The Drug War's Medical Quislings

When police dragged Felix Booker, naked and shackled, into the emergency room at the Methodist Medical Center in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, they knew Dr. Michael LaPaglia would set aside his Hippocratic obligation to the patient and act as an agent of the State.

On at least two previous occasions, LaPaglia had performed invasive, non-consensual procedures in order to extract narcotics evidence on behalf of the police. Though he was acting as a deputy interrogator rather than a private physician, narcotics investigators disingenuously insisted that LaPaglia wasn’t subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions because he wasn't a sworn law enforcement officer.

Booker was charged with felony marijuana possession, despite the fact that a search of the vehicle and his clothing turned up only 0.06 grams of the innocuous yet prohibited substance. Under what the State of Tennessee calls the "law," that amount justified, at most, a misdemeanor citation.

During the traffic stop the arresting officer, Oak Ridge PD K-9 handler Daniel Steakley, claimed to have smelled marijuana and said that he saw "crumpled marijuana" on the floor of the vehicle. No evidence directly linked Booker to the contraband; it could have belonged to his brother William, who was driving the car. Steakley let William go without so much as citing him for an expired registration tag, which was the pretext for the stop.

The decision to arrest Booker clearly wasn't dictated by the evidence, but grew out of Steakley's history with Booker. On a previous occasion he had found a dozen bags of marijuana hidden in Booker's underwear. A pat-down search during the more recent traffic stop found a substantial amount of currency in Booker's pockets, which he claimed was a cash payment for a job pouring concrete.

In his report Steakley claimed that while he was reviewing William Booker's license and registration documents, he could see Felix squirming in the passenger seat as if he were trying to conceal something. That furtive behavior supposedly continued after Booker was taken into custody.

At the Anderson County Jail, Booker was told to strip down in the shower and grab his ankles to facilitate a body cavity search. The officer conducting the inspection said that he saw a small string protruding from the relevant aperture. Still naked, Booker was shackled hand and foot, wrapped in a blanket, and taken to the Emergency Room. Invoking "exigent circumstances," his captors didn't bother to apply for a search warrant.

Booker's vitals were normal when he was admitted to the hospital. He neither displayed nor complained about symptoms of any kind. He was adamant in refusing permission to conduct what was euphemistically called a DRE. (The "D" stands for "digital"; the "E" for "examination." No extra points will be awarded to those who guess what "R" signifies.) Dr. LaPaglia told the captive patient that he was required to find and remove any drugs Booker had concealed in his body because of the potential risk to his health. Booker was told that if he didn't submit, he would be given a paralyzing agent and the search would be happen anyway.

"That exam was going to occur with or without his consent," LaPaglia later testified in court. He also attested that Booker eventually gave his verbal assent to a "digital search." That claim was strenuously denied by Booker, and wasn't corroborated by any of the nurses or officers who were in the room at the time. The doctor proceeded with the probe, only to be stymied by Booker's instinctive resistance to the violation.

This inspired an utterance by LaPaglia that really should define his medical career: "If an individual does not want you to enter [his] rectum, you are not going to."

In defiance of the principle – valid in both romantic and medical contexts – that "`no' means `no,'" LaPaglia gave Booker a roofie. That is, he instructed an emergency room nurse to administer a sedative and paralytic agent intravenously. This meant that the victim (at this point, neither "suspect" nor "patient" is a suitable description) had to be intubated to control his breathing during what was now a life-threatening medical procedure.

Booker was paralyzed for about eight minutes, and unconscious for about a half-hour. During that time LaPaglia removed a five-gram "rock" of crack cocaine, which was turned over to Steakley.

Booker was indicted on a charge of cocaine possession with intent to distribute. His defense attorney filed a motion to suppress, contending, correctly, that the initial arrest was unlawful and that the involuntary medical examination -- which, once again, involved a life-threatening procedure – was a mortifying violation of the protections supposedly afforded by the Fourth Amendment.

In August of last year, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Booker's conviction, ruling that the "un-consented procedure" inflicted on him "shocks the conscience at least as much as the stomach pumping that the Supreme Court long ago held to violate due process."

The 1952 Supreme Court ruling to which the Sixth Circuit referred, Rochin v. California, resulted from a case in which a doctor – acting on behalf of two sheriff's deputies – delivered an emetic via a feeding tube into the stomach of a suspected drug dealer in order to force him to expel two capsules found to contain morphine. The High Court described the conduct of the officers and the doctor as "too close to the rack and screw to permit of constitutional differentiation."

It is, or should be, self-evident that since it is unconstitutional to shove a feeding tube down a suspect's throat, the forcible violation of a suspect's antipodal bodily orifice must likewise be impermissible. It should be just as obvious that a doctor who commits an act of that kind is not behaving as a physician, but a police interrogator – a member of Mengele's despicable fraternity, rather than a disciple of Hippocrates.

Hippocrates trumps the State: Dr. Faria.

A patient who arrives in an ER with a rock of crack cocaine lodged in his descending digestive tract does face a potential medical emergency, notes neurosurgeon and historian Dr. Miguel Faria. However, the physician is morally and ethically required to obtain the patient's consent if he is not in immediate danger.

"All the risks should be explained to the patient or his guardian," Dr. Faria explained to me. "And then informed consent obtained. If the patient is unconscious and there is no family around, then the doctor may proceed on an emergency basis. The point is that the doctor must act in the interest of the patient first; society, the government, and the police come second."

If the danger to the patient is minimal and if he "refused to give consent," and the physical "acted solely in the interest of the police" because of the "refusal of the patient," then "the doctor acted inappropriately and unethically," continues Dr. Faria. It is never appropriate, at least under the canons of Hippocratic discipline, for a physician to act as a "government agent" in violation of the best interests, and informed decisions, of the patient.

On September 27, LaPaglia was informed that his claim of "qualified immunity" was rejected by the federal court that is now considering a lawsuit filed by his victim. The same news was given to Steakley and two other police officers who took part in the molestation of Felix Booker.

Although the officers continue to draw salaries as members of the State's enforcement caste, LaPaglia is no longer licensed to practice medicine – not because of his treatment of Booker or his conduct in two similar cases, but because of allegations of grievous domestic violence and narcotics-related offenses.

In September of last year, LaPaglia’s then-girlfriend, Christina Maria Becker, called the police and obtained a protective order against the doctor. A search of LaPaglia’s home revealed the remnants of an extensive marijuana growing operation, in addition to substantial amounts of prescription pills and controlled pharmaceuticals.

In her affidavit, Becker claimed that LaPaglia frequently assaulted her and claimed that "if I ever contacted police for help or reported his drug use [he] would use his powers as a physician to have me committed to a psychiatric facility."

Lurid accusations of this kind are commonplace in domestic disputes, and often quite difficult to corroborate. LaPaglia’s conduct as a Drug War collaborator lends a certain plausibility to Becker’s claims: Threatening to send an innocent and rational woman to the psychiatric gulag is what we should expect from a "medical professional" willing to adulterate his Hippocratic duty in the service of a totalitarian government policy.

In Deming, New Mexico, doctors carry out DREs and forced colonoscopies on behalf of the police; in Utah, forced catheterization in search of DUI and narcotics evidence is a well-established practice. In several states, "No refusal" DUI checkpoints result in compelled blood draws that are carried out either by police with no legitimate medical credentials, or people who have the credentials but lack the moral character to behave as physicians, rather than instruments of state policy.

Until we stop pretending that the State has a proprietary claim on us, and the corresponding authority to police the content of our bloodstreams, Prohibition will continue to provide career opportunities for medical Quislings of Michael LaPaglia’s ilk.

Original report here

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

British council slammed by judge and ordered to pay £80,000 after social workers snatched pensioner with dementia from her house while her son was out

A council has been slammed as 'woefully inadequate' and ordered to pay a legal bill of more than £80,00 after its social workers snatched a dementia-sufferer from her house while her son was out.

The 81-year-old woman was removed after a manager at a daycare centre she visited raised concerns about bruises and scratches on her face and legs.

It took the son 19 days to get Milton Keynes Council to tell him where they had taken her.

Taking on the council in the Court of Protection he racked up huge legal fees - which he claimed were a 'direct consequence' of the council's 'actions and omissions'.

At the Court of Protection, District Judge Paul Mort today ruled that the local authority must foot the bill.

Back in May he described Milton Keynes Council’s treatment of the pensioner, a former magistrate with severe dementia, as ‘woefully inadequate’.

In today's judgment, published on a legal website, he said that the council had set a 'juggernaut in motion' when it initially failed to investigate - and concluded that an 'award of costs' was 'manifestly justified'.

The judge did not identify the woman but named Milton Keynes Council as the local authority with responsibility for her welfare.

In September 2012 the manager of a care centre the woman attended had raised concerns about bruises and scratches on her face and legs. A month later, a visiting student social worker saw more injuries and alerted her bosses.

The council’s social services staff removed the woman and put her in a care home as they thought she may have been abused by her son, who lived with her. But their own inquiries and a subsequent police investigation found no evidence.

Judge Mort said the manner in which the social services removed the woman without getting the correct court orders violated her human rights, and described it as ‘unlawful detainment’. He also said she now has little prospect of being able to return to her home.

The judge said the woman had lived at her house for 32 years and was rooted in her local community. Her son sold his business abroad so he and his partner, along with a care worker he employed, could look after her.

Earlier in the year, he described to The Mail on Sunday in May how he returned home to find his mother gone. He said: ‘The care worker said to me, "The council have taken her to a place of safety." ‘I thought you need a warrant to enter someone’s house, but they just came and took her away.’

He said he was eventually given access to his mother at the care home, but under severe restrictions. ‘I was only allowed to visit her in the afternoons, and a staff member sat with us,’ he said.

Judge Mort lifted council restrictions that prevented the son from seeing his mother without being monitored by social workers. He can now see her as many times as he likes and take her out.

Original report here

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Iowa cop tries to search car because ‘Everybody that plays frisbee golf smokes weed’

Ankeny’s police chief is apologizing after a video surfaced showing an officer trying to search a motorist’s car because, according to the officer, everyone who plays Frisbee golf smokes pot.

The video, which was taken by the motorist, starts with the officer giving that unknown motorist a warning about driving without headlights.

Then the officer begins his interrogation. "You play frisbee golf?" the officer asks. "I do actually. I play out at Heritage (Park)" the motorist replies. So the officer says, "OK. I need you to answer me a question. Why is it that everybody that plays Frisbee golf smokes weed?" "No, it’s not everybody," the motorist insists. "It’s everybody, man. You can’t tell me you never smoked weed," the officer says. The motorist replies, "I’m not gonna tell you one way or another." So the officer says, "See, there you go. How much weed do you have in the car today?"

The driver tells the officer he doesn’t have any marijuana. So the officer says, "You understand you’re free to go and everything but you wouldn’t have a problem with me looking through your car?" The motorist denies the request saying, "I actually would. Just because I have a disc golf bag doesn’t mean that every disc golfer does have weed." The officer says, "So you have weed in the car then is what you’re saying?" The motorist answers, "No I would say I have a problem with you searching my car because you’re profiling me based on being a disc golfer."

Eventually, the officer lets the driver go.

Drake Law Professor Robert Rigg says the officer broke the law by trying to search the car during an equipment violation stop.

"What the officer did after that was try to extend that stop into a general search of the defendant’s car, or the individual’s car. That’s not permissible anymore," Rigg says, adding that if the driver had allowed the officer to search the car, and the officer found something illegal, chances are that evidence would be thrown out of court. "The Iowa Supreme Court has held that under the Iowa constitution you can’t convert an equipment violation stop into a general search. and any consent that would have been given would have been invalid in any event."

The city of Ankeny did release a statement saying, in part, "The officer engages the driver in a line of questioning that is foolish and not representative of the Ankeny Police Dept.’s training or interactions with the public. This verbal exchange did not meet the level of professionalism expected of Ankeny police officers. Ankeny Police Chief Gary Mikulec respectfully apologizes for the officer`s demeaning statement."

As for the motorist, Rigg says, "I think the young man did exactly what he was supposed to do. He did not admit to smoking marijuana. He didn’t answer that question at all and he has the right not to answer that question. And he has the right to say, look, if you want to ask me questions, why don’t you call my lawyer."

Original report here

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Innocent grandmother walks free after 17 years in prison

An American woman who spent 17 years in prison for the death of a homeless man hugged her grandchild for the first time after her conviction was overturned and she was freed.

"I always knew that one day God would bring the truth to the light," 59-year-old Susan Marie Mellen, told reporters on Friday, after she was released from a California courthouse.

A Los Angeles County judge overturned her conviction saying her attorney failed to properly represent her and a woman who claimed she heard Mrs Mellen confess was a "habitual liar".

Based solely on witness testimony, Mrs Mellen was convicted of orchestrating the beating death of Richard Daly at a Lawndale home where Mrs Mellen and others lived.

The mother of three was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

Three gang members subsequently were linked to the crime, and one was convicted of the killing.

Mrs Mellen said she held no ill will against those who put her behind bars.

Original report here

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Overkill: Militarizing America

Why are police arming for war in a time of relative safety?

"Is it overkill? Yeah, it is," says Sheriff John Thomas of Page County, Virginia, referring to his department’s mine-resistant armored personnel carrier (MRAP), a tank-like vehicle left over from U.S. wars in the Middle East. "I mean, for our use, it’s more armor than we need. But it’s free."

The rural county (population 24,042) obtained the 20-ton, $733,000 armored vehicle for free from the Pentagon as part of a program to funnel unused war materials to local police.

Thomas tells NPR that although some citizens are uneasy about it, "What most people don't understand is that an MRAP is nothing but a truck with a big bulletproof box on it.… There is no offensive capability." But his requisitions are not all so defensive: a database compiled by the New York Times shows that Page County has also acquired an arsenal of 27 military assault rifles in the last eight years.

While it’s hard to imagine Andy Griffith rolling through Mayberry with M4 carbines and an armored personnel carrier, it’s possible that policing is just a lot more dangerous today than it was in the 1960s. Sheriff Thomas thinks his new equipment is necessary to protect cops from "all the guns out there in the hands of dangerous people."

Although this sentiment may have originated among the sheriffs and SWAT teams loading up on military hardware, the assumption that officer safety requires this kind of "overkill" has become quite widespread.

In his defense of the recent police crackdown on protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, conservative legal scholar Richard Epstein cites the number of police fatalities in recent years, implying that cops are at greater risk today than in years past. Meanwhile, on the left, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler concurs with Sheriff Thomas, arguing that police militarization is an inevitable reaction to cops at risk from America’s "gun culture."

But an in-depth look at the numbers fails to substantiate these arguments. Officer fatalities have been declining for decades, both in absolute terms and adjusted for population.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, which maintains "the largest, most comprehensive database of line-of-duty officer deaths," 2013 had the fewest officer fatalities, at just 100 deaths, of any year since World War II. The 31 firearms-related deaths were the fewest since 1887, while traffic incidents, with 43 deaths, were the leading cause of fatal injury.

Between 1992 and 2013, officer fatalities fell by over a third, but fatalities relative to the size of the population being policed show an even steeper decline. Over the same time, according to NLEOMF and Census Bureau data, officer fatalities per 100,000 residents fell by an astounding 50 percent. Although 2014 will likely see an increase in fatalities over last year’s record low, it will be well within the downward trend of the last several decades.

Law enforcement fatalities and murders relative to the size of the total police force are also on the decline, based on the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, which track the number of felony killings of police each year, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ census of state and local law enforcement. Between 1992 and 2008 (the last year for which BJS numbers are available), police fatalities per 100,000 full-time sworn officers fell by over 27 percent, while homicides per 100,000 fell by 49 percent.

Nor are fatalities falling only because of better medical treatment. Although quality emergency care surely had an impact, all assaults and injuries suffered by police are down as well.

According to the FBI’s annual report Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, the percentage of officers assaulted each year declined by 43 percent in the last two decades, down from nearly 18 percent in 1992 to just over 10 percent in 2012. Over the same period, the percentage of officers injured by assault declined by over half, from 6.5 percent to 2.8 percent. Police are not just being saved more often—they are also being attacked less frequently.

None of this should be very surprising. Workplace safety for police officers is directly linked to crime rates, and crime (contrary to popular belief) has been declining for decades. Since 1993, FBI data show that violent crime has fallen by 48 percent, and the murder rate is down by over half. Property crimes, such as burglary and auto theft, are down by nearly 40 percent.

Moreover, the United States also has more law enforcement per capita than at any other time in its history. BJS census data show that between 1992 and 2008, the number of full-time sworn officers increased by 25 percent, while the U.S. population grew by only 18.5 percent. In 2008, there was one police officer with general arrest powers for every 400 American residents. Since then, while no definitive data exist, the NLEOMF estimates that the number of sworn officers has increased to more than 900,000—the highest figure ever.

No one should think that police officers have an easy job. It involves daily interactions with belligerent suspects, intoxicated drivers, and reluctant witnesses. It is often difficult, sometimes injurious, and occasionally deadly work—but far less so than many common professions, such as fisherman, garbage collector, or truck driver. A tough job is not grounds for turning peace officers into a standing army. A tough job is exactly what cops have been hired to do.

Police officers’ first responsibility is not to protect themselves at any cost but to run certain risks in order to keep citizens safe while protecting their rights. Defending officers is a laudable secondary goal, but police cannot arm and armor themselves in a way that hurts their primary objective: catching criminals and protecting civil liberties. Militarized equipment, tactics, and training put police on a war footing, leading to excessive force, alienating the community, and eroding public confidence in the law. No one is better off with such an outcome.

But disproportionate fears about officer safety are leading inexorably to the disproportionate use of force seen on American city streets, from Ferguson to Los Angeles to New York. And, thanks to government policies subsidizing that kind of response, it could happen almost anywhere.

The reality is that there are more police than ever, and they are safer than ever, in almost every way we can measure. There is less crime and violence for them to combat, and commensurately fewer assaults and injuries suffered by police. The unprecedented force and weaponry being displayed by cops today are not justified by the facts about officer safety. It’s time to demilitarize the police and return them to their proper role as members of the community, charged to keep the peace.

Original report here

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Video Shows Police Smash a Car Window, Taser Passenger As Children Watch

Sometimes a picture (or a video) is worth a thousand words, but does it tell the whole story?

A video taken by a 14-year-old boy is the focus of increased media attention after his family sued the city of Hammond, Ind., police officers for allegedly using excessive force while stopping their vehicle for a seatbelt infraction.

The lawsuit alleges that Jamal Jones, his girlfriend Lisa Mahone, and her two children were pulled over by Hammond police officers because Mahone was not wearing a seatbelt. The officers requested that Mahone produce her license and registration, which she did.

One officer then asked the front seat passenger, Jones, to produce identification. Because he was not carrying it with him, Jones offered instead to show the police a copy of a ticket that listed his address. Unsatisfied, the officers ordered Jones to exit the vehicle.

The video shows the police smash the car door window after Jones refused, and then use a Taser while forcibly removing him from the vehicle. Mahone’s 14-year-old son recorded the incident from the backseat while her 7-year-old daughter cries in the background.

According to the lawsuit, Jones was arrested for resisting law enforcement and refusal to aid an officer. Mahone was cited for not wearing her seat belt. The complaint alleges that the police had no reason to use such force, stating:

The actions of the individual defendants created a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm by and constituted harmful or offensive contact with each Plaintiff. The actions of the individual defendants were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances and were undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights and safety of Plaintiffs.

In response, the Hammond Police Department released a statement arguing instead that the officers "were at all times acting in the interest of the officer’s safety and in accordance with Indiana law."

Because the video only shows the second half of the incident (the Hammond police stated the video began 13 minutes after the initial stop), it is premature to determine whether their actions were justified or necessary. Even so, the courts have given clear guidelines that are relevant to this issue.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the police have the authority to ask a driver to step outside the vehicle during the course of a stop. The Court has also held in Maryland v. Wilson that an officer may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop. The purpose of this request is to protect both the driver and the officer from the surrounding traffic, and "diminishes the possibility, otherwise substantial, that the driver can make unobserved movements; this, in turn, reduces the likelihood that the officer will be the victim of an assault."

But the question of whether the police are authorized to remove a passenger from a vehicle must be balanced against whether the officer’s use of force was justified. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Lester v. City of Chicago, an officer’s use of force is unconstitutional if, "judging from the totality of circumstances at the time of the arrest, the officer used greater force than was reasonably necessary to make the arrest."

Thus, the Hammond police officers must establish, based upon the totality of the circumstances leading up to and concurrent with the arrest, that their actions were both reasonable and necessary.

Several factors are pertinent to this analysis. The basis for whether excessive force was used is derived from a three-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor. This objective test examines:

1) The severity of the crime at issue;

2) Whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; and

3) Whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

If the Hammond police can successfully show that their decision to break into the car to remove Jones was justified, either because they perceived he was reaching for a weapon or engaging in threatening behavior, they will have an easier time in court defending this incident, although there is little evidence from the video that this appeared to be the case.

Serious questions must be raised about the wisdom of smashing the car door window to Taser Jones–all while two young children watched in horror from the backseat. Was it truly necessary for officer safety to escalate the situation in such an aggressive manner?

This picture isn’t pretty.

Original report here

　

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

　

68 rape cases re-opened after British police incorrectly concluded no crime had been committed as scores of officers warned they may face disciplinary action

Police are to reopen 68 rape investigations where officers dismissed allegations that should have been pursued, it emerged yesterday.

A review by Northumbria Police found that 54 allegations of rape were not investigated properly, possibly allowing sexual abusers to go unpunished.

And Cleveland Police is reopening 14 rape investigations after an audit by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) revealed similar problems with the way its officers had dealt with allegations.

The officers have been told they could face disciplinary action.

Rape charities said it was extremely worrying that so many cases had been handled incorrectly. The reinvestigations by Northumbria and Cleveland highlight growing concern that the problem may be widespread.

Earlier this year HMIC criticised South Yorkshire Police for its ‘unacceptable’ handling of serious sexual crimes.

In 2010 a rapist Northumbria policeman who attacked up to 30 women during a five-year reign of terror was jailed.

PC Stephen Mitchell, 44, assaulted drug addicts in the cells and interview rooms of a city-centre police station, knowing that if they complained they were unlikely to be believed.

One of them, a 19-year-old drug addict when he first struck, estimated she had been abused 100 times as he kept track of her using the police computer.

Yet his colleagues ignored a series of warnings about his behaviour – some of them from his own wife. They were unaware that he had already stood trial for sex offences before he was recruited to the force.

He was eventually sacked in 2007 for having ‘consensual’ sex with one of his victims, only to be reinstated on appeal eight months later.

And when he was finally stopped, a senior detective with Northumbria Police offered him ‘a get out of jail free card’ if he agreed to resign. He refused, opting to take his chances in court.

Mitchell – a tall, muscular former soldier – was found guilty of two rapes, three indecent assaults and six charges of misconduct in a public office, involving a total of seven women.

He was cleared of three further rape charges, two indecent assaults and counts of misconduct involving another nine women. But police suspect he attacked at least a further 14.

The watchdog found officers were put under pressure not to record rapes as crimes and police had spent a great deal of time trying to disprove the word of alleged victims.

It has also recently been revealed that nearly a quarter of rape allegations made to police in parts of London were never recorded as crimes in 2013.

An HMIC audit into the Northumbria force earlier this year found it may have incorrectly deemed 11 rape cases to be ‘no crime’, meaning that officers decided no law had been broken. After the audit the chief constable ordered a review of 153 allegations dating back to October 2011. Yesterday the force said it is to reinvestigate 54 of those cases.

A 50-year-old man from Newcastle upon Tyne has already been arrested and subsequently bailed in connection to an allegation that was previously downplayed by investigating officers.

Chief Superintendent Neil Adamson said the force had moved 48 officers from its rape investigations team to other units while the review was under way.

The officers were served with gross misconduct notices, which could result in disciplinary action following the investigation.

Potential victims who were initially told that rape had not been committed will now be contacted by officers, which police admitted could be stressful. Andrea Terrett, of Tyneside and Northumbria Rape Crisis Centre, said: ‘It is extremely worrying that victims have reported rapes and on investigation it is being stated that there has been no crime.

‘Only 10 per cent of rape victims that we help report to the police. But for these victims who have stepped forward, it is very disappointing and worrying for them to see that these cases have not been investigated properly.’

Northumbria’s police and crime commissioner, Vera Baird, described her ‘grave concerns’ when the HMIC report, which has yet to be made publicly available, flagged up the 11 suspect cases.

She said the report showed police did not take seriously cases where a female complainant had consumed a lot of alcohol, or those arising in a domestic setting.

Yesterday she said: ‘We took immediate action when the HMIC and, indeed, my office identified some rape ‘‘no crimes’’ of serious concern.’

Original report here

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Britain's top cop reprimanded by judge

Iranian crooked cop, Ali Dizaei

A judge has attacked Britain’s most senior policeman over’s his force’s treatment of the innocent man framed by disgraced Met commander Ali Dizaei, saying he had ‘thrown him to the wolves’.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe was blasted over his force’s reluctance to pay damages to web designer Waad al-Baghdadi, whose evidence helped bring down the lying police chief.

In an extraordinary broadside, His Honour Judge Freeland QC attacked Sir Bernard’s claim that the Met was not responsible for Dizaei’s conduct.

He added that Mr al-Baghdadi had been to ‘hell and back’ by twice giving evidence against Dizaei, who arrested him unlawfully while serving in the force.

Details of Judge Freeland’s attack on the Yard boss can be revealed after the Mail won a battle lasting several months to obtain transcripts of the court showdown between lawyers representing Mr al-Baghdadi and Sir Bernard.

The Met had previously declined to comment when asked if it had been rebuked by the judge during a hearing at the Central London County Court – at which no journalists were present.

This meant the Mail had to make a special application to get transcripts of what was said.

Dizaei, 52, was first convicted of framing young businessman Mr al-Baghdadi in a street row over money in 2010.

He was jailed for four years, but his convictions for misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice were quashed by the Court of Appeal a year later.

The Iranian-born commander - dubbed a ‘Criminal in Uniform’ by the head of the police watchdog - was found guilty for a second time at a retrial in February 2012 and received a three-year prison sentence.

A panel of judges headed by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has since thrown out another appeal bid by Dizaei, a former president of the National Black Police Association who repeatedly played the race card to bully cowardly Yard bosses into tolerating his conduct.

Now it can be revealed that in the aftermath of Dizaei’s second conviction, Mr al-Baghdadi, 30, launched a damages claim against the Met over his ordeal.

At the Central London County Court barrister Rajeev Shetty, representing the Met, said that the force was not responsible for Dizaei’s actions and suggested that Mr al-Baghdadi should sue the former officer for damages instead.

But Judge Freeland said Mr al-Baghdadi ‘has at least in part been put through hell and back again because he has given evidence in support of a prosecution where his name has been pilloried in cross examination’.

‘He has achieved partial vindication by virtue of the jury convicting Dizaei twice,’ he added. ‘But here he is asserting his civil rights, only to be thrown to the wolves by the Commissioner, I assume on cogent instructions at the highest level.’

The judge paid tribute to Mr al-Baghdadi’s stand against Dizaei, whom he described as being ‘a blatant and downright liar’.

‘Without Mr al-Baghdadi’s evidence there would have been no prospect whatsoever of convicting Dizaei,’ he added.

Clearly irritated by the Met’s stance, the judge ruled: ‘I hold that the defendant (the Met) must inexorably and inevitably and beyond any reasonable argument be responsible for his actions, which are manifestly so closely connected with his office as a police commander employed by the Metropolitan Police Service.’

It is understood Mr al-Baghdadi received a ‘substantial five figure sum’ from the Met.

Scotland Yard declined to comment on how much compensation it had agreed to pay Mr al-Baghdadi.

‘His Honour Judge Freeland found that the Commissioner was vicariously liable for the torts committed by former Commander Dizaei. An apology did not form part of the settlement,’ said a spokesman.

Asked whether the judge had criticised the Met, the spokesman said: ‘Various arguments were put forward by both parties for the judge to consider. The judge found in favour of the claimant.’

Last Autumn Scotland Yard sparked fury after it paid off Dizaei to escape an embarrassing public legal battle.

The ex-Met officer had launched a claim against his former employer for racial and religious discrimination and hoped to win a payout of more than £1million.

In return for Dizaei dropping his legal claim, the Met and its oversight body the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac) made a contribution towards Dizaei’s legal costs – thought to be worth more than £50,000 – but did not pay him any compensation.

In addition, Mopac said it was seeking to seize a large portion of Dizaei’s police pension.

A Mopac spokesman said last night: ‘We can confirm that a decision to forfeit a portion of Mr Dizaei’s pension has been approved. This decision is now subject to a judicial review in the Crown Court.’

Original report here

　

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

　

How Cops Became Robbers

Three features of civil forfeiture law and five Supreme Court decisions make it easy for police to take money from motorists

One afternoon in August 2012, Mandrel Stuart was driving with his girlfriend into Washington, D.C., when a Fairfax County cop pulled him over on Interstate 66, ostensibly because the windows of his SUV were too dark. Lacking the device necessary to check whether the tinting of the windows exceeded the legal limit, Officer Kevin Palizzi instead cited Stuart for having a video running within his line of sight. While Palizzi was filling out the summons, another officer arrived with a drug-detecting dog. Claiming the dog alerted to the left front bumper and wheel of Stuart's GMC Yukon, the cops searched the car and found $17,550 in cash, which they kept, assuming that it must be related to the illegal drug trade.

Stuart, who had planned to use that money to buy equipment and supplies for his barbecue restaurant in Staunton, Virginia, was astonished that a routine traffic stop could so easily turn into grand theft. But as Washington Post reporters Michael Sallah, Robert O'Harrow Jr., and Steven Rich explain in a revealing and troubling series of stories that ran last week, taking Stuart's hard-earned money was perfectly legal, thanks to civil forfeiture laws that turn cops into highway robbers.

"I paid taxes on that money," Stuart told the Post. "I worked for that money. Why should I give them my money?" Although the financial difficulties that ensued from his encounter with Officer Palizzi forced him to close his restaurant, Stuart ultimately got his money back after challenging the forfeiture in court. Because the government lost the case after a federal trial, it even had to pay Stuart's legal bills, which totaled nearly $12,000.

Other innocent motorists who lose their cash to cops are not so lucky, finding that the cost of fighting a forfeiture leaves them with a fraction of their money even if they convince the government to return it. Since 2001, the Post reports, some 62,000 cash forfeitures have been pursued under federal law in cases that, like Stuart's, did not involve search warrants or criminal indictments. Legal expenses help explain why only one-sixth of those forfeitures were challenged. If the cops take a few thousand dollars from you, it makes little sense to spend thousands of dollars to get it back, especially since there is no guarantee of success and your expenses will be reimbursed only if you go to trial and win.

Three key features of civil forfeiture law give cops this license to steal:

The government does not have to charge you with a crime, let alone convict you, to take your property. Under federal law and the laws of many states, a forfeiture is justified if the government can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the seized property is connected to a crime, typically a drug offense. That standard, which amounts to any probability greater than 50 percent, is much easier to satisfy than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard for a criminal trial. Some states allow forfeiture based on probable cause, a standard even weaker than preponderance of the evidence.

The burden of proof is on you. Innocent owners like Mandrel Stuart have to prove their innocence, a reversal of the rule in criminal cases. Meanwhile, the government hangs onto the money, which puts financial stress on the owner and makes it harder for him to challenge the forfeiture.

Cops keep the loot. Local cops and prosecutors who pursue forfeiture under federal law, which is what happened in Stuart's case, receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. Some states are even more generous, but others give law enforcement agencies a smaller cut, making federal forfeiture under the Justice Department's Equitable Sharing Program a tempting alternative. The fact that police have a direct financial interest in forfeitures creates an incentive for pretextual traffic stops aimed at finding money or other property to seize. The Post found that "298 departments and 210 task forces have seized the equivalent of 20 percent or more of their annual budgets since 2008."

The Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act, a billintroduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in July, addresses each of these issues. The FAIR Act changes the standard of proof in federal forfeiture cases from "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence." That change does not go as far as the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that has been fighting forfeiture abuse for years, would like. I.J. argues that civil forfeiture should be abolished, meaning that a criminal conviction, based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, would be required for the government to take property allegedly connected to a crime. But Paul's reform would make it harder for the government to prevail if a forfeiture case goes to trial, which might deter seizures of large sums in situations where the evidence is weak.

Another provision of the FAIR Act probably would not have much impact on cash forfeitures, but it would help innocent owners of other property. The bill requires the government to prove that the owner of an asset allegedly used to facilitate a crime, such as a car or a home, himself used the property for illegal purposes, consented to that use, or was "willfully blind" to it. Current law puts the burden on innocent owners to show they did not know about the illegal use or "did all that reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use."

The FAIR Act also would abolish the Equitable Sharing Program, which allows police and prosecutors to evade state reforms aimed at reducing forfeiture abuse. Those reforms include channeling forfeiture revenue to functions other than law enforcement, a change designed to eliminate the profit motive that warps police priorities. Similiarly, the FAIR Act would assign federal forfeiture proceeds, which last fiscal year totaled more than $2 billion, to the general fund instead of the Justice Department.

In addition to the statutory provisions that facilitate forfeiture, several Supreme Court decisions have made it easier for cops to take money from motorists:

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973): Police pulled over a car with a broken headlight and a broken license plate light. When an officer asked if he could search the car, one of the six occupants said, "Yeah, sure." The cops found three pilfered checks under a rear seat and charged Robert Bustamonte, a passenger, with possession of stolen property. The Supreme Court held that a vehicle search based on consent is constitutional even without proof that the person who agreed to the search knew he was free to refuse. In several of the forfeiture cases examined by the Post, police said drivers agreed to allow searches of their vehicles.

Ohio v. Robinette (1996): A deputy sheriff stopped Robert Robinette for speeding. After giving Robinette a ticket, the deputy asked him if he was carrying contraband. When Robinette said no, the deputy asked for permission to search the car, which Robinette granted. The search discovered a small amount of marijuana and an MDMA tablet. Extending the logic of Bustamonte, the Court held that consent to a vehicle search can be voluntary even if police do not tell a motorist he is free to go after he receives a ticket.

Whren v. United States (1996): Plainclothes police officers patrolling a "high drug area" thought a truck was suspicious because it had temporary plates and lingered at a stop sign. When the officers made a U-turn and headed back toward the truck, it suddenly turned right. The cops stopped the truck, ostensibly because the driver turned without signaling and drove at an "unreasonable speed." They caught a passenger, Michael Whren, holding two bags of crack. The Court said detaining a motorist for a traffic violation does not violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have done so without an additional law enforcement objective. The upshot is that police can use alleged traffic infractions such as Mandrel Stuart's tinted windows as a pretext for pulling people over in search of loot.

Illinois v. Caballes (2005): A state trooper stopped Roy Caballes for speeding. While the trooper was writing a warning ticket, another trooper arrived with a drug-sniffing dog, which he walked around the car. After the dog alerted near the trunk, the troopers looked inside and found 292 pounds of marijuana. The Court ruled that "the use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog…during a lawful traffic stop generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests." That authorized police to turn any traffic stop into a canine search for drugs like the one that led to the discovery and seizure of Stuart's cash.

Florida v. Harris (2013): A police officer pulled over Clayton Harris's truck because it had an expired license plate. After Harris declined to allow a search of the truck, the officer walked a drug-sniffing dog around the vehicle. According to the officer, the animal got excited and sat down in front of the driver's side door handle. A search of the truck did not find any substances that the dog was trained to detect, but it did turn up 200 pseudoephedrine tablets, along with other chemicals and supplies used to make methamphetamine. The justices unanimously ruled that "a court can presume" a police dog's alert by itself provides probable cause for a search unless the defendant proves the animal is unreliable.

Taken together, these decisions mean a cop can stop vehicles pretty much at will for the sort of minor traffic violations that people routinely commit and then search those vehicles based either on "consent" that may not be truly voluntary or a dog alert that could be inaccurate, imagined, or invented. It is important to recognize that drug-detecting dogs, whether or not they are properly trained, are not nearly as reliable as the Supreme Court seems to imagine. They may react to food and other distractions, legal items that smell like contraband, and conscious or subconscious cues from their handlers, who may be mistaken or dissembling when they report an alert. Vehicle searches based on dog alerts are frequently fruitless, failing to find contraband anywhere from 56 percent to 96 percent of the time, depending on the setting. Even the best-trained dog may be wrong most of the time when it indicates the presence of drugs because the percentage of cars carrying contraband is low.

In Harris, the dog alerted to drugs that were not there. The same thing happened when Mandrel Stuart was pulled over. Recall that a police dog supposedly alerted to the left front bumper and wheel well of Stuart's SUV, implying that he had drugs stashed there. But in the end, the Post reports, the only contraband police found was "a few flecks of marijuana," totaling 0.01 gram, "in the bottom of a bag holding DVDs that were there to entertain Stuart's four kids when he drove them around." Even if we charitably assume that the dog could have smelled that minuscule measure of marijuana while standing outside of the car, that would not explain why it alerted to the left front bumper. Police nevertheless took Stuart's money on the theory that it had something to do with illegal drugs.

In another case discussed by the Post, José Cristobal Guerrero, a legal U.S. resident living in Raleigh, North Carolina, was driving to Mexico when he lost $13,630 to police in DeKalb County, Georgia, after a dog supposedly alerted to his SUV. According to Guerrero's lawyer, the Post says, "The money represented several years' worth of savings and was intended to pay for land in Mexico and bills for Guerrero's extended family there." Although no drugs were found, federal prosecutors still tried to keep the cash "on grounds that it was furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for controlled substances." They finally agreed to return the money three years later, which never would have happened if Guerrero had not found an attorney who was willing to do the necessary legal work for free. Given the time involved, the lawyer told the Post, the bill would have been around $50,000, more than three times the amount Guerrero was trying to recover.

How sad is it that Guerrero, on his way to a country where police arenotoriously corrupt and have been known to shake down innocent travelers, had that experience on our side of the border, where police are supposed to be constrained by constitutional guarantees that protect our privacy and property? Here is a warning the State Department should consider adding to its webpage of advice for visitors to this country: If you travel by car in the United States, don't carry a lot of cash, because the cops might steal it.

Original report here

　

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

　

　

D.C. May Require Police to Wear Body Cameras. Why That Could Be a Good Thing

In an effort to increase transparency and reduce complaints, the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., will issue body-mounted cameras to a test group of officers to record their interactions with the public. The six-month program will begin Oct. 1.

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier introduced the idea in January and since has discussed the program at two D.C. Council hearings. The test program has garnered support from the D.C. police union, as well as civil liberties advocates.

In Rialto, Calif., the use of force by officers fell by 60 percent in the first year officers were required to wear cameras.

"The most immediate benefit that we anticipate seeing is an overall reduction in the type of behavior that results in complaints," said Christian J. Klossner, acting executive director of the Office of Police Complaints. "When the cameras are on, both officers and citizens have a more respectful encounter."

Police departments around the country have been experimenting with similar proposals. In Los Angeles, police have been testing body cameras since January. In New York, more than 60 officers began using them this fall as part of a court order. Chicago police are discussing a similar proposal.

Body cameras for police may seem unorthodox, but using technology to reduce crime has produced encouraging results.

In Rialto, Calif., complaints against officers fell by 88 percent and use of force by officers by 60 percent in the first year officers were required to wear cameras. The same study showed the use of force was twice as likely when officers were not wearing cameras during their shift.

"When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better," said William R. Farrar, chief of police in Rialto. "And if a citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better."

The Rialto study suggests what psychologists have long known: Humans behave differently when they know they are being watched.

A number of practical question remain to be answered. Should the cameras be on throughout an officer’s tour of duty or for some limited period? If the latter, what should that period be? Should officers turn on the camera only during investigatory stops, or when they are simply engaged in casual conversation? Should they be able to turn off a camera during, say, a lunch break? Should a citizen be able to ask officers not to record an interaction because the citizen fears retaliation?

Then there is the cost. D.C. police not only will need to purchase cameras for every officer, but likely will run up hefty charges to store and maintain video footage. In an era where criminal trials can last for years, police departments and cities would have to store the footage for indictment, trial, and appeal. D.C. has about 4,000 uniformed officers who would need to be fitted for a camera. The Washington Times reported that $2.3 million was withdrawn from the District’s contingency fund to pay for the cameras, and another $800,000 was withdrawn to pay for the servers to store the video.

It also remains to be seen whether camera programs truly will be effective at preventing police misconduct. All officers need to do is turn off the camera before confronting a suspect. Delroy Burton, chairman of the D.C. police union, said when an officer does not turn on the camera, "it lends itself to the accusation of selective recording — that the officer is unilaterally selecting what to record and what not to record." These issues must be addressed as the Metropolitan Police Department implements the program. But if the results of the Rialto study are any indication, such an initiative could be an important step toward increased transparency and oversight in the criminal system.

When the police are held accountable for their actions and are aware that others are watching, better outcomes will occur. "Sunlight," as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted, remains "the best disinfectant."

Original report here

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

UK: Police 'told to limit abuse probe into politician': Derbyshire Chief Constable claims he was forbidden to arrest Labour Party man or search his home when he worked as a detective

CA: Officer’s ouster in CHP beating settlement may influence similar cases

A settlement requiring a California Highway Patrol officer to step down after he was videotaped punching a woman along the 10 Freeway is highly unusual and could lead to similar demands in future police misconduct lawsuits, lawyers said Thursday.

An attorney for the woman, Marlene Pinnock, said Officer Daniel Andrew's resignation was a crucial element of the $1.5-million deal reached Wednesday, which CHP officials said was the largest excessive force award they could recall in recent years. The agreement said Andrew would leave the agency "voluntarily for personal reasons."

Experts said the move could have broader repercussions. Officers have significant employment rights and union representation, and an officer's job is usually not up for negotiation in civil rights lawsuits, said Glen Jonas, an attorney who last year secured a $4.2-million settlement for two women shot at by LAPD officers during the manhunt for ex-Officer Christopher Dorner.

"It sets a new bar for us," Jonas said. "It's usually not open to discussion.... When the public is behind you, it changes the dynamics."

The bulk of the settlement will go toward a special-needs trust to support Pinnock's long-term care. The 51-year-old said she was happy the lawsuit had brought at least a partial resolution following her July 1 encounter with Andrew on the freeway.

"I was glad he lost his job because I didn't want him to hurt no one else," Pinnock told reporters.

Wednesday's legal settlement ends Andrew's employment with the CHP on Dec. 1, and prohibits him from reapplying to the agency. He joined the department as a cadet in April 2012 and became an officer six months later.

Pinnock's attorney, Caree Harper, said that although she was pleased with the settlement — which came after about 10 hours of negotiations Wednesday — she still wants to see criminal charges filed.

"We want him in prison," Harper said. "I'm not done."

Harper said Los Angeles County prosecutors have contacted her about interviewing Pinnock in coming weeks. Andrew and his attorneys did not return calls seeking comment. Officials with the union representing CHP officers could not be reached for comment.

The district attorney's office is reviewing the CHP's criminal probe of Andrew. The investigation began after video of the encounter shot by a passing motorist was posted online. The uniformed CHP officer can be seen punching Pinnock at least nine times as she was pinned to the ground.

The CHP initially said Andrew was trying to keep Pinnock from walking into traffic, but that she ignored his commands and became "physically combative." Pinnock has said she did nothing to provoke the officer. She said she was walking to a place to sleep when Andrew came up behind her and threw her on the ground.

At a news conference Thursday at the site of the incident, several civil rights advocates again called on the district attorney's office to file charges against the officer.

"The CHP did their job. Now it is D.A. Jackie Lacey's turn," said Earl Ofari Hutchinson, president of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable.

Despite the settlement and the public outrage over the video evidence, legal experts were divided on whether the officer's actions amounted to criminal conduct.

Police have the legal authority to use force, and the standard for what is reasonable depends on the circumstances of each encounter, said attorney John Barnett, who represented officers accused of assaulting Rodney King in Los Angeles and, more recently, Kelly Thomas in Fullerton.

A defense attorney, he said, could successfully argue that the force was necessary to keep Pinnock from continuing to put her own life and that of others at risk by walking on the freeway.

"Every video they show always looks horrible on TV. … It is very easy to be outraged and horrified," Barnett said. "That doesn't tell you what the officer's perception is. Right or wrong, it is the perception that counts."

Attorney Howard Price, who successfully sued the CHP on behalf of a pregnant woman who was hogtied by officers in 2011, disagreed. He said Andrew could have restrained Pinnock without delivering nine punches, which Price said amounted to excessive force.

"He just apparently lost control," the attorney said.

Price said he was surprised that the officer's resignation was tied to the resolution of Pinnock's civil rights lawsuit.

"The next case that comes down the pipe — and there will be another one — the outcry will be to have the officer step down," he said.

Another lawyer, Carl Douglas, praised the decision to require Andrew to resign, saying the public outrage sparked by the video likely had an effect. But he said he believed the outcome is unlikely to be repeated in many other civil rights lawsuits against police.

Original report here

　

　

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

British cops face 'gross misconduct' inquiry by police watchdog over pedophile coverup

Two police officers have been told they are under investigation for gross misconduct over their handling of an indecent assault allegation against Jimmy Savile, the police watchdog has confirmed.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission said two officers from Sussex Police had been told they were facing a gross misconduct investigation over how they dealt with the allegation from a female victim.

The detective sergeant and detective constable could lose their jobs if a gross misconduct case is proved against them.

The sex allegation dated back to 1970 but it was reported to police in March 2008. It therefore represented a chance to unmask the BBC entertainer’s true nature as a persistent sex offender before his death in 2011.

The IPCC also disclosed that two senior officers in Sussex Police have also been told they are facing a misconduct investigation over the way they supervised the 2008 inquiries.

A detective chief inspector and a detective inspector could face a maximum penalty of a written warning if a misconduct case is proved against them.

None of the four officers has been named by the IPCC.

It was only after his death that Savile was exposed as one of Britain’s most prolific paedophiles and sex offenders.

Sussex Police was directed by the IPCC to refer the conduct of its officers for investigation last year.

Three other forces are also being investigated by the IPCC over their role in the Savile scandal.

A statement released by the watchdog said inquiries continue into the conduct of North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Surrey Police regarding information they received about Savile, or other officers’ contact with him.

Original report here

　

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

　

　

　

We Need More Innocence Commissions

It's time to do something about all the innocent people locked up behind bars.

The five or six masochists who read this column by choice rather than by accident know it’s not exactly given to cheerleading for more government. So they’ll want to note this edition—which argues for not just more government spending, but a whole new state agency.

That agency would be an Innocence Inquiry Commission—something North Carolina has that no other state has. You might have heard about North Carolina’s from recent news coverage of Henry McCollum and Leon Brown, who were set free this month after serving three decades in prison for a crime they did not commit.

Three decades. When the cell doors slammed shut on McCollum and Brown, who were 19 and 15 at the time, home computers used 5-inch floppy disks and MS-DOS, Ma Bell was still a monopoly, and the Cold War against the Soviets was still raging.

Ghostbusters and Purple Rain hadn’t come out yet. Bill Clinton was still running Arkansas and Barack Obama was not yet running the Harvard Law Review. McCollum and Brown missed those things—and everything else since—unless they caught a snippet or two from a news clip on a rec room TV.

Why? Because they were browbeaten into falsely confessing to the rape and murder of 11-year-old Sabrina Buie. Even though there was no physical evidence linking them to the crime. Even though Roscoe Artis, a known sex offender, lived just a block from where Buie’s body was found. The two confessed, they later said, because they thought that if they did so the police would let them go home. Both men are mentally disabled.

Thirty years later, DNA evidence uncovered by North Carolina’s Innocence Inquiry Commission has cleared them—and identified the true perpetrator: Artis, who currently is serving time for a different rape and murder.

Virginia also has had its share of infamous exonerations.

Earl Washington Jr. escaped execution by just nine days. Thomas Haynesworth spent 27 years in prison for a series of rapes he did not commit. His case so upset former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli that Cuccinelli gave Haynesworth a job in his office and drafted legislation to make obtaining writs of innocence easier.

There are other cases, too: Jonathan Montgomery, locked up for four years on the basis of fabricated testimony. Bennett Barbour, who also spent four years in prison for somebody else’s crime. Gary Diamond, who did five years. And more.

In fact, a study published in the journal of the National Academies of Sciences estimates that, with an error-at-trial rate of 4 percent, more than two-thirds of all the innocent people just on death row have yet to be exonerated.

Civil libertarians and liberals justifiably find this outrageous. Conservatives should, too. After all: For every innocent person sitting behind bars, there’s a guilty perp walking around free, laughing his head off at the sap who took the fall for him—and the boneheads who made it happen.

What’s more, the actually guilty party might be committing still more crimes. That amounts to a triple injustice: His original victim was denied justice, and so was the innocent man who went to prison in his place—and so are any later victims who would not have been victimized if the authorities had gotten the right guy.

Unfortunately, none of this seems to bother Virginia’s political class much, because the commonwealth still sets some of the highest hurdles in the country for exonerating innocent people. Among them is the state’s 21-day rule, which prohibits introducing new evidence of innocence more than three weeks after a conviction. Apparently many state lawmakers think it’s better for the courts to do things fast than for them to get things right. Or maybe they just don’t want to admit that sometimes government fouls up.

But why not? The conservative Republicans who dominate the General Assembly have no problem with that concept when they’re talking about Obamacare, or economic policy, or business regulation, or environmental protection, or K-12 education, or any of a hundred other things. They of all people should agree that when the state uses its most tyrannical power—the power to lock people in cages for decades and sometimes even kill them—it’s entirely appropriate to go back and make sure the government didn’t blow it.

An Innocence Inquiry Commission could do that, and at very little cost: North Carolina’s commission budget is about $350,000. That seems a small price to pay to make sure the state does not kill an innocent man while letting a killer go free.

Original report here

　

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

　

Florida Deputies Gun Man Down as His Son Tries to Explain that He’s Deaf

Another Hispanic thug cop

A 52-year-old father and husband of 30 years, was shot and killed by a Volusia County Sheriff’s deputy Saturday afternoon.

Edward Miller and his son Edward Jr. went to Fryer’s Towing Friday to settle a dispute about a a towed vehicle and according to the police report, Darice Podgorski-Beneddix, 44, an employee at Fryer’s, reported to Daytona police officers that the elder Miller "was being rude and yelling at her."

The elder Miller said he "may have been yelling due to him being hard of hearing however in no way was he trying to be rude."

Employee Erik Stewart, 51, told Podgorski-Beneddix that the younger Miller "had a gun holstered on his right side hip."

Podgorski-Beneddix then called for police assistance "out of fear for their safety," according to the report.

Officers determined the younger Miller had an up-to-date concealed weapons license to carry the gun, and it was returned to him.

The report goes on to state that the Millers were told that if they come back with the "correct amount of money," their vehicle would be returned to them.

When the father and son returned Saturday with the correct amount of money to claim their vehicle, the dispute resumed. Two deputies happened to be near the scene on an unrelated matter.

Police say deputy Joel Hernandez and another unnamed deputy, heard yelling coming from the front of Fryer’s and walked around the building to investigate.

What happened next isn’t exactly clear as the family of deceased Edward P. Miller, were instructed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement not to release any information about the incident.

"Yesterday they hid me from the cameras," Edward Miller said. "They didn’t want any information about what happened out."

Gary Davidson, a spokesman for the sheriff’s department said, "While the specific sequence of events isn’t being released at this time due to the ongoing investigation, during the encounter, Hernandez perceived a threat and fired his duty weapon, striking and killing the man."

Miller’s son tried to explain to deputies that his father was deaf. "I kept telling them that he can’t hear them," said Miller. "I kept telling them he can’t understand them."

According to WESH TV, witnesses said that Miller was shot while sitting inside an SUV, and that the windows were rolled up when the deputy opened fire.

Six shots were fired, hitting him in the head, neck and body.

This is the second fatal shooting involving Hernandez in less than two years. In January of 2013, a suicidal man armed with a handgun moved toward Hernandez when he feared for his life and shot and killed the man. Hernandez was cleared of any wrong doing.

"I’m the only one who knows what happened. I was right there. I saw the whole thing," said the grieving Edward Miller. However, there happened to be at least 6 security cameras within view from the location of the shooting. If Hernandez’s life was really in danger, the video should prove it.

Original report here

　

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

　

Video Proves Cops Shot Guy in Walmart Immediately, For No Reason

Video footage has been released in the shooting death of John Crawford, the man who was gunned down in a Beavercreek, Ohio, Walmart by cops who apparently thought he was armed and dangerous. In reality, Crawford had picked up a pellet rifle from the hardware section of the store and was carrying it around while he talked on the phone.

The police maintained that Crawford had refused orders to drop the weapon; the video footage proves definitively that that was not the case—the cops shot the man almost immediately after encountering him. Claims in some media outlets that Crawford had been walking around the store and pointing the gun at people also seem false, unless those occurrences happened during the few seconds that Crawford was out of range of the surveillance camera.

Nevertheless, a grand jury declined to indict the two officers involved, according to The Huffington Post. The U.S. Department of Justice will look into the matter, however.

When this story first broke, many wondered whether mitigating factors would emerge to explain, if not justify, the reaction of law enforcement officers. To my eyes at least, the surveillance video confirms the worst case scenario: The cops killed this man for almost no reason whatsoever.

Original report here. Video at link.

 

I would have thought that a black man carrying around an apparent assault rifle in a store would be some reason for prompt action

　

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

PA police officers burst into home, arrest woman for filming them with cellphone

A Pennsylvania family has filed a federal lawsuit alleging three Collingdale police officers entered their home without permission to confiscate a cell phone being used to record the officer’s actions in front of their home.

Kia Gaymon, 38, and her husband Michael Gaymon, 35, state in the suit that one officer, identified as Officer Carl White, burst into the home without a warrant and arrested her after threatening to use a taser on her, according to NBC10.

In the suit, the officers are accused of unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, retaliatory arrest, and unlawful search.

According to the Gaymons, the February 22 altercation began when police were called out because a family member had parked her car illegally. The Gaymons state that, as one officer became overly aggressive with his questions, Mrs. Gaymon pulled out her cell phone and began recording.

Noticing that he was being recorded, Officer White advanced on Gaymon demanding she turn off her phone, stating it was illegal to record him without his permission.

Mr. Gaymon and the couple’s 21-year-old daughter, Sanshuray Purnell, told the officer he was wrong and that she had the legal right to film him. According to the lawsuit, the officer then told Mrs. Gaymon that if she didn’t stop recording him he would enter her home, take away her cellphone, and arrest her.

After refusing to allow him to enter her home the officer then handcuffed Purnell. Mrs. Gaymon says a second officer then escorted Purnell away from the scene.

White then allegedly entered the home, ignoring the couple’s demand that he not come inside, and demanded the phone, placing a taser against Mrs. Gaymon’s chest and threatening to use it.

"I panicked," she said. "I was scared."

The suit states that two officer then arrested Mrs. Gaymon along with her daughter and charged them both with disorderly conduct.

The family’s attorney said the police had no cause to enter the home illegally and make an arrest.

"The actions that are described in the citation are for videoing the officer," said Jonathan Fienberg. "It’s not a crime."

Mrs. Gaymon and Purnell appeared before a judge on May 22 and, after hearing their testimony, the judge dismissed all charges against them.

According to the lawsuit, the officers, "had no legal cause to believe that any plaintiff committed any crime" and that they "maliciously initiated a criminal prosecution." The lawsuit also accuses the officers of illegally entering the home without a warrant.

The Collingdale Police Chief has not responded to the suit, deferring to the department’s solicitor.

Original report here

　

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

　

Video explains why a former S.C. trooper is now being charged with a felony

A former South Carolina Highway Patrol trooper was arrested and charged this week with "assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature" after he shot an unarmed motorist during a bizarre and nearly fatal traffic stop.

Sean Groubert, 31, could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted on charges he wrongfully shot the 35-year-old motorist, Levar Jones, during a stop prompted by a seatbelt violation, the State reported.

The shooting took place Sept. 4, resulting in Groubert's almost-immediate termination from the state Highway Patrol.

Footage of the incident became public this week, the day of the former trooper's booking, and the State posted the "disturbing" video to YouTube.

"The video shows Groubert firing repeatedly at Jones, who was not armed and who was not behaving aggressively," the State reported. "Jones was struck at least once, in the hip. He spent time in the hospital and is now out of the hospital recuperating."

After being struck with at least one bullet, Jones can be heard saying: "What did I do, sir? ... I can't feel my leg."

The video was played at Groubert’s bond hearing, at which his bond was set at $75,000.

Original report here

Groubert's defense here. He was basically just a scared kid

　

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here