|
Post by Shuftin on Oct 20, 2006 1:43:45 GMT -5
October 13, 2006 By JOHN FRANK Police chief admits to faulty speed guns But that likely won't help most drivers stopped for speeding over a 15-month period. CRYSTAL RIVER - For more than 15 months, Crystal River police officers made traffic stops and issued citations using two laser devices that weren't set properly to measure accurate speeds. The problem jeopardizes the department's ability to prove an unknown number of tickets issued between November 2004 and February 2006. County Judge Mark Yerman dismissed speeding charges against one Crystal River man who challenged the ticket on Feb. 10, but the issue did not come to light until a subsequent court hearing earlier this week. Police Chief Steve Burch acknowledged the deficient laser speed detection devices for the first time Thursday, saying it was a result of a new rule change in November 2004 and a "miscommunication between me and the sergeants." "For some reason, they assured me they were compliant, but they weren't," he said. Burch said the department is now in compliance with the new state rules that changed the distance necessary to standardize the devices before and after each use. The discovery of the faulty speed guns is likely little help for the majority of the motorists stopped by Crystal River officers between November 2004 and February 2006 because the cases were resolved after they paid their fines. Still, Bill Grant, an Inverness attorney who successfully challenged the laser devices in court, said the damage can be corrected. He believes the police department should have notified the people ticketed. "They should dismiss them all," Grant said. "It's inconvenient and embarrassing to the city, but they need to step up to the plate." As for those who already paid, Grant said a judge could set the charges aside in the interest of justice, or those ticketed could sue the police department in civil court for wrongful prosecution. Burch downplayed the scope of the problem, noting that not every officer has a laser device and the equipment is not used every day. "It's not that we are relying on an illegal device, as Mr. Grant wants to call it," the police chief said. "The probable cause for the traffic stop was there. All the laser and the radar do is quantify and confirm the officers' estimate of the speed and establish (that the evidence) be brought into court." Burch said he first learned of the laser devices' problem after the Feb. 10 court hearing and immediately pulled them out of service. He rejected the notion that he should have done more to right the wrong. "A lot of those tickets have already been dealt with," Burch said. "The reality is, the person was speeding." Burch said he has no idea how many tickets were issued or how to notify those affected. "It would be almost impossible (to know)," he said. "I don't know how many certified laser operators there are because they share the device." Grant said the chief's assertion isn't entirely accurate because state rules require documentation in a logbook when laser speed guns are used. He thinks there could be dozens, if not hundreds, of citations at issue. Both also debate the ultimate impact of the court's earlier finding that the laser devices aren't viable as evidence in court. Burch believes the traffic stops and related charges, such as possession of illegal drugs or weapons, are still valid. "In my opinion ... the officers are acting in good faith, and the probable cause was there," he said. Before using the laser to measure speed, Burch said, officers must estimate the speed visually and the laser must be accurate to within plus or minus two miles per hour. Grant believes there are grounds for challenging the stops because there was no probable cause for the stop without the laser evidence. Visual estimates of speed, he said, "it's almost always denied." www.sptimes.com/2006/10/13/Citrus/Police_chief_admits_t.shtmlTo convict and to incarcerate “We the People” at your masters demand.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Oct 20, 2006 1:43:45 GMT -5
October 13, 2006 By JOHN FRANK Police chief admits to faulty speed guns But that likely won't help most drivers stopped for speeding over a 15-month period. CRYSTAL RIVER - For more than 15 months, Crystal River police officers made traffic stops and issued citations using two laser devices that weren't set properly to measure accurate speeds. The problem jeopardizes the department's ability to prove an unknown number of tickets issued between November 2004 and February 2006. County Judge Mark Yerman dismissed speeding charges against one Crystal River man who challenged the ticket on Feb. 10, but the issue did not come to light until a subsequent court hearing earlier this week. Police Chief Steve Burch acknowledged the deficient laser speed detection devices for the first time Thursday, saying it was a result of a new rule change in November 2004 and a "miscommunication between me and the sergeants." "For some reason, they assured me they were compliant, but they weren't," he said. Burch said the department is now in compliance with the new state rules that changed the distance necessary to standardize the devices before and after each use. The discovery of the faulty speed guns is likely little help for the majority of the motorists stopped by Crystal River officers between November 2004 and February 2006 because the cases were resolved after they paid their fines. Still, Bill Grant, an Inverness attorney who successfully challenged the laser devices in court, said the damage can be corrected. He believes the police department should have notified the people ticketed. "They should dismiss them all," Grant said. "It's inconvenient and embarrassing to the city, but they need to step up to the plate." As for those who already paid, Grant said a judge could set the charges aside in the interest of justice, or those ticketed could sue the police department in civil court for wrongful prosecution. Burch downplayed the scope of the problem, noting that not every officer has a laser device and the equipment is not used every day. "It's not that we are relying on an illegal device, as Mr. Grant wants to call it," the police chief said. "The probable cause for the traffic stop was there. All the laser and the radar do is quantify and confirm the officers' estimate of the speed and establish (that the evidence) be brought into court." Burch said he first learned of the laser devices' problem after the Feb. 10 court hearing and immediately pulled them out of service. He rejected the notion that he should have done more to right the wrong. "A lot of those tickets have already been dealt with," Burch said. "The reality is, the person was speeding." Burch said he has no idea how many tickets were issued or how to notify those affected. "It would be almost impossible (to know)," he said. "I don't know how many certified laser operators there are because they share the device." Grant said the chief's assertion isn't entirely accurate because state rules require documentation in a logbook when laser speed guns are used. He thinks there could be dozens, if not hundreds, of citations at issue. Both also debate the ultimate impact of the court's earlier finding that the laser devices aren't viable as evidence in court. Burch believes the traffic stops and related charges, such as possession of illegal drugs or weapons, are still valid. "In my opinion ... the officers are acting in good faith, and the probable cause was there," he said. Before using the laser to measure speed, Burch said, officers must estimate the speed visually and the laser must be accurate to within plus or minus two miles per hour. Grant believes there are grounds for challenging the stops because there was no probable cause for the stop without the laser evidence. Visual estimates of speed, he said, "it's almost always denied." www.sptimes.com/2006/10/13/Citrus/Police_chief_admits_t.shtmlTo convict and to incarcerate “We the People” at your masters demand.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Oct 21, 2006 4:14:15 GMT -5
August 31 2004 06:20 PM Protesters from the library are at 42nd and 6th. 40 cops on scooters ran after protesters with nets. Apx. 50 have been entrapped with nets. Police attacked protesters within the nets. Reports of a cop using a bike to hit someone. Several hundred are in the surrounding area. 06:26 PM At the NY Public Library, an older woman was hit in the face by an undercover cop, shocking those who witnessed the incident. Cops would not arrest the man despite the attempts of the woman who was struck. 06:30 PM Marches are converging around Herald Square at 34th and 6th, heading towards the Garden. There are reports of police violence there. Multiple busses of riot police are around 32nd / 34th and 6th. Several police reportedly are not wearing badge numbers. Mass arrests are now occuring in Harold Square. 06:38 PM There are currently 400 people at Herald Square, where Republicans are speaking - giving interviews to networks. Riot cops are amassing. 06:41 PM Protesters leaving Union Sq. are heading north on 8th avenue approaching 28th. Cops have constructed wire cages in the street, riot cops approaching behind them, undercovers following behind them on scooters. 06:51 PM At 42nd and 6th people are sitting down in the middle of the street to protest the mass arrests. They are being arrested one by one. Police are reportedly trying to arrest medics to prevent them from providing care to protesters. 07:28 PM People are breaking through the nets at 34th and Broadway. 5 people have tied themselves to the barricades. Reportedly police are even being "very aggressive" with corporate media in this area. 07:32 PM Indymedia reporter being denied exit from pen at 16th and irving, while "legit" media is being allowed to leave. Cop said "that's not media." Reportedly everyone on 16th will be arrested. 07:35 PM Reportedly people are being beaten while handcuffed both at 16th street and at Harold Square. 09:01 PM Trash fires are being reported on Park and Madison. 09:02 PM At 36th between Park and 6th Ave, violent arrests are occuring. Police gave a dispersal order. 200 people cannot leave because they are surrounded. 09:03 PM Charles from Rochester IMC was arrested along with three other videographers at 33rd and 9th; several other videographers were reportedly picked up by police. 09:16 PM Receiving reports of numerous fires on Park Ave south. It is possible they were set by provocateurs. 09:21 PM On the north side of west 35th street and 6th avenue reports of 50 violent arrests- people being thrown to the ground and against walls. 09:26 PM An NLG person reports that 75 - 100 people are being arres ted at 35th and 5th. A police van is being brought in. 09:32 PM At least 4 vans full of arrestees have pulled away from 28th and Madison. Allegedly holding 7-8 people. 09:43 PM MSNBC reports more than 800 people have been arrested tonight. 09:49 PM Shannon from IL. IMC has been arrested. Cops have reportedly been telling IMC reporters to "f**k off." 09:54 PM CORRECTION: MSNBC reported 800 arrests total during the RNC, 270 tonight. But they're wrong. Way more than that tonight. 09:57 PM We have confirmation that 11 IMC reporters have been arrested. 10:14 PM At 33rd and 5th, 33rd and Broadway people are heckling delegates and cops are letting them do it. 10:18 PM An IMC reporter says he sees a white police armored humvee vehicle that he suspects may be an acoustical weapon at Union Square. A dispersal order has been given. Cops at the north end of the square have nets, telling people they must go south to leave. 10:39 PM Cops attempted to take an individual from crowd near Union Square but crowd physically "unarrested" him. Immediately afterward 100 riot cops moved in around subway entrances. All this near US on University and 14th. 10:41 PM Things have calmed down at Union Square 10:43 PM Receiving reports that security is apparently lax at the garden. It is possible, albeit highly risky, to walk into the convention undercover. www.infowars.com/print/ps/nyindiereport.htmTo convict and to incarcerate “We the People” at your masters demand.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Oct 21, 2006 4:14:15 GMT -5
August 31 2004 06:20 PM Protesters from the library are at 42nd and 6th. 40 cops on scooters ran after protesters with nets. Apx. 50 have been entrapped with nets. Police attacked protesters within the nets. Reports of a cop using a bike to hit someone. Several hundred are in the surrounding area. 06:26 PM At the NY Public Library, an older woman was hit in the face by an undercover cop, shocking those who witnessed the incident. Cops would not arrest the man despite the attempts of the woman who was struck. 06:30 PM Marches are converging around Herald Square at 34th and 6th, heading towards the Garden. There are reports of police violence there. Multiple busses of riot police are around 32nd / 34th and 6th. Several police reportedly are not wearing badge numbers. Mass arrests are now occuring in Harold Square. 06:38 PM There are currently 400 people at Herald Square, where Republicans are speaking - giving interviews to networks. Riot cops are amassing. 06:41 PM Protesters leaving Union Sq. are heading north on 8th avenue approaching 28th. Cops have constructed wire cages in the street, riot cops approaching behind them, undercovers following behind them on scooters. 06:51 PM At 42nd and 6th people are sitting down in the middle of the street to protest the mass arrests. They are being arrested one by one. Police are reportedly trying to arrest medics to prevent them from providing care to protesters. 07:28 PM People are breaking through the nets at 34th and Broadway. 5 people have tied themselves to the barricades. Reportedly police are even being "very aggressive" with corporate media in this area. 07:32 PM Indymedia reporter being denied exit from pen at 16th and irving, while "legit" media is being allowed to leave. Cop said "that's not media." Reportedly everyone on 16th will be arrested. 07:35 PM Reportedly people are being beaten while handcuffed both at 16th street and at Harold Square. 09:01 PM Trash fires are being reported on Park and Madison. 09:02 PM At 36th between Park and 6th Ave, violent arrests are occuring. Police gave a dispersal order. 200 people cannot leave because they are surrounded. 09:03 PM Charles from Rochester IMC was arrested along with three other videographers at 33rd and 9th; several other videographers were reportedly picked up by police. 09:16 PM Receiving reports of numerous fires on Park Ave south. It is possible they were set by provocateurs. 09:21 PM On the north side of west 35th street and 6th avenue reports of 50 violent arrests- people being thrown to the ground and against walls. 09:26 PM An NLG person reports that 75 - 100 people are being arres ted at 35th and 5th. A police van is being brought in. 09:32 PM At least 4 vans full of arrestees have pulled away from 28th and Madison. Allegedly holding 7-8 people. 09:43 PM MSNBC reports more than 800 people have been arrested tonight. 09:49 PM Shannon from IL. IMC has been arrested. Cops have reportedly been telling IMC reporters to "f**k off." 09:54 PM CORRECTION: MSNBC reported 800 arrests total during the RNC, 270 tonight. But they're wrong. Way more than that tonight. 09:57 PM We have confirmation that 11 IMC reporters have been arrested. 10:14 PM At 33rd and 5th, 33rd and Broadway people are heckling delegates and cops are letting them do it. 10:18 PM An IMC reporter says he sees a white police armored humvee vehicle that he suspects may be an acoustical weapon at Union Square. A dispersal order has been given. Cops at the north end of the square have nets, telling people they must go south to leave. 10:39 PM Cops attempted to take an individual from crowd near Union Square but crowd physically "unarrested" him. Immediately afterward 100 riot cops moved in around subway entrances. All this near US on University and 14th. 10:41 PM Things have calmed down at Union Square 10:43 PM Receiving reports that security is apparently lax at the garden. It is possible, albeit highly risky, to walk into the convention undercover. www.infowars.com/print/ps/nyindiereport.htmTo convict and to incarcerate “We the People” at your masters demand.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 15, 2006 16:24:20 GMT -5
Hey I got an idea... you just saw the judge about driving suspended... the judge probably just told you not to drive.... DONT DRIVE YOU DUMB ASSES You ignorand F**KERS piss me off The difference between you and I is that you punch a clock and are on the payroll of the Government and the Government is therefore your master. I can understand the squirming and graveling on your stomach and the licking of a Masters boots for a Master who pays you to do so. “To serve and to protect” is to serve your master and protect your master from whom? “We the people” even if this service to your Master and the protection of your Master is against the very will of the people. Why is there confusion when it involves private citizens whom are not paid to shit and vomit all over themselves in the presence of your payroll God. Freedom isn’t free, It costs “A buck oh five”, I am free and am willing to pay YOUR Masters the bribery and extortion they demand in order to remain free. Your response is probably “Duhhhhhhh Ummm Ummm Ummm Duhhhhhhh”. You don’t have squirting diarrhea when my payroll Master speaks? My answer to this question is "Fuck you and fuck no." I am perfectly willing and able to pay the " The "Buck oh five" for my constitutional freedoms even though this felony extortion and felony blackmail is at the point of a gun, namely you, and your own Governmental gun.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 15, 2006 16:24:20 GMT -5
Hey I got an idea... you just saw the judge about driving suspended... the judge probably just told you not to drive.... DONT DRIVE YOU DUMB ASSES You ignorand F**KERS piss me off The difference between you and I is that you punch a clock and are on the payroll of the Government and the Government is therefore your master. I can understand the squirming and graveling on your stomach and the licking of a Masters boots for a Master who pays you to do so. “To serve and to protect” is to serve your master and protect your master from whom? “We the people” even if this service to your Master and the protection of your Master is against the very will of the people. Why is there confusion when it involves private citizens whom are not paid to shit and vomit all over themselves in the presence of your payroll God. Freedom isn’t free, It costs “A buck oh five”, I am free and am willing to pay YOUR Masters the bribery and extortion they demand in order to remain free. Your response is probably “Duhhhhhhh Ummm Ummm Ummm Duhhhhhhh”. You don’t have squirting diarrhea when my payroll Master speaks? My answer to this question is "Fuck you and fuck no." I am perfectly willing and able to pay the " The "Buck oh five" for my constitutional freedoms even though this felony extortion and felony blackmail is at the point of a gun, namely you, and your own Governmental gun.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 2, 2006 14:39:19 GMT -5
2006-09-02
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA – Note: If you’re caught driving on a suspended license, don’t drive to your court appearance. Lincoln police may be watching as you leave to see how you get home.
Last month, officers sat in court as people appeared on driving under suspension charges and radioed officers outside when they left.
If people whose license had been revoked drove away, they stopped them.
In all, officers arrested 17 people as part of the special enforcement they ran for 12 days between July 20 and Aug. 25.
They arrested 20-year-old Jesse Rico twice.
The others ranged in age from 17 to 36 and included one woman who had been suspended 15 times.
“I think people coming to court on a suspended license should be on notice,” said Police Chief Tom Casady.
He said he was on the East Coast when he saw a report about something similar on a local newscast.
“It was close enough that the bulb went off,” Casady said.
The results of the special enforcement, he said, highlights a growing problem: People are driving despite having suspended licenses.
In 2005, Lincoln police gave 3,199 tickets for DUS, some to drivers who had done it multiple times.
“It’s a pretty serious problem,” Casady said. “The sheer number is somewhat mind-boggling.”
But the fines and potential jail time don’t seem to deter people, he said.
Right now, police can impound suspended drivers’ cars for 30 days if they’re caught driving, and Lincoln police take full advantage of that, Casady said.
But in his opinion, those caught driving under suspension should have to forfeit their cars. It’s like taking away a weapon used in a crime, he said.
Even if drivers would have to forfeit their cars, there are some who still would drive, Casady said.
“But we’ve made it harder for them.”
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 2, 2006 14:39:19 GMT -5
2006-09-02
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA – Note: If you’re caught driving on a suspended license, don’t drive to your court appearance. Lincoln police may be watching as you leave to see how you get home.
Last month, officers sat in court as people appeared on driving under suspension charges and radioed officers outside when they left.
If people whose license had been revoked drove away, they stopped them.
In all, officers arrested 17 people as part of the special enforcement they ran for 12 days between July 20 and Aug. 25.
They arrested 20-year-old Jesse Rico twice.
The others ranged in age from 17 to 36 and included one woman who had been suspended 15 times.
“I think people coming to court on a suspended license should be on notice,” said Police Chief Tom Casady.
He said he was on the East Coast when he saw a report about something similar on a local newscast.
“It was close enough that the bulb went off,” Casady said.
The results of the special enforcement, he said, highlights a growing problem: People are driving despite having suspended licenses.
In 2005, Lincoln police gave 3,199 tickets for DUS, some to drivers who had done it multiple times.
“It’s a pretty serious problem,” Casady said. “The sheer number is somewhat mind-boggling.”
But the fines and potential jail time don’t seem to deter people, he said.
Right now, police can impound suspended drivers’ cars for 30 days if they’re caught driving, and Lincoln police take full advantage of that, Casady said.
But in his opinion, those caught driving under suspension should have to forfeit their cars. It’s like taking away a weapon used in a crime, he said.
Even if drivers would have to forfeit their cars, there are some who still would drive, Casady said.
“But we’ve made it harder for them.”
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 18, 2006 12:27:49 GMT -5
2006-09-12
RICHMOND, KENTUCKY - A Richmond police officer used inappropriate and excessive force in subduing a black teenager during a May 19 incident, two independent investigators said today.
In a special meeting of the Richmond City Commission, the investigators also outlined eight recommendations to prevent and monitor future allegations of greater-than-necessary force. Those include additional training on the standards for use of force, a better reporting system to address non-compliance, and the appointment of a senior officer to oversee compliance with use-of-force policy.
Commission member Kay Cosby Jones said, "These eight recommendations will be taken very seriously."
The independent report was sought by the city commission after a May 19 incident on East Irvine Street.
Travis Parks, 17, was cited for menacing and disorderly conduct after the incident. His mother, Deborah, now 54, was injured when she was hit by a car driven by James Clifford, 22, a pizza delivery driver. Clifford was later charged with leaving the scene of an accident, police said.
At first, police could not find Deborah Parks as she lay behind some mailboxes. Travis Parks' frantic, expletive-laced efforts to attract their attention resulted in his being struck with a baton by an officer.
Two independent investigators -- Terry Cox, a professor with Eastern Kentucky University's Department of Criminal Justice and Police Studies, and Vic Bumphus, a former EKU professor who now teaches criminal justice at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga -- investigated the complaint of police brutality filed against the Richmond Police Department.
Their 26-page report, based on interviews and video footage taken at the scene, concluded that Parks had not punched with or swung his fists before the use of force, nor had he charged the officers, as some officers had told investigators.
The report found that police did have probable cause to detain Parks and needed to secure the scene so they could treat his mother.
However, striking him with the baton "was inappropriate and exceeded levels of force" specified by Richmond police policy, the report says.
Given the level of resistance encountered, the more appropriate level of force would have been the use of "O.C. spray," a chemical spray that causes the eyes to water.
"There is every reason to believe these officers were trained to use this chemical and were issued it as well," the report says.
Richmond Police Chief Robert Stephens noted that the policy does not require "officers to try each option before escalating to the next level" of force.
The policy says, "Clearly a good judgment and the circumstances of a given situation will dictate what level the officer chooses as appropriate to the risk confronted."
As for the specific conclusion that the officer used excessive force, Stephens said: "I'd have to go back and look at that more closely."
Otherwise, Stephens said, "I have no problem with the recommendations. I feel like there are some things we need to work on."
Stephens also said that the department is already discussing the appointment of a major to become a compliance officer. And Stephens said the department already consults a model policy on the use of force, which was another recommendation.
Travis Parks, who turned 18 yesterday, did not attend the city commission meeting. His court case was resolved with his performance of community service by helping at his grandfather's Richmond funeral home, said his sister, Calvetta Winstead, 22.
"It (the report) was a good birthday present," Winstead said. "I think the recommendations are good but I also think some action needs to be taken against the officers."
Stephens said no disciplinary action has been taken against the officer who used the baton, Kelley Rouse, pending his review of all the facts and the independent report.
The report also suggested that the process for citizen complaints should be more clearly articulated and efforts should be made to better advertise complaint procedures. And the report said the police department should immediately provide a strategic plan to address the recommendations in order to increase public trust.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 18, 2006 12:27:49 GMT -5
2006-09-12
RICHMOND, KENTUCKY - A Richmond police officer used inappropriate and excessive force in subduing a black teenager during a May 19 incident, two independent investigators said today.
In a special meeting of the Richmond City Commission, the investigators also outlined eight recommendations to prevent and monitor future allegations of greater-than-necessary force. Those include additional training on the standards for use of force, a better reporting system to address non-compliance, and the appointment of a senior officer to oversee compliance with use-of-force policy.
Commission member Kay Cosby Jones said, "These eight recommendations will be taken very seriously."
The independent report was sought by the city commission after a May 19 incident on East Irvine Street.
Travis Parks, 17, was cited for menacing and disorderly conduct after the incident. His mother, Deborah, now 54, was injured when she was hit by a car driven by James Clifford, 22, a pizza delivery driver. Clifford was later charged with leaving the scene of an accident, police said.
At first, police could not find Deborah Parks as she lay behind some mailboxes. Travis Parks' frantic, expletive-laced efforts to attract their attention resulted in his being struck with a baton by an officer.
Two independent investigators -- Terry Cox, a professor with Eastern Kentucky University's Department of Criminal Justice and Police Studies, and Vic Bumphus, a former EKU professor who now teaches criminal justice at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga -- investigated the complaint of police brutality filed against the Richmond Police Department.
Their 26-page report, based on interviews and video footage taken at the scene, concluded that Parks had not punched with or swung his fists before the use of force, nor had he charged the officers, as some officers had told investigators.
The report found that police did have probable cause to detain Parks and needed to secure the scene so they could treat his mother.
However, striking him with the baton "was inappropriate and exceeded levels of force" specified by Richmond police policy, the report says.
Given the level of resistance encountered, the more appropriate level of force would have been the use of "O.C. spray," a chemical spray that causes the eyes to water.
"There is every reason to believe these officers were trained to use this chemical and were issued it as well," the report says.
Richmond Police Chief Robert Stephens noted that the policy does not require "officers to try each option before escalating to the next level" of force.
The policy says, "Clearly a good judgment and the circumstances of a given situation will dictate what level the officer chooses as appropriate to the risk confronted."
As for the specific conclusion that the officer used excessive force, Stephens said: "I'd have to go back and look at that more closely."
Otherwise, Stephens said, "I have no problem with the recommendations. I feel like there are some things we need to work on."
Stephens also said that the department is already discussing the appointment of a major to become a compliance officer. And Stephens said the department already consults a model policy on the use of force, which was another recommendation.
Travis Parks, who turned 18 yesterday, did not attend the city commission meeting. His court case was resolved with his performance of community service by helping at his grandfather's Richmond funeral home, said his sister, Calvetta Winstead, 22.
"It (the report) was a good birthday present," Winstead said. "I think the recommendations are good but I also think some action needs to be taken against the officers."
Stephens said no disciplinary action has been taken against the officer who used the baton, Kelley Rouse, pending his review of all the facts and the independent report.
The report also suggested that the process for citizen complaints should be more clearly articulated and efforts should be made to better advertise complaint procedures. And the report said the police department should immediately provide a strategic plan to address the recommendations in order to increase public trust.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Oct 4, 2006 5:49:54 GMT -5
2006-10-02
DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA – A Desert Hot Springs police officer was charged with 49 felony counts of sexual assault and his bail was set at $2 million this afternoon.
"I'm setting it at $2 million because there's two victims," Judge Charles E. Stafford Jr. said at the arraignment at Larson Justice Center in Indio.
The officer was arrested Thursday on suspicion of sexually assaulting his child. Information about the second alleged victim was not available.
The officer [Dennis Decker] who the Desert Sun is not naming at this time to protect the identity of the alleged victims — stood motionless in shackles and an orange jumpsuit as the judge read off the charges.
The assaults he is accused of committing happened between May 1996 and September 2006, according to court documents.
If convicted, the officer faces multiple life sentences, said supervising deputy district attorney Richard West, who is prosecuting the case.
The policeman did not comment, other than to tell the judge that he could not afford to hire an attorney. He makes $64,000 a year and is on paid administrative leave.
He is being held at Robert Presley Detention Center in Riverside.
"I'm still in disbelief of this whole thing,” said 17-year-old Heather Dunning after the arraignment. She said she knew of him when he was the police officer assigned to Desert Hot Springs High School. “They were reeling off charges and my hands were shaking," she said.
After working at the high school for two years, he went on to head the juvenile investigations unit of the police department and founded the police Explorers program, in which juvenile volunteers work alongside police officers.
The officer was arrested by District Attorney investigators while attending a police training class in Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Oct 4, 2006 5:49:54 GMT -5
2006-10-02
DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA – A Desert Hot Springs police officer was charged with 49 felony counts of sexual assault and his bail was set at $2 million this afternoon.
"I'm setting it at $2 million because there's two victims," Judge Charles E. Stafford Jr. said at the arraignment at Larson Justice Center in Indio.
The officer was arrested Thursday on suspicion of sexually assaulting his child. Information about the second alleged victim was not available.
The officer [Dennis Decker] who the Desert Sun is not naming at this time to protect the identity of the alleged victims — stood motionless in shackles and an orange jumpsuit as the judge read off the charges.
The assaults he is accused of committing happened between May 1996 and September 2006, according to court documents.
If convicted, the officer faces multiple life sentences, said supervising deputy district attorney Richard West, who is prosecuting the case.
The policeman did not comment, other than to tell the judge that he could not afford to hire an attorney. He makes $64,000 a year and is on paid administrative leave.
He is being held at Robert Presley Detention Center in Riverside.
"I'm still in disbelief of this whole thing,” said 17-year-old Heather Dunning after the arraignment. She said she knew of him when he was the police officer assigned to Desert Hot Springs High School. “They were reeling off charges and my hands were shaking," she said.
After working at the high school for two years, he went on to head the juvenile investigations unit of the police department and founded the police Explorers program, in which juvenile volunteers work alongside police officers.
The officer was arrested by District Attorney investigators while attending a police training class in Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 18, 2006 11:00:17 GMT -5
State Of California Sheilding Bad Cops - Disciplinary Action Against Police Officers Is Now Secret, So The Public Loses, Is At A Much Greater Risk
2006-09-17
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA – The Public has lost a major skirmish in the battle for government transparency in California.
Late last month, the state Supreme Court ruled records of disciplinary action taken against police officers must remain secret even when a government body that is independent of the officer's employer holds the documents.
The case involves a San Diego County Sheriff's deputy fired after failing to make an arrest in a domestic violence case and then lying about it. The officer eventually appealed the firing to the county Civil Service Commission.
The San Diego Union Tribune sued the commission under the public records act, seeking documents on the case. The newspaper's lawyers argued the state law that makes any records involving law enforcement personnel confidential doesn't apply when the agency holding those records is not the officer's employer.
It is a simple, straightforward argument. The public has a right to know what action is taken against employees paid with tax dollars and the identity of those employees.
A Superior Court judge ruled against the newspaper, but an appellate panel overturned that decision, deciding that the records were public. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the appellate decision in a 6-1 decision.
The fault lies not so much with the court but with a Legislature that bows to pressure from law enforcement unions and grants them special rights and exemptions from disclosure that work directly against the public good. Deep-pocketed unions have pulled off, from their perspective, an excellent job labeling anything other than lock-step adherence to their demands as "anti-police" or "anti-law enforcement," a clear political death knell.
But that doesn't mean that restrictions on police officer records represent sound public policy. In fact, just the opposite is true.
As public records lawyer and advocate Terry Francke has repeatedly said, sometimes the very public employees about whom people may need to know the most, those with the power of arrest and who can administer lethal force, are the very ones who enjoy ironclad restrictions on their records.
Police officers are a generally conservative lot, yet their unions often act in ways that many conservatives abhor, becoming the ultimate special interest in Sacramento and winning huge legislative concessions to protect their members' records.
In the San Diego case, the officer was fired after responding to a domestic violence call and failing to arrest a suspect despite there being probable cause to do so, not writing a report of the incident and then lying in a patrol log that the victim bore no signs of physical injury and that the suspect had fled.
The sheriff's department did the right thing in firing the officer. Such action is what the public expects.
But the officer appealed the firing and eventually the county agreed to a settlement of the appeal that changed the record from a termination to a resignation and removed the untruthfulness charge.
One of the most basic issues involves the officer's identity. His or her name has never been released. The court's ruling means that the names of any disciplined officers are secret.
The Legislature, bowing to special interest pressure, created a system that allows bad cops to cloak themselves in shrouds of secrecy. Officers fired for cause can force settlements that clean up their records and hide their identity. This potentially leaves them eligible for future public employment in other jurisdictions as law enforcement officers.
And it allows officer's disciplined but not fired to be assured that their records remain sealed and their identity's hidden from public knowledge. Even police officers disciplined for wrongly shooting people are protected.
Police and their advocates argue that opening records that may contain false allegations against officers besmirches their reputations.
It is unfortunate when an officer is wrongly accused of abuse and misconduct, but their individual interests and reputations cannot outweigh the public need for government transparency. The shrouds have to be lifted. Behind them, bad cops can find their ways back to the street.
The only fix is legislative. California's lawmakers need to pass a bill creating public access and accountability in police disciplinary cases.
But such a bill, despite the overwhelming need, won't happen. Lawmakers probably won't even introduce it, let alone pass it
They don't have the guts.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 18, 2006 11:00:17 GMT -5
State Of California Sheilding Bad Cops - Disciplinary Action Against Police Officers Is Now Secret, So The Public Loses, Is At A Much Greater Risk
2006-09-17
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA – The Public has lost a major skirmish in the battle for government transparency in California.
Late last month, the state Supreme Court ruled records of disciplinary action taken against police officers must remain secret even when a government body that is independent of the officer's employer holds the documents.
The case involves a San Diego County Sheriff's deputy fired after failing to make an arrest in a domestic violence case and then lying about it. The officer eventually appealed the firing to the county Civil Service Commission.
The San Diego Union Tribune sued the commission under the public records act, seeking documents on the case. The newspaper's lawyers argued the state law that makes any records involving law enforcement personnel confidential doesn't apply when the agency holding those records is not the officer's employer.
It is a simple, straightforward argument. The public has a right to know what action is taken against employees paid with tax dollars and the identity of those employees.
A Superior Court judge ruled against the newspaper, but an appellate panel overturned that decision, deciding that the records were public. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the appellate decision in a 6-1 decision.
The fault lies not so much with the court but with a Legislature that bows to pressure from law enforcement unions and grants them special rights and exemptions from disclosure that work directly against the public good. Deep-pocketed unions have pulled off, from their perspective, an excellent job labeling anything other than lock-step adherence to their demands as "anti-police" or "anti-law enforcement," a clear political death knell.
But that doesn't mean that restrictions on police officer records represent sound public policy. In fact, just the opposite is true.
As public records lawyer and advocate Terry Francke has repeatedly said, sometimes the very public employees about whom people may need to know the most, those with the power of arrest and who can administer lethal force, are the very ones who enjoy ironclad restrictions on their records.
Police officers are a generally conservative lot, yet their unions often act in ways that many conservatives abhor, becoming the ultimate special interest in Sacramento and winning huge legislative concessions to protect their members' records.
In the San Diego case, the officer was fired after responding to a domestic violence call and failing to arrest a suspect despite there being probable cause to do so, not writing a report of the incident and then lying in a patrol log that the victim bore no signs of physical injury and that the suspect had fled.
The sheriff's department did the right thing in firing the officer. Such action is what the public expects.
But the officer appealed the firing and eventually the county agreed to a settlement of the appeal that changed the record from a termination to a resignation and removed the untruthfulness charge.
One of the most basic issues involves the officer's identity. His or her name has never been released. The court's ruling means that the names of any disciplined officers are secret.
The Legislature, bowing to special interest pressure, created a system that allows bad cops to cloak themselves in shrouds of secrecy. Officers fired for cause can force settlements that clean up their records and hide their identity. This potentially leaves them eligible for future public employment in other jurisdictions as law enforcement officers.
And it allows officer's disciplined but not fired to be assured that their records remain sealed and their identity's hidden from public knowledge. Even police officers disciplined for wrongly shooting people are protected.
Police and their advocates argue that opening records that may contain false allegations against officers besmirches their reputations.
It is unfortunate when an officer is wrongly accused of abuse and misconduct, but their individual interests and reputations cannot outweigh the public need for government transparency. The shrouds have to be lifted. Behind them, bad cops can find their ways back to the street.
The only fix is legislative. California's lawmakers need to pass a bill creating public access and accountability in police disciplinary cases.
But such a bill, despite the overwhelming need, won't happen. Lawmakers probably won't even introduce it, let alone pass it
They don't have the guts.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 18, 2006 10:28:22 GMT -5
Salt Lake City Utah Doing Everything Possible To Block Release Of Information On Bad Police Officers To Public
2006-09-18
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH – The latest round in a legal tennis match between The Salt Lake Tribune and the Salt Lake City Corporation Police Civilian Review Board was served Thursday as city attorneys filed to block an appeal that granted the paper access to records previously withheld from public view.
At stake are the files of three police officer review cases in which the review board and the police chief disagreed on the final disposition. In those records, the board sustained allegations of excessive force, dishonesty, a civil rights violation and the destruction of evidence.
The Tribune filed a records request for the files of four cases under the state's Government Records Access Management Act in February but was denied access to three of them citing the protection of private information in two of the cases and an unfinished appeal process on the third.
Though the same request was denied by the city's appeal board in March, the State Records Committee ruled on Aug. 17 that the interest of the public outweighed the private interest of protecting sensitive information about the officers.
The state committee ordered the records of the four cases, which The Tribune requested in February, be released with only information about witnesses and complainant redacted. Information about the officers involved was not to be altered or concealed, according to the ruling.
But on Thursday, city attorney Martha Stonebrook countered the state committee's ruling, saying the public interest does not outweigh the private interests of the officers.
The release of the information also could potentially confuse the public in matters "differentiating an advisory recommendation by the review board from an actual sustained finding of misconduct by the police chief," which could "unfairly stigmatize police officers in situations where the police chief does not sustain the allegations of misconduct," wrote Stonebrook in the complaint.
The release of the information could result in the unfair treatment of officers in review situations and negatively affect the chief's ability to execute disciplinary matters, Stonebrook alleges. The complaint was filed three days shy of the 30-day appeal deadline.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Sept 18, 2006 10:28:22 GMT -5
Salt Lake City Utah Doing Everything Possible To Block Release Of Information On Bad Police Officers To Public
2006-09-18
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH – The latest round in a legal tennis match between The Salt Lake Tribune and the Salt Lake City Corporation Police Civilian Review Board was served Thursday as city attorneys filed to block an appeal that granted the paper access to records previously withheld from public view.
At stake are the files of three police officer review cases in which the review board and the police chief disagreed on the final disposition. In those records, the board sustained allegations of excessive force, dishonesty, a civil rights violation and the destruction of evidence.
The Tribune filed a records request for the files of four cases under the state's Government Records Access Management Act in February but was denied access to three of them citing the protection of private information in two of the cases and an unfinished appeal process on the third.
Though the same request was denied by the city's appeal board in March, the State Records Committee ruled on Aug. 17 that the interest of the public outweighed the private interest of protecting sensitive information about the officers.
The state committee ordered the records of the four cases, which The Tribune requested in February, be released with only information about witnesses and complainant redacted. Information about the officers involved was not to be altered or concealed, according to the ruling.
But on Thursday, city attorney Martha Stonebrook countered the state committee's ruling, saying the public interest does not outweigh the private interests of the officers.
The release of the information also could potentially confuse the public in matters "differentiating an advisory recommendation by the review board from an actual sustained finding of misconduct by the police chief," which could "unfairly stigmatize police officers in situations where the police chief does not sustain the allegations of misconduct," wrote Stonebrook in the complaint.
The release of the information could result in the unfair treatment of officers in review situations and negatively affect the chief's ability to execute disciplinary matters, Stonebrook alleges. The complaint was filed three days shy of the 30-day appeal deadline.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Oct 28, 2006 17:39:51 GMT -5
Reported By: Elaine Reyes 10/26/2006 Savage Beast Atlanta Georgia Police Officer Terrance Alexander, Who Attacked Woman At Airport, Reinstated, Again, Receives A Year Of Back Pay For Doing Nothing… Personnel File Shows 13 Other Suspensions Or Reprimands, At Least 5 Of Which Were Suspensions In A Single 5 Year Period. ATLANTA, GEORGIA – An Atlanta Police officer fired after a woman said he unnecessarily slammed her to the ground at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport has returned to the force, 11Alive News confirmed Thursday. The entire incident two years ago was captured on an airport surveillance tape and shows Officer Terrance Alexander approaching Diana Dietrich-Barnes for leaving her vehicle in a no-parking zone. The tape showed Alexander and Dietrich-Barnes in an altercation after he was struck with her passenger-side mirror, but both sides differed on just what happened next. Dietrich-Barnes said the officer body slammed her to the ground while the officer said she was placed there carefully after disobeying his order to move her vehicle. A department spokesperson told 11Alive’s Elaine Reyes that Officer Alexander returned to the department in June after a civil service board said the firing was unjustified and a judge agreed. Alexander is technically on medical leave but is assigned to the central records department at police headquarters. Alexander’s personnel file showed that managers had reprimanded or suspended him 13 times without pay for violating department rules. Chief Richard Pennington said that contributed to his decision to fire Alexander. A judge ruled that the police department must pay the officer the salary he missed within the past year. Deitrich-Barnes settled a lawsuit with the city of Atlanta for $350,000. www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=86643
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Oct 28, 2006 17:39:51 GMT -5
Reported By: Elaine Reyes 10/26/2006 Savage Beast Atlanta Georgia Police Officer Terrance Alexander, Who Attacked Woman At Airport, Reinstated, Again, Receives A Year Of Back Pay For Doing Nothing… Personnel File Shows 13 Other Suspensions Or Reprimands, At Least 5 Of Which Were Suspensions In A Single 5 Year Period. ATLANTA, GEORGIA – An Atlanta Police officer fired after a woman said he unnecessarily slammed her to the ground at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport has returned to the force, 11Alive News confirmed Thursday. The entire incident two years ago was captured on an airport surveillance tape and shows Officer Terrance Alexander approaching Diana Dietrich-Barnes for leaving her vehicle in a no-parking zone. The tape showed Alexander and Dietrich-Barnes in an altercation after he was struck with her passenger-side mirror, but both sides differed on just what happened next. Dietrich-Barnes said the officer body slammed her to the ground while the officer said she was placed there carefully after disobeying his order to move her vehicle. A department spokesperson told 11Alive’s Elaine Reyes that Officer Alexander returned to the department in June after a civil service board said the firing was unjustified and a judge agreed. Alexander is technically on medical leave but is assigned to the central records department at police headquarters. Alexander’s personnel file showed that managers had reprimanded or suspended him 13 times without pay for violating department rules. Chief Richard Pennington said that contributed to his decision to fire Alexander. A judge ruled that the police department must pay the officer the salary he missed within the past year. Deitrich-Barnes settled a lawsuit with the city of Atlanta for $350,000. www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=86643
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Oct 4, 2006 5:06:24 GMT -5
2006-09-18
MACON, GEORGIA – A federal lawsuit filed today accuses a Macon police officer of attacking a mentally retarded man two years ago and asks for $100,000 in damages.
According to the lawsuit, Macon Police Officer Roy Chestnut attacked Thomasellous James Redding at a street corner on Wellworth Avenue on Sept. 2, 2004.
The lawsuit, filed by Redding's father Arthur James Redding, also accuses Chestnut of throwing Redding to the ground, kicking him, pointing a gun at his head and threatening to shoot him.
Mayor Jack Ellis, Police Chief Mike Burns and Chestnut are named as defendants in the case.
Macon police spokeswoman Sgt. Melanie Hofmann said Chestnut was investigated in the case by the Internal Affairs unit, but the case is still in appeals.
She referred questions about the lawsuit to the city attorney's office.
"I don't know anything about it," City Attorney Pope Langstaff said. "I can't really comment on it since I haven't seen it."
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Oct 4, 2006 5:06:24 GMT -5
2006-09-18
MACON, GEORGIA – A federal lawsuit filed today accuses a Macon police officer of attacking a mentally retarded man two years ago and asks for $100,000 in damages.
According to the lawsuit, Macon Police Officer Roy Chestnut attacked Thomasellous James Redding at a street corner on Wellworth Avenue on Sept. 2, 2004.
The lawsuit, filed by Redding's father Arthur James Redding, also accuses Chestnut of throwing Redding to the ground, kicking him, pointing a gun at his head and threatening to shoot him.
Mayor Jack Ellis, Police Chief Mike Burns and Chestnut are named as defendants in the case.
Macon police spokeswoman Sgt. Melanie Hofmann said Chestnut was investigated in the case by the Internal Affairs unit, but the case is still in appeals.
She referred questions about the lawsuit to the city attorney's office.
"I don't know anything about it," City Attorney Pope Langstaff said. "I can't really comment on it since I haven't seen it."
|
|