Good Cop / Bad Cop

[Drac]

If "dangerous" was defined as being at risk of having a complaint filed against you I would say car stops.

Yup....We (the cops) just picking on them because they are White, Black, Puerto Rican, etc...etc...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I do have 1 confrimed case where they targeted Klingons. One year a few folks fro the US headed to a Toronto con in full costume, all 3 cars in the group were detained at the border. Seems that the Canadian BP thought is suspicious that people would travel looking like this.

Then again, maybe they were looking for these 2 evil critters?

 

[Drac]

i do have 1 confrimed case where they targeted klingons. One year a few folks fro the us headed to a toronto con in full costume, all 3 cars in the group were detained at the border. Seems that the canadian bp thought is suspicious that people would travel looking like this.

Then again, maybe they were looking for these 2 evil critters? :d

lol.......

 

[jks9199]

Shoot...

In my area, if you're going to define "most dangerous" as "most likely to lead to a complaint", I think trying to take a lunch break tops the list!

 

[The Last Legionary]

One note on your second video there, Legionary...

It's not in the US. (Looks like maybe Spain, since some of the titling shows Madrid.)

The general culture and role of law enforcement in the US, and England, is rather different than in many other countries. The protections that US citizens have from the government and law enforcement are almost unique in the world; there are things that cops in England can do that stun and amaze us here in the US because Constitutional protections prevent us. Tez may be able to hit on a few of them; I know they've popped up here on MT before. Look at a lot of other countries, and it's even more amazing.

I think the video is from Spain or somewhere in South America during one of their weekly riots.


Ok. I've posted alot of the **** cops go through videos to prove a point. The point being, it's rough out there, and sometimes, people are ****ing stupid dumb asses.

Sometimes though, the cops are pigs. No, I don't mean the type who want to strip search Officer Amy. That's expected, what straight man wouldn't?

No, I mean the type of corrupt bastard that makes people hate their local department.

I give you, for your disgust, the corrupt and despicable Prince Georges County, MD police force.


Prince Georges County, MD
[yt]YCBZOdBqMgo[/yt]
"Every one of the Federally required cameras were either inoperable, or not running".
Non resisting reporter has shoulder dislocated by police during traffic stop.[/B]
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=4230

There are a good many reposts of brutality from this particular department online.
http://www.gazette.net/stories/10022008/hyatnew184010_32474.shtml
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0908/556298.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/bothwell10.html

Let me quote:

Enter Berwyn Heights, Md., Mayor Cheye Calvo, whose home was raided on Tuesday, July 29 by a Prince George’s County SWAT team after he picked up a 32-pound package of marijuana from his doorstep that was addressed to his wife, Trinity Tomsic. In an investigation that reportedly began in Arizona, where a police dog identified the package as containing contraband, P.G. County officers posing as deliverymen placed the package on Calvo’s porch and waited for someone to take possession.

According to the Washington Post, Calvo came home from work early that day, took his two black Labs for a walk, and upon returning home spotted the package. He brought it inside the house, set it unopened on a table, and went upstairs to change. Calvo barely had a chance to remove his clothes before he heard his mother-in-law screaming; SWAT officers conducting a "no-knock" raid stormed the house, thundering through the front door and shooting immediately, killing the family’s dogs, one of which was running away as it was shot.

...


The P.G. County Police Department has a long, troubled history of brutality, corruption, and insider crime.

• Television reporter Andrea McCarren told her story of how county officers ordered her at gunpoint to drop her very dangerous video camera before one of them dislocated her shoulder during her arrest;
• seven-year department veteran Jermaine Ayala was convicted of insurance fraud;
• Cpl. Sheldon Vessels was convicted on charges of assaulting four teenagers;
• for seven years, the sheriff’s office hid from auditors $45,000 it seized from a drug dealer while it lobbied for new laws allowing the department to keep the money;
• a federal jury sentenced K-9 cop Stephanie Mohr to 10 years in prison for violating the civil rights of a homeless man when she released her police dog to attack him after he surrendered;
• Howard University student Prince C. Jones was shot in the back five times and killed by undercover cop Carlton Jones;
• and Keith Washington, who landed a job as P.G. County’s homeland security deputy director because County Executive Jack Johnson thought he was "mentally tough," was sentenced to 45 years in jail this past May for shooting two deliverymen at his home, killing one.

Perhaps most disturbing, however, is the death of 19-year-old suspected cop-killer Ronnie Lionel White, who was strangled in his cell in June – sadly unsurprising given that at least a dozen P.G. County jail officers are criminals themselves.

Now critics will also note that the bastards were in most cases brought to justice.

Follow up to the 2005 Andrea McCarren brutality report.

9 cars, 12 officers. None of the required police cameras, in 9 cars mind you, were working. Sounds funny to me.

Why were the reporters following the car prior to being stopped and assaulted?

Ohh. Investigating the use of a uniformed cop as a chauffeur.
Oh and the department refuses to release copies of 911 tapes, video, etc as it's "Not in the publics interest".


Oh, and more on this story here
http://www.tvrundown.com/0520.htm

The U.S. Department of Justice has been investigating and monitoring the Prince George's County police department for years for excessive force and abuse of police power.

"There is a memo of understanding that all police cameras must be operable. Now they are saying that all nine cameras were not working," she adds.
...
McCarren says the department is in a tough spot. If the cameras weren't rolling or weren't operable, it is a clear violation of the Department of Justice memo of understanding.

If the cameras were operable, and they haven't provided the tapes or they destroyed them, that is obstruction of justice.

"If they release the tapes, people will see five guns pulled on me and that the officer was rough. It is going to be hard for them to win on this," she adds.

I can't find anything newer than this, and I looked for an hour. Found a shitload more on corruption in the DC area though. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go check on Amy. Hey, is spanking a crime? :rofl:

 

[Archangel M]

Hmm. Minus the background I would have said that a report of someone obviously being followed would require an investigation regardless of how the driver "looked". And she looked none the worse for wear after being released for someone with a dislocated shoulder.

BUT. With all the other details added in I have to say that either there is something "going on" or PGC is dropping thr PR ball big time.

 

[jks9199]

OK... PG County MD isn't far out of my neck of the woods. In fact, I know more than a few PG cops, and have had many cases with ties to PG.

PG is one of those special places on Earth... Depending on where in the county you are, you've got welfare ghettos to people who'd shrug at losing a million dollars the same way some of us might a penny. You've got a huge volume of traffic moving through on I-95, US 50, and several other major roads, too. PG borders some of the worst parts of DC (SE and and Anacostia, among them.) They've got a prosecutor who is actively and openly anti-cop, too.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the cops in PG are never wrong, either. Because they are. More often than I really want to think about. But they're also working in an extremely tough envioronment, and sometimes, they're simply working in the language that many of the people they deal with understand. And they're doing it with little support from the county government outside the cops... You don't want to know about the gang issues. Especially since the county government will tell you they don't have a gang problem. (Neither does Chicago, or Los Angeles, if PG doesn't.)

Things are "different" there...

No, it doesn't justify roughing up a reporter, allowing K9s to bite cuffed suspects, and some of the other things they've done or been accused of. But... it's also worth remembering that the press, especially in the DC area, isn't always known for reporting the whole story, either. And you're looking at things from 3 years ago. PG County PD has worked hard to improve things. And, in many cases, the officers responsible for those acts have been disciplined, and even tried and convicted.

There are lots of problems with how the investigation last year that led to the sheriff's SWAT raid on the Berwyn Heights mayor's house. That investigation is ongoing -- and it's been thoroughly covered in the press. One side note -- it was the SHERIFF'S Department SWAT unit.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Sounds like a county I'll do my best to avoid.

 

[The Last Legionary]

I just wish I could find the 'rest of the story' as it were. I'm not finding anything on that reporters case after that 3rd video. I don't doubt they are trying to clean it up but man, that's a hella lot of crap on one department. Not the slapping a drunk around a bit too rough stuff either.

 

[Carol]

Things are "different" there...

Having been on assignment at NASA Goddard, I think that's probably the best way to describe PG county. :lol:

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

]

As to reasonable suspicion, he is correct only in the most pedantic of ways.

If I am being pedantic, it is only because the law if very nuanced in this matter. An oversimplification, which you are attempting, tells us nothing and does not further the discussion. Bumper sticker statements like yours don't help.

The police are free to frisk anyone based on reasonable suspicion, and may require that the person identify themselves. If the officer decides during that encounter that he now has probable cause, he may initiate a search.

You are absolutely right. What's wrong with that?

As the Supreme Court has ruled that probable cause is a fluid definition, it is almost impossible to have a search initiated from a Terry stop thrown out.

You are incorrect, sir. They are thhown out all the time. You just are not aware of it.

I do have another question: what is your traning and experience when it come to these issues?

 

[Drac]

] If I do have another question: what is your traning and experience when it come to these issues?

Great question...

 

[jks9199]

As to reasonable suspicion, he is correct only in the most pedantic of ways.

The police are free to frisk anyone based on reasonable suspicion, and may require that the person identify themselves. If the officer decides during that encounter that he now has probable cause, he may initiate a search.

As the Supreme Court has ruled that probable cause is a fluid definition, it is almost impossible to have a search initiated from a Terry stop thrown out.

I refer you to Terry v Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). This is the case where stop and frisk was articulated. A detective observed 3 men in front of a store in an area where there had been numerous robberies. The men would stop, look into the store, then move around the corner. These actions led the detective to suspect that the men were casing the store for a robbery. He made contact with them, and frisked them, finding a gun. The Court held that his actions were constitutional, because he could articulate specific behaviors and circumstances that would lead a police officer to believe that criminal activity was in the offing. The frisk was a brief, cursory search of the outer garments with the specific intent of finding a weapon, and the search was justified because the crime the detective suspected involved weapons. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Warren wrote:

Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 174 -176 (1949); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645 (1878). 23 And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States supra.​

...

We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. [392 U.S. 1, 31] Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken. ​

In a concurrence, Justice Harlon wrote:

In the first place, if the frisk is justified in order to protect the officer during an encounter with a citizen, the officer must first have constitutional grounds to insist on an encounter, to make a forcible stop. Any person, including a policeman, is at liberty to avoid a person he considers dangerous. If and when a policeman has a right instead to disarm such a person for his own protection, he must first have a right not to avoid him but to be in his presence. That right must be more than the liberty (again, possessed by every citizen) to address questions to other persons, for ordinarily the person [392 U.S. 1, 33] addressed has an equal right to ignore his interrogator and walk away; he certainly need not submit to a frisk for the questioner's protection. I would make it perfectly clear that the right to frisk in this case depends upon the reasonableness of a forcible stop to investigate a suspected crime.

Where such a stop is reasonable, however, the right to frisk must be immediate and automatic if the reason for the stop is, as here, an articulable suspicion of a crime of violence. Just as a full search incident to a lawful arrest requires no additional justification, a limited frisk incident to a lawful stop must often be rapid and routine. There is no reason why an officer, rightfully but forcibly confronting a person suspected of a serious crime, should have to ask one question and take the risk that the answer might be a bullet. ​

(emphasis mine)

The stop and frisk is a relatively narrowly proscribed act; an officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion -- not a mere hunch -- that the person is somehow involved in a criminal act to stop and briefly detain them at all, and then must further have reasonable articulable suspicion that the person is either armed or that the crime is one which involves violence. This is far from carte blanche to stop anyone an officer wishes and search them. The detention can only be long enough to either confirm or dispel the suspicion, and the actions and inquiries the officer makes must be directed towards that goal, or the detention becomes an unreasonable intrusion. Of course, if probable cause for arrest is developed during the course of that investigation, the officer may act on that new information. Note that simply discovering probable cause for a search may not justify a search without a warrant, unless one of the established exceptions apply.

Requirements to identify yourself to a police officer are a different matter entirely. Many states DO NOT have a law or ordinance requiring a person to do so. In Virginia, for example, it's only a crime to lie to an officer about your identity IF you are detained; if an officer doesn't have sufficient grounds to detain you, you don't have to tell them your name, and you can even tell them that you're Mickey Mouse if you want! The most recent case on this is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty., 542 U. S. 177 (2004), where the Court upheld laws requiring a person to identify themselves to the police. I do believe this case was discussed at length here on MT...

And... by the way, lots of stops, and even more searches, are thrown out at trial. Few reach the national news, or even the local news. That doesn't mean they don't happen. Poor articulation of reasonable suspicion or probable cause is one of the things that prosecutors where I work really complain about; a cop does a good thing -- but doesn't explain it in a way that the judge accepts.

 

[Cryozombie]

The stop and frisk is a relatively narrowly proscribed act; an officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion -- not a mere hunch -- that the person is somehow involved in a criminal act to stop and briefly detain them at all, and then must further have reasonable articulable suspicion that the person is either armed or that the crime is one which involves violence. This is far from carte blanche to stop anyone an officer wishes and search them.

Hmmm. I wonder about that. I was stopped one day a few years back walking out of a suburban Mall by two police officers near the mall door who questioned and frisked me, because It was summer and I was wearing a coat. They asked me why I would have a jacket on, and I explained that I was on my way to work and it was raining outside, so I didn't want to show up in a soaking wet uniform. They said it was still too hot to be wearing a coat, and proceeded to pat me down, found nothing except the CDs I bought in the music store then told me to leave the mall, which I was doing anyhow.

I wonder what reasonable and articulate suspicion they had that I was involved in exactly what criminal act...

 

[jks9199]

Hmmm. I wonder about that. I was stopped one day a few years back walking out of a suburban Mall by two police officers near the mall door who questioned and frisked me, because It was summer and I was wearing a coat. They asked me why I would have a jacket on, and I explained that I was on my way to work and it was raining outside, so I didn't want to show up in a soaking wet uniform. They said it was still too hot to be wearing a coat, and proceeded to pat me down, found nothing except the CDs I bought in the music store then told me to leave the mall, which I was doing anyhow.

I wonder what reasonable and articulate suspicion they had that I was involved in exactly what criminal act...

I'm not going to sit here, years later, with only one side of the story, and try to second guess what might have been going on. I'm going to assume that they were cops, and not guards. There are a whole host of things that you may not be aware of that would justify their actions, including one of those pain-in-the-*** "shoplifter alarm" gadgets going off. (In some states, including Virginia, the activation is enough to allow a merchant or their agent -- which can sometimes include police -- to detain someone and check within reason for stolen merchandise.) I don't know; I wasn't there. It's equally possible that they were just plain wrong... or that it was consensual, and you could have said no and walked away, but didn't choose to do so. A consensual encounter or search lasts as long as you let it... And the decision as to whether it's consensual or not isn't whether YOU subjectively felt you could walk away; it's whether that hypothetical "reasonable person" would have objectively felt that they could say no. A lot depends on the words the officer uses; there's a huge difference between "Do you have any ID?" and "I need your ID..."

 

[Cryozombie]

it's whether that hypothetical "reasonable person" would have objectively felt that they could say no.

Hmm... this is an interesting idea, and a good topic for discussion... Under what circumstances would a reasonable person feel justified in defying the police? To the LEO here, under what circumstances would you feel a person would be justified in denying your requests and or walking away from you without you deciding they were being problematic or difficult and escalating the situation?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Cop asks "May I search your bag"
You say "No".
Cop searches anyway.
You state "I object to this search".
Cop asks you to stop.
You ask "Am I being detained".
Cop says "no"
You walk away.
Cop asks you to stop again.
You ask "Am I being detained".
Cop says "no"
You walk away.
Cop arrests you.
In court you state that you objected to the search, that you saw no warrant, that you asked twice if you were being detained and the cop said no.

Wearing a jacket on a hot day, is suspicious. Especially if it's a scortcher, and it's a heavy jacket.

Just be glad you hadn't paid for those CD's with $2 bills. That's serious business you know.

Man arrested, cuffed after using $2 bills

Then there was this case which we discussed back in 2007 here.

Man Arrested for Refusing to Show Drivers License
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:56 AM
from the living-your-life-with-principles dept.
News
NMerriam writes "Michael Righi was arrested in Ohio over the weekend after refusing to show his receipt when leaving Circuit City. When the manger and 'loss prevention' employee physically prevented the vehicle he was a passenger in from leaving the parking lot, he called the police, who arrived, searched his bag and found he hadn't stolen anything. The officer then asked for Michael's driver's license, which he declined to provide since he wasn't operating a motor vehicle. The officer then arrested him, and upon finding out Michael was legally right about not having to provide a license, went ahead and charged him with 'obstructing official business' anyways."

His case was settled with charges dropped. http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/20/success/

 

[shesulsa]

Cop asks "May I search your bag"
You say "No".
Cop searches anyway.
You state "I object to this search".
Cop asks you to stop.
You ask "Am I being detained".
Cop says "no"
You walk away.
Cop asks you to stop again.
You ask "Am I being detained".
Cop says "no"
You walk away.
Cop arrests you.
In court you state that you objected to the search, that you saw no warrant, that you asked twice if you were being detained and the cop said no.

Wearing a jacket on a hot day, is suspicious. Especially if it's a scortcher, and it's a heavy jacket.

Just be glad you hadn't paid for those CD's with $2 bills. That's serious business you know.

Man arrested, cuffed after using $2 bills

Then there was this case which we discussed back in 2007 here.

His case was settled with charges dropped. http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/20/success/

Okay, now ... see ... this is a line that fascinates me. If he were suspected of shoplifting (he had to know he was) and he were innocent, why refuse to show the receipt at least? And is the ID request a spot-check thing? Personally, if I were a law enforcement officer I'd want to see the ID of anyone I spoke to in an official manner about anything.

 

[Drac]

Okay, now ... see ... this is a line that fascinates me. If he were suspected of shoplifting (he had to know he was) and he were innocent, why refuse to show the receipt at least?

Cause they are stupid???

And is the ID request a spot-check thing? Personally, if I were a law enforcement officer I'd want to see the ID of anyone I spoke to in an official manner about anything.

I do...

 

[shesulsa]

I'll have to go back and look at the discussion on that - it might have been an preservation of rights issue. Sounds like it.