesler said. "I didn't lay a hand on this woman. I wanted nothing to do with it."
Prosecutors say Tesler had opportunities to tell the truth but decided to do so only when federal agents told him they knew he was lying.
Tesler was in the backyard of Johnston's home during the raid, during which Johnston fired one shot from a pistol as police were breaking down her door. She did not hit any of the officers.
Fulton County prosecutor Kelly S. Hill has said even though Tesler never fired a shot, he shared responsibility for Johnston's death because he went along with a lie.
The Rev. Al Sharpton, who was sitting in the courtroom during the morning, called Tesler's testimony "chilling" and the shooting "a complete disregard for the criminal justice system."
Tesler is charged with lying in an official investigation, violating his oath as an officer and false imprisonment. The trial is likely to be the only one in the Johnston shooting because former officers Gregg Junnier and Smith have already pleaded guilty to state manslaughter and federal civil rights charges. Junnier testified against Tesler last week.
The fatal shooting led to sharp criticism of the police department, and a shake-up of the narcotics unit, which Tesler's attorney, William McKenney, has said routinely planted drugs and lied to obtain search warrants. It also prompted a review of how officers obtain and use no-knock warrants, which are intended to keep drug suspects from having time to destroy evidence.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 14, 2008, 08:25:10 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 14, 2008, 09:15:18 PM
These Atlanta cops, Rampart, any number of others.
One or two guys actually go down, but only after long stretches of lots more of their fellows breaking the rules without any consequences.
The few prosecutions end up illuminating the existence of wider problems, not contradicting them.
Post by: vernal45 on May 14, 2008, 09:52:28 PM
Post by: LadySmith on May 14, 2008, 10:22:34 PM
It's good to see some justice coming out of it.
Post by: cordex on May 15, 2008, 11:59:56 AM
"the judge's opinion"
ahhh yes the judges opinion same offer judge gets a bodyguard and goes to hang in the hood. heck most of em would wet themselves. bear in mind i liked judges back in the day. they were an important force helping me keep getting high. i'm sure the economy of south america appreciated it too
I must not be understanding you. Are you saying that if I or the judge in this case went out and saw the mean streets that you're so familiar with, we'd start to advocate the idea of police breaking the law? Didn't you just say a little bit ago that if we didn't like the law we should get it changed and not complain about it? Well, by the same token, if the Fourth and Fifth amendments are too much of a restraint for cops hangin' in the hood, maybe police and prosecutors should work to have them (and, in this case, the judicial rules used to enforce said amendments) overturned.
ahhh yes the judges opinion same offer judge gets a bodyguard and goes to hang in the hood. heck most of em would wet themselves. bear in mind i liked judges back in the day. they were an important force helping me keep getting high. i'm sure the economy of south america appreciated it too
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 15, 2008, 12:13:19 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 15, 2008, 12:18:47 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 15, 2008, 12:24:51 PM
Post by: cordex on May 15, 2008, 12:37:52 PM
oh i think you understand fine. pretending not too is safer though, for you and thr judge. if you ever come do the tourist thing in dc let me know i'll take you where tour mobile won't and i don't go some places any more
One of us isn't making sense.
Post by: ilbob on May 15, 2008, 01:22:58 PM
I don't understand this problem some of you have with cops. I get along with them fine, on the few occasions we even have any interaction.
most of the time, citizen interaction with cops goes OK. the problem comes when cops engage in misconduct. its not all that common, but it is not rare either. the problem is that with any other entity there is a means by which you can make a complaint and there is a good chance you will get a fair hearing on your complaint with a reasonable expectation that something appropriate will be done. that expectation just does not exist in the case of potential LE misconduct, especially in certain jurisdictions.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 15, 2008, 02:09:31 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 15, 2008, 05:02:25 PM
you mean like complaining about a doctor or lawyer or politician>? or anyone with a good union
2, 3 , or more wrongs somehow make a right?
Every other profession does it so it must be ok?
Really, that's your argument?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 15, 2008, 05:31:44 PM
"with any other entity there is a means by which you can make a complaint and there is a good chance you will get a fair hearing on your complaint with a reasonable expectation that something appropriate will be done"