Police Videos and Evidence Tampering

[KC]

04/15/2005 - New York law enforcement is caught doctoring video of arrests made during the Republican Convention. We speak with Alexander Dunlop, whose charges were dropped after the edited video was exposed, his lawyer Michael Conroy as well as a member of I-Witness Video who helped find the footage that eventually vindicated Alexander.

And we get response from the NYPD. [includes rush transcript - partial]
During last year's Republican National Convention, the city of New York witnessed some of the largest mass arrests in the city's history. 1800 people were arrested.

But now the cases against the vast majority of the arrested have fallen apart. Of the nearly 1700 cases that have run their full course, 91 percent ended with charges dismissed or with a verdict of not guilty.

The New York Times reported earlier this week that in some 400 cases charges were dropped because video recordings emerged showing that the arrested had not committed a crime or that the charges against them could not be proved.

In at least one case video evidence was doctored. During court proceedings, the police presented a video of the arrest of a man named Alexander Dunlop. It turned out that the video presented by the police was edited in two spots - images that showed Dunlop acting peacefully were removed.

We interviewed Alexander Dunlop and his lawyer Michael Conroy in our New York Studio as well as Eileen Clancy, a member of I-Witness Video. She helped find the footage that eventually vindicated Alexander.

Alexander Dunlop , arrested during Republican convention. He was charged with resisting arrest. The charges were dropped when videotape was produced that contradicted police.
Eileen Clancy , a member of I-Witness video, a project that assembled hundreds of videotapes shot during the RNC.
Michael Conroy , attorney for Alexander Dunlop.
Paul Browne , appointed the New York City Police Department's Deputy Commissioner of Public Information in January 2004.
RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate -$25 ,$50 ,$100 ,more...

AMY GOODMAN: Well, yesterday Alexander Dunlop joined us in our studio, with his lawyer, Michael Conroy as well as Eileen Clancy. She is a member of I-Witness Video. She helped find the footage that eventually vindicated Alexander. I began with Alexander Dunlop by asking him to describe what happened on that day of his arrest.

ALEXANDER DUNLOP: I was trying to go to my favorite sushi place, which is on 2nd Avenue, just a few blocks away, and I took my bike and went out the door. It was about 8:45 or so. And there was an electricity in the air. I could feel it immediately as I got close to 2nd Avenue. And when I turned on to 2nd Avenue, the street was a mob scene. It was just full of people. I had never seen it like that before. And I got off my bike and I was walking around. I was asking people, “What's going on?” No one seemed to know. There was a helicopter above, on the intersection of 10th Street and 2nd Avenue. So there was something happening. I just didn't know what it was. And I even asked a few police officers. They didn't know, either. They said they didn't know. And I walked up -- I kept walking up closer to 10th Street, and I heard people chanting, and the noise kept building and building and the electricity building, and then the riot police came. And they blocked off 10th Street, and then I realized to my horror that I was blocked in by the barricade on 9th Street. They had formed, I guess, a perimeter around the area with the riot police. And I could see that I was blocked in. So, I asked a police officer, I said, “How do he get out of here?” And he pointed south toward 9th Street. And he said, “Well, you walk over there.” So I started walking over there, and I got up there, and I realized there was no exit point. And I turned around to find him again, and he said, “Well, I just asked you to go up here so I could arrest you.”

So then, I was standing there. I was totally shocked. I didn't believe him. It just didn't sink in. I couldn't believe that I was going to be arrested. Then a moment later, several police officers grabbed me behind the neck and twisted my arm behind my back as if they were going to throw me on the ground. They didn't, but they sort of bent me down and put snips on, the white snips that they used there, the plastic handcuffs. And as they were leading me away one of the policemen was saying, “I bet you have never had these on you before,” which, of course, I hadn't, but he was just mocking me. But as they led me away and sat me down, and there was a big group of us in the intersection that they had arrested. They put me on the bus first, their police bus, and as they put me on, I could feel that they were very tight; it was cutting the circulation, and I saw the officer who was driving the bus, and I asked him, I said, “Could you take a look at these? I think they might be too tight. It's cutting off the circulation.” And as I turned around to him, he cinched them tighter. And I turned around, and I said, “Why did you do that?” And he said, “Well, because you might attack me.” And I was still so astonished, I couldn't -- I couldn't even process that I was being arrested, and that the police were treating me this way. It just didn't make any sense to me.

AMY GOODMAN: And so what happened then?

ALEXANDER DUNLOP: What happened then was I was transferred to another police van. Everyone else was loaded on, and they kept us waiting for an hour or so, and then they drove us to the piers, Pier 57, whatever it was, the temporary holding facility they had. And, I mean, they took their time putting us -- processing us, and they kept us in the holding cells, which the floors were really dirty, grimy, and people were sleeping on the floors. They were waking up in the morning, and they were all covered in grease. But I didn't -- I refused to sit on the floor. I refused to lie down. And in the morning, they took us to central booking to the Tombs.

AMY GOODMAN: How were you able to reach your friends or tell anyone where you were?

ALEXANDER DUNLOP: Well, I wasn't. Well, that was the thing, too, is that I was supposed to meet friends in the morning to get on a flight. My flight was at 6:00 a.m. to go to Reno, and I wasn't able to reach them. And they were worried sick, needless to say, because I was supposed to be in the cab with them to get on the plane. And they had no idea what happened. Maybe I died; maybe -- they didn’t know what happened to me.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, talk about the course of this case. So you’re arrested, what were you charged with?

ALEXANDER DUNLOP: Okay, so after I was held in jail, I came out at about 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. And it was then that I met a public defender who told me what my charges were. It was the first time I heard the charges against me. And I was being charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, parading without a permit and obstructing government administration, which I had never heard of before. Then I appeared in court, and I heard a prosecuting attorney say that we offer a plea of disorderly conduct with time served. And I said, “Absolutely not. I’m not taking the plea.” And then, luckily, through a mutual friend, I was able to find my current attorney, and we went back and forth to trial, pretrial hearings many times from there.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we are joined by your attorney, Michael Conroy, attorney for Alexander Dunlop. We are also joined by Eileen Clancy, a member of I-Witness Video, which assembled hundreds of videotapes during the convention, much of it used by defense lawyers. Eileen also found the video of Alexander's arrest. Can you talk about where you found this?

EILEEN CLANCY: Alright. I-Witness Video coordinated a large project to gather video material for criminal cases to help defend people who were arrested during the Republican Convention. We did this in partnership with the National Lawyers Guild. So, what we have been doing is reviewing the videotapes with the defendants to try to see if we can find them on it, so we can establish the circumstances of their arrests and what happened at these scenes. Alexander came in to view videotapes of what happened at that scene, and he was unable to find himself on it. But because I had spent some time with him, and I was aware that there was no footage of him that we had, I kept a lookout for it. And when I received some police videotapes in another case, so these were tapes that were given over by the District Attorney to a lawyer as evidence in another case, I reviewed those, and I spotted him in a couple of places. So, I took a look to see when he was coming up for trial, and it was about a day-and-a-half. So I called his attorney right away, Michael Conroy, and said, “I have your guy on tape in a couple of places, including the arrest.” And he said, “Really?” And I said, “Yes.” So he said, “Well, I better come look at that.” And I said, “Well, do you have any tapes? Because we'd like to also see, you know, what other tapes are out there.” He says, “Well, I have a tape. It's not helpful, particularly,” I think is what he said. So, he came in the next day, and I said, “Well, let's take a look at your tape.” And I said, “Gee, it looks an awful lot like my tape. Well, I wonder what the problem is.” So we kept looking. I thought, “Maybe there's two cameras that are nearby. It just looks the same.” But he said, “But what you are describing is not on my tape.”

AMY GOODMAN: And, Michael Conroy, this was police tape?

MICHAEL CONROY: This was a police tape that was provided to me by the District Attorney's office as part of the discovery process in Alex's case, and it was represented to me to be the complete unedited tape of the incident that was done by that person at that scene.

AMY GOODMAN: And what did it show?

MICHAEL CONROY: That tape showed the demonstration. It showed what was going on. Then, the tape pans to the ground, and at that point, my tape jumps to a shot of a street sign. Unfortunately, between the time that it demonstrates the tape going to the ground and the scene of the street corner, that's the point which Alex should be on the tape. It’s the point in which he is on the official tape that I was never given, and it shows that Alex is actually approaching a police officer to ask for directions, to ask what is going on, and it shows Alex being arrested very calmly, very quietly and not resisting arrest, and obviously, those are two key pieces that had I had earlier, I would have had a much better fight with the District Attorney's office to get this dismissed in the fall as opposed to eight months later.

AMY GOODMAN: So, the raw footage showed what you described. The edited footage just showed --

MICHAEL CONROY: Just showed Alex at the end with a group other people, basically insinuating guilt by collective thought, but it never showed the pieces of the tape where he was actually active on the tape. And the District Attorney's office represented to me that it was a mistake. But they have not explained how the mistake was made yet.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, what's the significance of this? The fact that you had, what, an edited tape?

MICHAEL CONROY: In any criminal case, there shouldn't be an edited tape. They shouldn't have an edited tape lying around the District Attorney's office, because, quite frankly, if they are going to give this to a police officer to testify on the stand, and that police officer is going to state under oath this is a complete tape, one, that police officer is going to be lying, but two, you have evidence that’s beneficial to my client that was left out, and under the United States Constitution, they have to provide that. They should have provided that, and they didn't.

AMY GOODMAN: So what was their explanation?

MICHAEL CONROY: The explanation is that it was a mistake. It was edited by mistake. It never should have happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Edited by who?

MICHAEL CONROY: That we don’t know. That we do not know, and that's really the question I'd like to know is whether it was the District Attorney's office internally or whether this was done by the police officers. If it was done by the police, I have a bigger problem here, because I would like to know whether those police officers were involved with what happened that night, whether any of them were related to the arresting officers. That's what I really would like to know.

AMY GOODMAN: Attorney Michael Conroy, his client Alexander Dunlop, and Eileen Clancy of I-Witness Video. We'll come back to them in just a minute, and then we'll get police response. Stay with us.

[KC]

Police chief told to explain video edit

10/28/2005 - judge has ordered Kansas City’s police chief to explain why his officers withheld part of a controversial police video from lawyers involved in a criminal case.

Chief Jim Corwin must appear in court next month to explain why he shouldn’t be jailed or fined for contempt of court, Circuit Judge John Torrence said in his order filed Thursday.

Prosecutors said they were unaware of any other time a Jackson County judge has issued such an order to a police chief.

The police car video in question shows the arrest of a man suspected of stealing a car and then resisting arrest in August 2004 near 19th Street and Chelsea Avenue. Officers used a Taser on the man five times, including after he was handcuffed and stopped fighting. The two officers involved later were fired for violating department policy on Taser use.

The first video provided to lawyers ended before the final time the Taser was used on Matthew Butt, 24, of Kansas City, and before he invoked his right for a lawyer, defense lawyers said.

Defense lawyers realized a longer version existed after it played on television as part of a police disciplinary hearing.

Since obtaining the full video last month, defense lawyers contend that police illegally interviewed Butt without a lawyer present and asked that the charges be dismissed. Butt has pleaded not guilty to first-degree tampering and felony resisting arrest.

Police officials declined to comment Thursday about Torrence’s order against Corwin, but department attorneys filed a response asking the judge to dismiss it.

“There was no willful disobedience,” the response said.
It added that police lawyers considered the end of the tape, showing the repeated Taser use, to be a closed record because of possible disciplinary action against the officers.

Torrence declined to dismiss Butt’s charges Thursday, instead ordering Corwin to appear Nov. 22.

“Although this court strongly suspects that senior officers of the KCMO Police Department willfully violated this Court’s March 31, 2005, order (to provide the full tape),” Torrence wrote, “suspicion coupled with a silent record does not justify the … dismissal of a pending felony charge.”

The defense hopes to get more evidence at the hearing that will persuade the judge to dismiss the charges, Assistant Jackson County Public Defender Leon Munday said.

James Kanatzar, chief deputy Jackson County prosecutor, said his staff is reconsidering the case after the judge’s ruling and might dismiss it.

Prosecutors also received the shortened version of the tape at first, he noted. “When we ask for patrol video we assume we get the entire video.”

The first tape ended 24 seconds before the fifth use of the Taser “where (Butt) is standing upright and he falls like a tree in the woods,” Munday said.

The second version is much longer, running an extra 5 minutes and 51 seconds, Munday said. It shows a police officer holding the handcuffed Butt and saying, “Hit him again.” The officer stepped back before the final jolt, and Butt crumpled to the ground. Munday said the tape also showed what he contends is his client asking for a lawyer.

Kanatzar said he could not comment on whether Butt asked for a lawyer.

Munday said of the full tape: “They disclosed it in a police hearing, they apparently disclosed it to the media but they did not give it to us and we had a court order.

The judge finds that intolerable and you have to applaud him for it.”

Court filing outlined the Police Department’s defense:
Prosecutors did not tell them in requesting the tape that it was part of a court order and they processed it routinely. (Prosecutors say they request videos weekly and never mention if they are court-ordered.)
A police lawyer determined that the repeated use of a Taser on a suspect was a closed record because it could result in disciplinary action, so police did not include that section on the tape and did not tell prosecutors.

Also, police decided the last Taser hit was long after Butt was handcuffed and the arrest was over.
“This exercise of professional judgment, without knowledge of the Court’s Order, does not constitute contempt of this court,” the department’s response said.
Had police known about the order, they would have argued the closed-record issue in court, according to their court filing.

Because of the mix-up, Corwin talked with prosecutors and agreed that police would tell them in the future if they believe any actions on tape are closed records.
In response, Kanatzar said, “We appreciate the Police Department’s efforts to see this situation doesn’t happen again.”

[KC]

01/31/2006 - KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The Kansas City police department's decision to withhold part of a videotape from lawyers in a criminal case was the result of miscommunication, rather than contempt of a court order, a Jackson County judge ruled Tuesday.

Judge John Torrence withdrew his recent order requiring Police Chief Jim Corwin to appear in court and explain why he shouldn't be held in contempt or jailed for contempt of court. Last week, Torrence accused Corwin of intentionally disobeying his March order to turn over the tape, which showed officers repeatedly stunning a suspect with a Taser gun.

But after a hearing Tuesday, Torrence said he was convinced that nearly six minutes of the tape was withheld from attorneys because of a lack of communication between prosecutors and police.

"I find the chief and any subordinate officers have not disobeyed an order of the court because they were not aware of the order of the court," Torrence said.

In his order Tuesday, the judge said all the parties involved had agreed that in the future, all requests for videotapes will be in writing and police will be given any court orders regarding videos. He said all the parties also agreed that a requested video will not be edited or altered without full disclosure to everyone involved in litigation.

The tape, recorded from a camera mounted on a patrol car, shows the Aug. 10, 2004, arrest of Matthew Butt, 24, who was later charged with first-degree tampering and resisting arrest. It shows police using a Taser on the man five times, including after he was handcuffed and not resisting arrest.

The tape turned over to prosecutors and defense attorneys deleted the last five minutes and 51 seconds, which showed the fifth Taser shot and Butt's asking for a lawyer, Butt's attorneys said. Butt has pleaded not guilty to both charges.

Police said they deleted the final minutes of the tape after the department's attorneys decided that portion pertained to an internal investigation into police misconduct, rather than the criminal case.

The city's attorneys have declined to comment on whether Butt asked for a lawyer and said prosecutors are reviewing the criminal case before deciding whether to pursue it. Torrence set a Feb. 27 trial date for Butt.

On Tuesday, defense attorney Leon Munday again asked Torrence to dismiss charges against Butt, which the judge declined to do last week.

In an interview, Munday said the important issue was not whether Corwin was in contempt. He said the police department's attorneys should not have needed a court order to turn over all the tape.

"We take the position that regardless of whether it was a police department mistake, the prosecutors' mistake, or a joint mistake, it was a mistake," he said. "The mistake should be sanctioned, and the appropriate action should be dismissal."

The existence of the longer tape came to light when it was shown on television after a police disciplinary hearing for the officers, who were fired for their actions.

In a news conference Tuesday, Corwin said the police department was reviewing its procedures to ensure that a similar problem does not happen again.

"I want to assure you that I would never engage in, and would never ask any member of the department, to engage in any impropriety," Corwin said.

Corwin declined to be specific about possible changes in procedures or about who was responsible for what he repeatedly called a miscommunication problem. But he acknowledged that the incident had embarrassed him and the department.

"I want the community to know it can trust its chief, it can trust the department and it can trust the Kansas City Police Commission," Corwin said.

[KC]

Some possible solutions?

Authentication enabled -- A system that generates unique authentication keys that help discourage tampering with video files.

Chain of custody enabled -- At the start of a shift, an officer will check out a hard drive from headquarters by scanning the barcode on the disk into an on-site computer server. The officer will also enter his or her ID number. The process is repeated at the end of the shift. The system keeps a detailed log of hard drive custody.

[KC]

01/14/2006 - A contest by police to nab drunken drivers, doctoring video tapes and manipulating breath test results are at the center of a lawsuit filed in Minnesota federal court.

David W. Sherbrooke, 39, of Pelican Rapids claims the city police arrested him without cause and later, to cover it up, altered the tape showing the arrest.

City prosecutors dropped criminal charges stemming from the July 25, 2004, traffic stop last week against Sherbrooke, who owns a local landscaping company.

Now his Minneapolis attorney, Kyle Hart, said the civil case against the city, Police Chief Scott Fox and Officers Scott Sachs and Ted Leabo will prove police lied and destroyed evidence in the criminal case.

Hart said he hired an audio and video forensics expert to analyze at least four copies of the arrest, which was recorded by a camera in Sachs squad car.

It seems every time we ask for a copy of the tape, something has changed on it, Hart said Thursday. What were afraid is that this happens more than people know.

The parties agree on little from the night two summers ago when Sachs stopped Sherbrooke, who left a class reunion and was driving to another bar.

Before the stop, Sherbrooke said he pulled over to the side of the road and turned on his pickup emergency flashers while making a cell phone call.

SUIT JUMP

Once the call was finished, he turned the flasher lights off and continued driving.

The officer said the flasher lights were on while Sherbrooke drove his pickup. Sachs turned on his squad car lights, initiating the start of the camera recording, to stop the motorist.

Sachs said he could smell alcohol and Sherbrooke failed three field sobriety tests. Officer Leabo also arrived at the stop and police found a loaded Glock .40-caliber pistol inside the pickup.

The officers arrested Sherbrooke for drunken driving and carrying a weapon while intoxicated. Sherbrooke has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, according to his attorney.

Sherbrooke, who seeking unspecified damages, claims the original tape recorded by police shows his pickup flasher lights " which the officer said was the basis for the traffic stop " were not on when Sachs initiated the traffic stop.

In one police report, Sachs wrote he had been using the camera system for four months and the stop marked the first time he had been asked to make a copy of a tape.

In the process of making the copy I did it incorrectly my first try and accidentally erased a small portion of the beginning of the tape, Sachs wrote. The officer estimated he erased five to 10 seconds of the tape.

Documents filed by Sherbrooke claim at least one minute and 19 seconds are missing from the recording.

During the criminal case, Sherbrooke defense lawyer hired Jon Edwards, a Detroit Lakes investigator with nearly 30 years of experience in legal and insurance circles, to aide with the case. Edwards, in a statement filed in the civil case, said he watched the original tape and lights from Sherbrooke pickup were not flashing before the stop.

The civil lawsuit, filed last April 1, claims police provided copies of the stop, but none included the entire footage. None of the copies were the same and a tape police said was the original was sent to a forensic expert.

Bruce Koenig of Virginia, who provided analysis of Linda Tripp telephone recordings relating to an investigation into President Clinton, said the Pelican Rapids police tape isnt authentic, Hart said.

The lawyer said he plans to ask Koenig to look at all of the tapes police have provided in the case.
There a bunch of stuff that highly unusual and suspect about these tapes, Hart said.

In addition, Sherbrooke claims:

- Officers Leabo and Sachs were participating in a contest that weekend to see who could arrest more people for drunken driving. Hart said he plans to call at least one witness to testify about the competition between Leabo and a former Otter Tail County sheriff deputy.

- Before Sherbrooke took a breath test at the police station, officers gave him a warm glass of water to induce a higher blood alcohol reading. The test showed Sherbrooke with a 0.10 percent blood alcohol concentration, the state legal limit for impaired driving at the time. Hart said an expert will testify that blood testing is temperature sensitive and a higher blood alcohol can result if someone drank warm water before taking the test.

Jon Iverson, a Bloomington, Minn.-attorney hired to defend the city and police, said Sachs had probable cause to stop Sherbrooke even without the video recording.

The case could come down to Sherbrooke word against the officer, Iverson said.

It not the first time we've handled a case when someone claims their rights have been violated and illegally arrested, he said. Saying it and proving it are two different things.

Police Chief Fox said both policemen remain on the city police force of five full-time and three part-time officers. Neither was disciplined for the traffic stop, he said.
Sachs, a nine-year veteran at the department, received a meritorious service award last year for peacefully resolving a confrontation between officers and a man threatening them with a chainsaw. Leabo has worked there for more than three years.

Sherbrooke has never been convicted and owns a business that operates in three states. The drunken driving charge and subsequent work permit, which limited the hours Sherbrooke could drive, cost him business and additional expenses, Hart said.

He does not drink and drive, Hart said. If he ever thinks he has had too much to drink, he calls a tow truck to come get his vehicle.
U.S. District Judge Raymond Erickson ordered lawyers ready to argue the case by Aug. 1. Attorneys plan to question witnesses next month.

Iverson said hell likely ask the judge to dismiss the case after the depositions.

[KC]

Communities United Against Police Brutality
Email Newsletter
August 22, 2003

******************************************
Due to technical difficulties, we've been unable to get an edition of the CUAPB email news out since August 10th. We regret the delay.
___________________________________________

RICKEY JONES HEARING: Some Interesting "Facts" Come Out in Court
The Rickey Jones case was back in court on August 15th for an evidentiary hearing on whether the videotape made by Mr. Jones was doctored by the city attorney's office and/or police to make it more to their liking. Right now, the judge is holding four different versions of the videotape--the supposed original and three copies. We viewed the tapes and, interestingly, we noticed that the editing is slightly different on each of the tapes. A preliminary report from a video expert stated that in the version he was provided, it was his "strong opinion" that there had been a crude attempt at editing the tape in at least two places.

During the August 15th hearing, the judge heard testimony from attorney Jill Clark on what she saw when she viewed the videotape in the city attorney's office and what was missing when she finally got a copy of the tape from that office a month later. She testified about sending her "copy" of the tape to an expert (see above) and that a Mr. Peterson, a former Minneapolis cop and now investigator with the city attorney's office, called her expert in an attempt to find out what that expert was going to say.

Testimony was also presented by Lynne Fundingsland, a manager at the city attorney's office, and it was interesting to say the least. She testified that they city attorney's office has no procedures in place for safeguarding this kind of evidence and that just about anyone can walk in and help themselves to it. Nice try at getting the heat off her office for tampering with the tape but it begs the question: Why aren't there safeguards in place? Do they honestly think anyone will buy that nonsense or that it is a good enough excuse for what happened to the tape while it was in their possession? Back during the July 16-17 hearing, assistant city attorney Lois Conroy stated her office had a chain of custody and could vouch for the tape the entire time they've had it. Now, they claim they have no procedure in place and no way to know who had the tape at any given time. Hmmm??? Sounds like someone is being less that truthful.

Things got dramatic just before the lunch break, when Conroy asked the judge to throw out the defense motion to dismiss charges against Rickey Jones (which was the reason for the hearing). She argued that Rickey's attorneys had not proven that the videotape would be exculpatory (proof of Rickey's innocence), that there were other ways to provide the evidence (witnesses) and that Rickey's lawyers did not prove bad faith on the part of the state. The judge shot her down, stating that if there were a group of Black witnesses saying one thing and a group of cops saying another, the videotape would be the tiebreaker. He ruled that Rickey's attorneys had made their case and that the hearing would continue.

The hearing ended with Judge Philip Bush ordering that the tapes be examined by an expert, which is what we've wanted all along. Judge Bush repeated that if it can be proven that the videotape was tampered with, there would be serious consequences. After all the monkeyshines we've seen by Hennepin County judges, it is refreshing to find a judge who takes his job seriously and is willing to actually see justice done.

There will be a follow up hearing on September 4th at 9:00 a.m. in Judge Bush's courtroom (room 759). That hearing should be even more juicy. Make your plans now to join us in court.
************************************************************
Below is what the Star Tribune wrote about the hearing. (Too bad this important story was buried on page B3, while a gossipy puff piece about a cop giving councilmember Natalie Johnson Lee a traffic ticket was splashed across the front page of the Metro section. Says something about the Strib's priorities...)

Judge reviews allegation of evidence tampering
David Chanen, Star Tribune
Published August 16, 2003

In a Hennepin County District Court hearing Friday, an attorney reiterated her allegations that a videotape was tampered with because it showed police brutality against her client.

Jill Clark is representing Rickey Jones, who was charged with a misdemeanor after officers broke up a party in November. She testified that she asked to review the videotape to prepare for trial. In May, she said, she viewed a copy of the original videotape that Jones shot at the party.

Two scenes stood out, she said. A clear image of an officer she later identified as Kevin Lazarchic was moving his arm toward Jones, who held the camera, she said. The camera dropped to the ground, but landed on its side and continued to film what she said appeared to be police officers in leather jackets "whaling" on someone she believes to be Jones.

Clark asked the city attorney's office to give her a copy of the tape, which she received about two weeks later. But when she looked at the tape, she said, the two scenes had been edited out.

During Friday's hearing, Assistant City Attorney Lois Conroy showed the original and copied versions of the tape, and neither scene Clark described was there. Her office denied that any of the tapes had been tampered with.

Long testimony

On Friday, Judge Phillip Bush listened to nearly four hours of witness testimony about issues regarding who handled the videotapes, if there was any tampering and if the court should appoint an expert to examine the tapes.

Clark's request to review the original tape had been denied in two previous District Court hearings, so she took the case to the Court of Appeals, which ruled in June that she could present her evidence in District Court.

Friday's hearing stems from the arrest of Jones, 44, at a party in November at the Marquette Place Apartments. Friends asked him to videotape the party as a present for the person who was celebrating a birthday.

A police report said a large crowd was smoking marijuana in a party room. They were getting out of control, the report said.

It continues: An off-duty officer asked for more officers to help, but the crowd continued to refuse to leave after they arrived. Jones refused to leave after repeated commands and was acting to incite the crowd. He was arrested after a struggle with officers.

Clark said she wrote a letter to Conroy asking that Jones' case be dismissed after seeing what she alleged was excessive force against Jones on the tape.

When Clark viewed the copy of the original tape, she said, a paralegal sitting with her was shocked about what he saw. She said she believed the tape was a "home run" in Jones' defense. While she said she couldn't see Jones anywhere in the video, she had no doubt it is he being hit by police.

Hours after seeing the video, Clark said, she called several people, including an attorney she had worked with on police brutality cases. She also called the Department of Justice in Chicago and filed an affidavit in Hennepin County District Court about what she saw in the video.

Clark also claimed that no officer can be heard on the tape asking Jones to leave the party, but that several people at the party could be heard telling Jones to videotape officers who were using Mace on people.

Expert consulted

Clark sent the copy of the tape she received from the city attorney's office to a video expert in Toledo. His preliminary report said that he had a strong opinion that there had been at least a crude attempt to edit content, but that he needed to see the original tape.

During cross-examination of Clark, Assistant City Attorney Christopher Dixon asked when she wrote notes about what she saw on the tape. Clark said that it wasn't during the viewing, but that her affidavit was written on her computer an hour later.

After Clark's attorney, Charles Hawkins, presented his case, Bush denied Conroy's request to dismiss the motions of the hearing because Hawkins hadn't reached the burden of proof.

The city only had time to call one of least seven witnesses it plans to have testify. C. Lynne Fundingsland, who had been a managing attorney for the city attorney's office, talked about Clark's unprofessional manner. She said she didn't know of anybody in her office who would have touched any of the videotapes connected to Jones' case.

She watched the original and copied versions during the hearing and said she didn't see either of the scenes of alleged brutality described by Clark. She couldn't tell Hawkins who in her office would have had an opportunity to handle the tapes. The hearing will resume Sept. 4.

"I can't remember when anybody challenged our office with tampering with evidence," Fundingsland said.

David Chanen is at [e-mail].
___________________________________________________________
CRA BOARD BRAINWASHING: Latest Move by City Council to Finish Off the CRA
Now that the old Civilian Review Authority has been completely absorbed under the do-nothing Civil Rights Department and procedures to bring even a small measure of justice for people who have been wronged by police have been gutted, you would think that the City Council would consider the wipeout of the CRA a done deal and move on.

Not so. In one last move to ensure total control of the outcome of complaints, the City Council will be voting to require CRA board members to undergo brainwashing training with the Minneapolis Police Department. A recommendation to that effect, spearheaded by Barb "Cops Do No Wrong" Johnson, was passed out of the Health & Human Services Committee and will be taken up by the full council at its next meeting.

This was a serious problem with the old CRA. This training forged unhealthy relationships between the board and police department that prevented board members from being critical of police or even objective in their work. During the CRA redesign process, we addressed this issue by recommending that a nationally recognized civil rights training organization provide orientation for new board members but, as you may recall, all of our recommendations were summarily shot down by the City Council. At the very least, if CRA board members are going to be required to take mandatory MPD training, they should also have mandatory training from the community about what it is like to be on the receiving end of a night stick.

There is still time to put the kibosh on this plan, since the City Council doesn't meet again until September 12th. Please give your city council member a call or drop them an email explaining why this isn't such a great idea. Contact info for your council member is at www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/ and if you aren't sure who your council member is, this site can help you with that.
___________________________________________________________
ST. PAUL KNOWS THEIR RIGHTS--How About You?
Thanks to all who attended the Know Your Rights training jointly presented by CUAPB and the National Lawyers Guild--MN Chapter. It's great to know that a whole new crop of folks will be able to exercise their rights and be safer when encountering police. Hats off to the great lawyers with NLG for making this training available!

If you'd like your neighborhood, church or other group to have this training, please call our hotline at 612-874-STOP or reply to this email and we'll get you set up.
___________________________________________

Communities United Against Police Brutality
2104 Stevens Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Hotline 612-874-STOP (7867)
www.CharityAdvantage.com/CUAPB

[KC]

Trooper suspected of evidence tampering; Allegedly altered patrol

05/31/2004 - A Washington State Patrol trooper who used his police computer to download pornography now is under criminal investigation for alleged evidence tampering involving a video recorder in his patrol car.

Detectives searched Trooper Rob Young's Republic-area home last week and seized personal video-recording equipment Young is suspected of using to alter tapes from his patrol-car camera.

Tampering with such a tape is a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail.

Investigators say, without elaboration, that an unidentified woman's voice can be heard inside Young's patrol car in one of the allegedly altered tapes.

The investigation apparently began with allegations that Young, 40, stalked and harassed a 21-year-old Republic woman. Officials have declined to release details of the allegations.

A 13-year WSP veteran, Young has been on paid leave since Oct. 24. Efforts to reach him for comment were unsuccessful.

Ferry County Prosecutor James von Sauer declined to prosecute Young over the alleged stalking, harassment and official misconduct. The woman told The Spokesman-Review that Young made improper sexual remarks to her and other young women, but she declined to elaborate.

[KC]

Texas cops to get digital video system for cruisers

A Texas police department plans to implement a digital video system and combine it with wireless "hotspot" technology to allow police officers to broadcast video in real time from their patrol cars to headquarters.

The digital video system, which is manufactured by Coban Research and Technologies Inc., is expected to significantly enhance the law enforcement activities of its officers, said Gary Swindle, police chief of the city of Tyler, which has a population of about 90,000 and is about 90 miles east of Dallas. The Coban system will replace a three-year old analog video system, he said.

"As this technology keeps changing, we wanted to be at the forefront. Our current analog video cameras and computer systems are outdated," he said.

The implementation of the cutting edge system, by IBM Corp.'s Global Services unit, will begin next month with the outfitting of the police department's 60 cruisers with digital video cameras and hard drives, and the installation of the backend system at headquarters, Swindle said. The system to transmit video back to headquarters in real time would be part of a second phase expected to be completed later this year, he said.

In addition to the potential for broadcasting "live" from a cruiser to headquarters, the Coban/IBM system offers features that the old system lacks, including:

-- Always-on cameras that, when in idle mode, store on the cruiser's hard disk the last four minutes worth of images they are recording. This significantly reduces the possibility that important video evidence will not be taped once an officer activates the system, because the four minutes prior to the activation will have been stored.

-- A backend video management system that tags videos with metadata, allowing for fast searching and retrieval via a variety of keywords.

-- Security features based on authentication designed to prevent against tampering with video files.

-- The ability to aggregate video images with related data, such as radar gun information.

-- Longer life and higher image quality than analog tapes, which deteriorate over time.

-- Lower labor, management and supply costs. Because it's easier to use, operates in a more automated fashion and eliminates the need to purchase tapes, the new system is expected to save the Tyler police department about US$50,000 per year, compared with the old system.

The hard drives in the cruisers would have capacity of between 40G bytes to 60G bytes for storing the video, while the repository back at headquarters would have a 4.35T-byte capacity, according to an IBM statement. The backend system would also include IBM eServer xSeries servers, an IBM storage system and Tivoli management software. The Coban system uses Microsoft Corp.'s SQL Server database.

In addition to doing the implementation, IBM Global Services will also train officers and administrative staff on how to use the system, said Gary Crowell, principal at IBM's public safety and security services. This is the fifth digital video system IBM has sold to a law-enforcement client in the U.S., he said. "We've seen a significant increase in demand for this type of system in the past 10 to 12 months," Crowell said. "They offer huge efficiency gains for police departments, better quality video and now they're affordable."

At the Tyler police department, officers currently check out a tape at the start of their shift and turn it back in at the end, Swindle said, adding that tapes then have to be stored for 90 days. After that, the tapes are erased and put back in circulation. With 182 officers, the department has about 6,000 tapes in rotation.

"With this system, the tapes go away. The video is all stored in hard drives in the cruisers, and later on our servers. There's a tremendous labor savings there. This system will be a tremendous asset for us once it's in place," he said.

The department has been testing the Coban system for the past six to eight months, Swindle said.