Voters to Decide Future of Spokane Police Oversight

US v. Joe Arpaio

DOJ Releases Findings of Misconduct in Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff's Office

The Justice Department announced its' findings today in a civil rights investigation into the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. The Justice Department found constitutional and civil rights abuses including discriminatory stops and arrests of Latinos. An excerpt of the press release follows and the full report is available here:

The Justice Department found reasonable cause to believe that MCSO, under the leadership of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, has engaged in a pattern or practice of misconduct that violates the Constitution and federal law. The investigation, opened in June 2008, was conducted under the provisions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Title VI implementing regulations.

The department found reasonable cause to believe that a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct and/or violations of federal law occurred in several areas, including:

Discriminatory policing practices including unlawful stops, detentions and arrests of Latinos;
Unlawful retaliation against individuals exercising their First Amendment right to criticize MCSO’s policies or practices, including but not limited to practices relating to its discriminatory treatment of Latinos; and
Discriminatory jail practices against Latino inmates with limited English proficiency by punishing them and denying them critical services.

The Justice Department found a number of long-standing and entrenched systemic deficiencies that caused or contributed to these patterns of unlawful conduct, including:

A failure to implement policies guiding deputies on lawful policing practices;
Allowing specialized units to engage in unconstitutional practices;
Inadequate training;
Inadequate supervision;
An ineffective disciplinary, oversight and accountability system; and
A lack of sufficient external oversight and accountability.

In addition to these formal pattern or practice findings, the investigation uncovered additional areas of serious concern, including:

Use of excessive force;
Police practices that have the effect of significantly compromising MCSO’s ability to adequately protect Latino residents; and
Failure to adequately investigate allegations of sexual assaults.

While no formal findings of pattern or practice violations have been made in connection with these issues, the investigation remains ongoing.

The Right of Citizens to Videotape Police

By Jonathan Turley, Los Angeles Times

Twenty years ago, as Rodney King was beaten by Los Angeles police officers, a private citizen in a nearby apartment turned on his video camera. Largely because of that tape, four officers were criminally charged. In July, a homeless schizophrenic man died after a police beating in Fullerton. Audio from a cellphone video caught Kelly Thomas' cries for his father and helped force an investigation that resulted in a first-degree murder charge against one police officer.

The increasing availability of cellphones and video cameras has fundamentally changed police abuse cases, creating vital evidence in cases that were once dismissed as matters of conflicting accounts between officers and citizens. With that change, however, has come a backlash from officers who, despite court rulings upholding the right of citizens to tape police in public, have been threatening or arresting people for the "crime" of recording them. In many states, prosecutors have fought to support such claims and put citizens in jail for videotaping officers, even in cases of police abuse.

In New York this year, Emily Good was arrested after videotaping the arrest of a man at a traffic stop in Rochester. Good was filming from her frontyard; an officer is heard saying to her, "I don't feel safe with you standing behind me, so I'm going to ask you to go into your house." When she continued to film, the officer said, "You seem very anti-police," and arrested her.

DOCUMENT: 1st Circuit Court decision: Citizens' right to record

In Illinois last month, Brad Williams filed a lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department because, he said, he was beaten by police in response to his filming an officer holding and dragging a man down the street from inside a moving squad car. Ironically, Chicago has rejected complaints about the installation of thousands of cameras in the city that film citizens in public for use in prosecutions.

In Maryland in July, Anthony Graber got a well-deserved speeding ticket, but his real mistake was posting footage from his motorcycle helmet-cam on YouTube. It showed an irate off-duty, out-of-uniform officer pulling him over with his gun drawn. Prosecutors obtained a grand jury indictment against Graber on felony wiretap charges, which carry a 16-year prison sentence.

In Boston in August, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unambiguously that the Constitution protects citizen videographers filming in public. In that case, attorney Simon Glik was walking past the Boston Common on Oct. 1, 2007, when he came upon three Boston officers arresting a man. Glik turned on his cellphone camera after hearing a witness say the police were being abusive. An officer told Glik to turn off his camera. When Glik refused, he was arrested for violation of the state wiretap statute, disturbing the peace and, for good measure, aiding in the escape of a prisoner.

The charges were dismissed after a public outcry, but in a later civil rights case, city attorneys fought to deny citizens the right to videotape police. The court rejected Boston's arguments and found that the police had denied Glik his 1st and 4th Amendment rights.

But other federal judges might not be so sure. Take Richard Posner, the intellectual leader of conservative judges and scholars who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago. Posner shocked many last month when he cut off an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed suit to challenge an Illinois law preventing audio recording of police without their consent.

The ACLU lawyer had uttered just 14 words when Posner barked: "I'm not interested, really, in what you want to do with these recordings of peoples' encounters with the police." Posner then added his concerns about meddling citizens: "Once all this stuff can be recorded, there's going to be a lot more of this snooping around by reporters and bloggers.... I'm always suspicious when the civil liberties people start telling the police how to do their business."

Many judges may privately share Posner's view of such confrontations. And the near-total silence of politicians in dealing with the question of the public's right to record what they see and hear suggests that many legislators may also find these cases inconvenient.

Actions against citizen videographers run against not just the Constitution but good public policy. Yet, without a videotape, Rodney King would have been just another guy with a prior record claiming abuse, against the word of multiple officers.

The outcome once was all but inevitable: no tape, no case. As long as police abuse is out of sight, it can also be out of mind. If successful, the backlash against citizens recording police could guarantee that Rodney King is never repeated — the officers' trial, that is.

Full article can be found here.

Department of Justice Report Suggests Corruption in Puerto Rico Police

Today, the New York Times reports that a Justice Department investigation has accused the Puerto Rico Police Department of widespread civil rights violations, corruption and illegal conduct. ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero responded to today's story:

The report confirms a breathtaking level of violence and corruption throughout the PRPD. With the facts laid bare, it is now the responsibility of the Puerto Rican government and the Justice Department to make sure the police abuse and brutality end as quickly as possible. Calling the report "a blistering condemnation of the second-largest police force in the United States," the Times notes: The Justice Department began the investigation in part due to complaints by the American Civil Liberties Union. In June, when President Obama visited the island, the A.C.L.U. sent him a letter contending that the police had “engaged in a level of brutality against U.S. citizens” with a degree of impunity that “would not be tolerated in the 50 states.”

The Department of Justice issued a press release which included these highlights:

The Justice Department found reasonable cause to believe that a pattern and practice of unconstitutional conduct and/or violations of federal law occurred in several areas, including: Use of excessive force; Use of unreasonable force and other misconduct designed to suppress the exercise of protected First Amendment rights; and Unconstitutional stops, searches and arrests.

Police Officer That Killed Two Teens Driving Twice the Speed Limit

Reports released by the Texas Department of Public Safety Office this week indicated that an officer was driving more than 80 miles per hour when he struck a car containing two teens in Wichita Falls, Texas. The report indicates that the teens had stopped at a stop sign then proceeded into the intersection where they were struck by the patrol car. The report also indicates that the patrol car took no evasive action. The teens were both killed and the officer is recovering from injuries. The initial report indicated that the officer may have taken prescription medications prior to the accident. One of the teens killed was eight months pregnant.

New Misconduct Allegations Against San Francisco Police as 26 Cases Dropped

Twenty-six felony cases have been dismissed by San Francisco Prosecutors that involve misconduct allegations against the San Francisco Police Department. All 26 cases that were dropped on May 27, 2011, involve Mission Station officers that are currently under investigation for illegal searches, perjury, and theft.

At a news conference, San Francisco Jeff Adachi showed surveillance footage of an April 22, 2010 arrest that stood in sharp contrast to the sworn police report describing the incident. (more here)

In that case, police arrested 49-year-old Jesus Inastrilla in front of a Tenderloin bar for drug sales. In a sworn police report, Officer Peter Richardson wrote that officers Jacob Fegan, Ricardo Guerrero, Robert Sanchez, who were working undercover, arrested Inastrilla after Inastrilla spit a crack rock into his hand to sell it to Guerrero. However, the video shows no exchange between the two men. One of Inastrilla’s hands remains on his cell phone throughout the video, while his other hand is in his pocket.

Charges were dropped against Inastrilla May 7, 2010 after Guerrero claimed he could not find the alleged seized drugs in evidence, according to Inastrilla’s attorney, Erica Franklin. Franklin later lodged a complaint with the Office of Citizen Complaints on behalf of her client. The OCC also found that the video was inconsistent with the police report.

In a second case of possible misconduct revealed Friday, Mission District residents Javier and Mariette Tenorio produced a sworn declaration against Sgt. Kevin Healy, Sanchez, Guerrero, Fegan and Richardson, alleging police illegally searched their residence and left with their valuables.

San Francisco Hotel Surveillence Footage Implicates San Francisco Police Department

Those doing defense work should be aware of the ongoing controversy involving video surveillance at the Henry Hotel in San Francisco. The controversy recently came into the public eye as the result of several cases beginning in December 2010 when a man was arrested for a drug possession charge at the Henry Hotel in San Francisco. Members of the SFPD Narcotics Unit acting on a tip from a confidential informant responded to the Henry Hotel and, according to the police report of the incident, officers knocked on the resident’s door, announced themselves and waited for a response. Hearing none, the officer wrote, officers slightly opened the door with a master key. Without entering the unit, officers then told the female resident they were freezing the room until they could obtain a search warrant. According to police reports of the incident, the woman then gave them verbal permission to search the premises while officers contacted headquarters and asked a unit to respond with a consent form she could read, according to the police report. A man inside the woman’s room was arrested after officers claimed to find heroin and crack on his person. However, surveillance video discovered by the San Francisco PD Office from the Henry Hotel shows that the four narcotics officers used a master key to barge directly into the room without knocking or obtaining consent. The video evidence directly contradicts the reports of the officers which were signed under penalty of perjury.

In a January incident, also at the Henry Hotel, one police officer is observed covering the surveillance camera with his hand while other officers enter a room and search it without consent or a warrant.

In yet another incident at the Henry Hotel in December, recently released surveillance footage from the Henry Hotel reveals a man was falsely arrested for drug possession by officers currently under federal investigation for perjury and conducting illegal searches.

The footage of the Dec. 2, 2010 arrest was released during a press conference earlier this month at the San Francisco Public Defenders office. The December 2nd incident involves the same officers that were involved in the December 23rd incident. In the video, a 29-year-old man, is seen walking into the Henry Hotel and ascending the stairs wearing a black jacket. Moments later, police using a master key enter the sixth floor room of two women suspected of selling drugs, where the man is a visitor. Officers find a white and gold jacket slung over a chair with drugs in the pocket and no identification. According to police reports, another officer states that he witnessed the man walk into the hotel wearing the same white and gold jacket. The man indicated that it was not his jacket when he was arrested, and police did not enter his black jacket into evidence, nor did they indicate in reports that he claimed it was not his jacket. The man, who served three weeks in jail over the incident, was freed when prosecutors dropped the case after a preliminary hearing.



Chief Attorney Matt Gonzalez of the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office said the seriousness of the matter could not be overstated.

“A free society cannot abide a culture of lawlessness by police,” Gonzalez said. “Those officers who lie under oath to magistrates should be prosecuted for their misconduct. They are no better than the criminals they purport to be in pursuit of.”

The latest footage brings the number of videotaped misconduct incidents involving SFPD officers to four. It is a good reminder to always check and see if surveillance video is available of traffic stops, street encounters, or other encounters where surveillance cameras might have captured the scene. Thanks to the San Francisco Public Defenders Office for their good work.

The NYPD Tapes: Bed-Stuy's 81st Precinct Uncensored!

Two years ago, a police officer in a Bedford-Stuyvesant precinct concerned about how the police were serving the community began recording his fellow officers on the job: he recorded EVERYTHING including roll calls, his precinct commander, street encounters with other officers and the public, and station talk and office banter. Made without the knowledge or approval of the NYPD, the tapes—made between June 1, 2008, and October 31, 2009, in the 81st Precinct in Bedford-Stuyvesant and obtained exclusively by the Village Voice—provide an unprecedented portrait of what it's like to work as a cop in New York City. An Excerpt from the Voice (full article here):

As a result, the tapes show, the rank-and-file NYPD street cop experiences enormous pressure in a strange catch-22: He or she is expected to maintain high "activity"—including stop-and-frisks—but, paradoxically, to record fewer actual crimes.

This pressure was accompanied by paranoia—from the precinct commander to the lieutenants to the sergeants to the line officers—of violating any of the seemingly endless bureaucratic rules and regulations that would bring in outside supervision.

The tapes also reveal the locker-room environment at the precinct. On a recording made in September, the subject being discussed at roll call is stationhouse graffiti (done by the cops themselves) and something called "cocking the memo book," a practical joke in which officers draw penises in each other's daily notebooks.

In one tape, precinct supervisors talk about a specific "numbers" quota, warn cops to pick up their numbers, or else, and complain about outside inspections. In another tape recorded in September 2009, pressure for "numbers" are discussed (summonses, arrests, stop and frisks and community visits) because it was the end of the month and activity reports had to be filed.

Latest News: Spokane Police Department

From Center for Justice, latest news on Spokane Police Department's fiasco in the making over the death of Otto Zehm last year. (full article here)

The Justice Department’s latest filing in the Zehm case offers a new look inside the pressure cooker that likely awaits the Spokane Police Department and its attorneys at trial later this year.

The 75-page filing by Assistant U.S. Attorney Tim Durkin featured in Thursday’s front page Spokesman-Review article, “Feds: Testimony Altered,” is now available here.

Tom Clouse’s story focuses on new assertions being made by the Justice Department that top Spokane police officials, including Assistant Chief Jim Nicks, are now expected to provide trial testimony that will directly dispute the Department’s early accounts of the altercation that lead to the death of Otto Zehm, a 36-year-old man suffering from schizophrenia. Clouse’s story highlights sections of the new filing that indicate Spokane police investigators set out to alter and even discredit eye witness testimony that contradicted the self-defense claims of defendant Karl Thompson, Jr., the Spokane police officer who first encountered Zehm in a north side convenience store the night of March 18, 2006.

Durkin’s brief describes Thompson’s encounter with Zehm as a “violent attack” by the police officer against the affable janitor whose last recorded words were, “I only wanted a Snickers.”