Police not immune from criminal prosecution in Ohio...

[T.O.M.]

Ohio Supreme Court ruled on a case you guys would be interested in.  We just got copies.  You can read the opinion here. 

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2013/2013-ohio-2470.pdf

And here's the news account...

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100908/NEWS010702/309080058/Judge-sends-Cincinnati-police-detective-prison-false-arrest?nclick_check=1

A quick summary.  Steele, a Cincinnati detective, is investigating a robbery.  Makes connections to a woman, who has a teenage son.  Steele goes to school, arrests the kids, coerced a confession by threatening to lock up mom and put siblings in foster care, then locks up the kid.  Steele even told school officials and others he knew the kid didn't do the robbery, but he was using it as leverage.  Apparently, he went to mom and coerced her into sex as well, in trade for helping the teen.  Anyways, a prosecutor started looking into the case.  Got the kid out of lock-up.  She and some good cops started an investigation of Steele.  He was charged with multiple crimes, and convicted  of Witness Intimidation and Abduction (an Ohio kidnapping statute).  Ohio Supreme Court shot down arguments that cops can intimidate during an interview, saying this went way too far. They shot down the "police privilege" for the abduction charge.  Steele claimed police have a privilege against Abduction charges, because they are allowed to arrest people.  They argued that later determination of innocence does not make the arrest criminal.  Court said no, this wasn't a mistake in the arrest, but an abuse of power to make an arrest when there was no evidence supporting it.

Posting to show a couple of things...
1.  The prosecutor and investigators she turned to did the right thing.  No brotherhood of the badge thing.  Just the right thing.
2.  The court ruling makes it clear that a badge is not a protection from criminal charges, and that doing the wrong thing for the "right reasons" is still wrong and will get you punished.  Maybe not as hard as some of you would like, but 5 years in general pop for a cop ain't a picnic.
3.  Sometimes, us guys on the bench do get it right.   

[geronimotwo]

something good this way comes.....thanks for sharing.  now for the rest of the nation takes notice.

[Tallpine]

Amazing.  Now will the local department be on the hook for civil damages 

[HankB]

So there still ARE good guys in the system - it's refreshing to hear some actual good news on a Friday.

But it's a pity that instances of the system working correctly are actually newsworthy, rather than routine.

[vaskidmark]

Somebody please remind mom & kid that their 4th Amendment rights were violated when the cop interrogated a minor child outside the presence of his parent.  Seems a bunch of years ago SCOTUS opined that juveniles were not mature enough to understand and exercise their 5th Amendment rights and needed their parent(s)/guardian there to, among other things, say they (the kid) was not talking without consulting with an attorney.

There are very few execptions to that rule - most are about interviewing children in response to a complaint of child abuse/neglect.

Oh, yeah -  if the cop interrogated the kid at school before arresting him, the school also violated the kid's rights.  It's not in loco parentis but protection of privacy of school records.  Don't ask me why - but since SCOTUS said so it must be so.

stay safe.

[T.O.M.]

Somebody please remind mom & kid that their 4th Amendment rights were violated when the cop interrogated a minor child outside the presence of his parent.  Seems a bunch of years ago SCOTUS opined that juveniles were not mature enough to understand and exercise their 5th Amendment rights and needed their parent(s)/guardian there to, among other things, say they (the kid) was not talking without consulting with an attorney.

There are very few execptions to that rule - most are about interviewing children in response to a complaint of child abuse/neglect.

Oh, yeah -  if the cop interrogated the kid at school before arresting him, the school also violated the kid's rights.  It's not in loco parentis but protection of privacy of school records.  Don't ask me why - but since SCOTUS said so it must be so.

stay safe.

Skid,  I just went to a seminar on Juvenile Law.  The parent being present is a statutory right in some states, not a SCOTUS ruling.  Some states require, others don't.  Last ruling on the juvenile interrogation issue was in 2011, when SCOTUS ruled that a juvenile's age should be a key factor in determining a Miranda issue. 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-11121.pdf

And on the school issue, not a big deal in this case.  Cop took the kid out of school in cuffs before the questioning began.  So it's the police department and city that will be properly sued, not the school district.

[HankB]

Skid,  I just went to a seminar on Juvenile Law.  The parent being present is a statutory right in some states, not a SCOTUS ruling.  Some states require, others don't.  Last ruling on the juvenile interrogation issue was in 2011, when SCOTUS ruled that a juvenile's age should be a key factor in determining a Miranda issue.

You expect (early) elementary school kids to do what "authority" tells them to, but teenagers today don't seem to know that they have a right to "shut up and lawyer up" when being questioned by the police. When I was in high school, cops were called for something and were questioning a classmate - or trying to. He refused to answer ANY questions without a parent. When the principal told him "I'm taking the place of your parent, so answer the question!" the kid looked the principal in the eye and said "You're NOT my mommy!!!" (Kid wasn't involved in whatever the issue was, but knew better than to let the cops go on a fishing expedition.)

Years later, I remember reading about cops who went to a party and decided the teens had been drinking. 

So they lined up the teens and began administering breath tests - as soon as a kid blew over 0.00 he or she was arrested for underage drinking. (Remember, this was at a party, not on the road - so "implied consent" driving laws didn't apply.)

Then they moved to the next kid - who despite witnessing what happened a minute earlier - still took the test!   

And it happened over . . . and over . . . and over.

[RevDisk]

Wait, the cop DIDN'T get hit for rape? Plus extortion?

I sincerely hope the victims sue the offender for everything he has. But 5 years was still an extreme slap on the risk for essentially kidnapping/abduction, child abuse, perjury, extortion and rape. I'm sure numerous other crimes apply as well. If a non-LEO kidnapped a minor in order to extort a women into performing sexual acts, they'd be looking at decades in prison.

[T.O.M.]

You expect (early) elementary school kids to do what "authority" tells them to, but teenagers today don't seem to know that they have a right to "shut up and lawyer up" when being questioned by the police.

Obviously, my work world and the real world don't match much at all...I just got out of court.  15 year old kid in facing misdemeanor theft charge.  Case delayed for appointment of an attorney, at the boys request.  I asked him about the drug test he was going to take (it's for a baseline to determine court supervision level, not for any charges or anything), and he said he has a "Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment Right" to not take a test or answer any more of my questions.

[T.O.M.]

Wait, the cop DIDN'T get hit for rape? Plus extortion?

I sincerely hope the victims sue the offender for everything he has. But 5 years was still an extreme slap on the risk for essentially kidnapping/abduction, child abuse, perjury, extortion and rape. I'm sure numerous other crimes apply as well. If a non-LEO kidnapped a minor in order to extort a women into performing sexual acts, they'd be looking at decades in prison.

I read on another page that he was charged and acquitted of Rape.

And, I agree Rev, and can't for the life of me understand the sentence.  I'd think as a judge, and an elected judge at that, you'd want to publicly hammer a dirty cop. 

let's see...Abduction. Revised Code 2905.02. Felony of the Third Degree.  Sentence is 1-5 years.
Intimidation of a Witness.  Revised Code 2921.04.  Depending on the allegations, it either a Misdemeanor of the First Degree, or a Felony of the Third Degree.  up to 1 year for an M1, same 1-5 for an F3. 
Someone should refer this to DOJ, for civil rights violations.  Stack the sentences...

[RevDisk]

Obviously, my work world and the real world don't match much at all...I just got out of court.  15 year old kid in facing misdemeanor theft charge.  Case delayed for appointment of an attorney, at the boys request.  I asked him about the drug test he was going to take (it's for a baseline to determine court supervision level, not for any charges or anything), and he said he has a "Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment Right" to not take a test or answer any more of my questions.

Smart lad.  AND correct in citing all 3. Fourth for "Go get a warrant", Fifth for self-incrimination and Sixth for "Gimme a lawyer".
This is the sort of thing all students should be taught in school. Basic law and whatnot. Hank gave a perfect example.


http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-have-right-to-shut-up.html

A quote from another excellent and awesome judge. "You have the right to SHUT UP! No, you cannot waive any rights! I will not allow you to waive any rights! I require you to assert your rights! I order you to flaunt your rights with your head held high! Now plead and get out of my courtroom!"

[T.O.M.]

A quote from another excellent and awesome judge.

Rev, I don't know if you meant to reference me there or not, but this statement from you, and this bottle of potato vodka have made my evening.  Big thanks.

[Levant]

Get back to us when the cop reports to prison.  Otherwise, keep this in mind as evidence that cops in Ohio actually are immune:

http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x2105837634/Fired-Canton-officer-Daniel-Harless-wins-back-his-job

[vaskidmark]

Chris -

I humbly sit corrected.  I confused the Virginia Supreme Court for SCOTUS while trying to remember where/why I had heard about the parental presence thing.

stay safe.

[T.O.M.]

Skid, I was worried I missed something. No worries.