|
Post by WaTcHeR on Mar 24, 2006 17:14:42 GMT -5
03/24/2006 - Stratford - A Stratford police officer is on paid leave accused of using excessive force against a teen-ager.
15-year-old Titasheen Mitchell's mother says the girl was inside their store when a fight broke out just outside.
As police responded one of those involved in the fight ducked inside. Officer David Gugliotti allegedly followed as well.
But when Titasheen tried to get the officer to take the problem outside witnesses say it got ugly.
Town Councilman Alvin O'Neal says he saw it all.
"He dragged her all the way from here to the street and she was swinging open handed. When he got her to the car he picked her up, slammed her on the car and punched her twice in the face."
"I can assure you I will not tolerate in any shape or form any physical abuse by anyone in the Town of Stratford and that goes to and includes any police officer," says Mayor James Miron, (D) Stratford.
Titasheen did suffer bruises to her face.
Councilman O'Neal was arrested when he says he objected to how the girl was being treated.
An internal affairs investigation is ongoing.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Mar 24, 2006 17:14:42 GMT -5
03/24/2006 - Stratford - A Stratford police officer is on paid leave accused of using excessive force against a teen-ager.
15-year-old Titasheen Mitchell's mother says the girl was inside their store when a fight broke out just outside.
As police responded one of those involved in the fight ducked inside. Officer David Gugliotti allegedly followed as well.
But when Titasheen tried to get the officer to take the problem outside witnesses say it got ugly.
Town Councilman Alvin O'Neal says he saw it all.
"He dragged her all the way from here to the street and she was swinging open handed. When he got her to the car he picked her up, slammed her on the car and punched her twice in the face."
"I can assure you I will not tolerate in any shape or form any physical abuse by anyone in the Town of Stratford and that goes to and includes any police officer," says Mayor James Miron, (D) Stratford.
Titasheen did suffer bruises to her face.
Councilman O'Neal was arrested when he says he objected to how the girl was being treated.
An internal affairs investigation is ongoing.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Apr 4, 2006 10:52:39 GMT -5
04/04/2006 - A Ramapo town employee remained in critical condition yesterday afternoon after being shot by a New Jersey State Park Police officer over the weekend.
Emil Mann, 43, of Monroe was taken to Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey after the Saturday afternoon shooting near the Stag Hill section of the Ramapo Valley Reservation.
According to reports, Mann had been at a cookout with fellow members of the Ramapough Lenape Nation, an American Indian tribe recognized by New York and New Jersey. Several members had been riding all-terrain vehicles, which are prohibited on New Jersey public lands.
The shooting followed an argument between picnickers and the police. It is not clear what happened, and Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli has appealed for witnesses to come forward.
Emil Mann's cousin, Otis W. Mann of Monroe, was arrested on assault and other charges after trying to use Lt. Kelly Gottheiner's baton to hit her and Officer Kenneth Kriete, a press release from Molinelli's office said Sunday. That incident occurred about the same time as the shooting.
The two officers sustained minor injuries, according to news reports. The Prosecutor's Office has not identified the officer who shot Emil Mann.
Emil Mann's co-workers at the Ramapo Parks and Recreation Department reacted to the situation yesterday.
"I think we were all very surprised," said Michelle Antosca, the town's recreation director. "It's still so new to everybody."
Mann has worked for the town for 14 years and is a machine equipment operator, Antosca said.
"He's a good worker and a nice man, and to have an incident like that happen to someone that works with you is quite shocking. And, of course, we hope he and his family are doing well," she said.
The exact progression of events that resulted in the shooting is unclear, and Molinelli's office has released few details.
But witnesses to the incident say Otis Mann grabbed Gottheiner's baton after she slapped his 14-year-old daughter following an argument at the cookout site, according to a report yesterday The Record of Hackensack.
Emil Mann is reported to have tried to break up the ensuing altercation, The Record also said. Emil Mann is not reported to have been armed.
The Ramapough Mountain Indians, who trace their roots to the Lenape Nation, remained shocked by the shooting, Chief Anthony Van Dunk said yesterday.
"They're a little concerned," he said. "They're in a lot of disbelief."
The tribe planned to meet at their offices on Stag Hill Road in Mahwah last night.
Various local, state and law enforcement representatives, along with members of the Ramapough community, were expected to attend, Van Dunk said.
He has said the shooting was motivated by racial bias against his people.
While he acknowledged that information was not complete and that the investigation needed to advance, Van Dunk said: "At the moment we have a park police person who was possibly out of jurisdiction using deadly force in a situation that didn't require it."
Molinelli's office declined to answer any questions yesterday.
Elaine Makatura, a spokeswoman for New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection, confirmed that the officer involved in the shooting was on leave.
She referred all other questions to Molinelli's office.
The Ramapoughs have about 3,000 members in Mahwah and Ringwood, N.J., and in Hillburn. The tribe has twice been denied federal recognition.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Apr 4, 2006 10:42:17 GMT -5
04/04/2006- Details remained sketchy Monday morning, but a Sweet Springs city police officer and a dispatcher were arrested Friday by Sweet Springs Police Chief Dick Downing and placed on 24-hour holds at the Saline County Jail in Marshall. A news release from Sheriff Wally George stated that both arrests were in connection with alleged tampering with a motor vehicle.
Downing said Monday morning that the case involved allegations of tampering with parts on both the patrol cars used by the Sweet Springs Police Department.
George issued an initial release at 12:05 a.m. Saturday stating Roy Hall, a Sweet Springs municipal dispatcher, and David Perez, a police officer for Sweet Springs, had been arrested by Downing and transported to the Saline County Sheriff's Department, where Downing had requested each be placed on 24-hour holds for investigation.
Hall was taken to the county jail by Downing at 3:15 p.m. Friday, March 31, according to George's statement. Downing brought Perez to the jail in custody at 10:45 p.m. Friday.
George said both suspects were booked into the jail at the request of Downing. He also made it clear that the incident "at this time is solely a city of Sweet Springs municipal charge carrying no bond at this time.
"The Saline County Sheriff's Department is not involved in the investigation and has no additional information to release."
George later issued news releases at the time of Hall's release following his 24-hour hold, at 2:50 p.m. Saturday, and the conclusion of Perez's detention, at 11:57 p.m. Saturday.
Downing said both Hall and Perez have been suspended with pay until further notice and he was awaiting word on the filing of charges Monday from the county prosecutor's office.
In both cases, no charges were forwarded to the sheriff from Saline County Prosecutor Don Stouffer or Saline County Associate Circuit Court Division 6.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Apr 4, 2006 10:52:39 GMT -5
04/04/2006 - A Ramapo town employee remained in critical condition yesterday afternoon after being shot by a New Jersey State Park Police officer over the weekend.
Emil Mann, 43, of Monroe was taken to Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey after the Saturday afternoon shooting near the Stag Hill section of the Ramapo Valley Reservation.
According to reports, Mann had been at a cookout with fellow members of the Ramapough Lenape Nation, an American Indian tribe recognized by New York and New Jersey. Several members had been riding all-terrain vehicles, which are prohibited on New Jersey public lands.
The shooting followed an argument between picnickers and the police. It is not clear what happened, and Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli has appealed for witnesses to come forward.
Emil Mann's cousin, Otis W. Mann of Monroe, was arrested on assault and other charges after trying to use Lt. Kelly Gottheiner's baton to hit her and Officer Kenneth Kriete, a press release from Molinelli's office said Sunday. That incident occurred about the same time as the shooting.
The two officers sustained minor injuries, according to news reports. The Prosecutor's Office has not identified the officer who shot Emil Mann.
Emil Mann's co-workers at the Ramapo Parks and Recreation Department reacted to the situation yesterday.
"I think we were all very surprised," said Michelle Antosca, the town's recreation director. "It's still so new to everybody."
Mann has worked for the town for 14 years and is a machine equipment operator, Antosca said.
"He's a good worker and a nice man, and to have an incident like that happen to someone that works with you is quite shocking. And, of course, we hope he and his family are doing well," she said.
The exact progression of events that resulted in the shooting is unclear, and Molinelli's office has released few details.
But witnesses to the incident say Otis Mann grabbed Gottheiner's baton after she slapped his 14-year-old daughter following an argument at the cookout site, according to a report yesterday The Record of Hackensack.
Emil Mann is reported to have tried to break up the ensuing altercation, The Record also said. Emil Mann is not reported to have been armed.
The Ramapough Mountain Indians, who trace their roots to the Lenape Nation, remained shocked by the shooting, Chief Anthony Van Dunk said yesterday.
"They're a little concerned," he said. "They're in a lot of disbelief."
The tribe planned to meet at their offices on Stag Hill Road in Mahwah last night.
Various local, state and law enforcement representatives, along with members of the Ramapough community, were expected to attend, Van Dunk said.
He has said the shooting was motivated by racial bias against his people.
While he acknowledged that information was not complete and that the investigation needed to advance, Van Dunk said: "At the moment we have a park police person who was possibly out of jurisdiction using deadly force in a situation that didn't require it."
Molinelli's office declined to answer any questions yesterday.
Elaine Makatura, a spokeswoman for New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection, confirmed that the officer involved in the shooting was on leave.
She referred all other questions to Molinelli's office.
The Ramapoughs have about 3,000 members in Mahwah and Ringwood, N.J., and in Hillburn. The tribe has twice been denied federal recognition.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Apr 4, 2006 10:42:17 GMT -5
04/04/2006- Details remained sketchy Monday morning, but a Sweet Springs city police officer and a dispatcher were arrested Friday by Sweet Springs Police Chief Dick Downing and placed on 24-hour holds at the Saline County Jail in Marshall. A news release from Sheriff Wally George stated that both arrests were in connection with alleged tampering with a motor vehicle.
Downing said Monday morning that the case involved allegations of tampering with parts on both the patrol cars used by the Sweet Springs Police Department.
George issued an initial release at 12:05 a.m. Saturday stating Roy Hall, a Sweet Springs municipal dispatcher, and David Perez, a police officer for Sweet Springs, had been arrested by Downing and transported to the Saline County Sheriff's Department, where Downing had requested each be placed on 24-hour holds for investigation.
Hall was taken to the county jail by Downing at 3:15 p.m. Friday, March 31, according to George's statement. Downing brought Perez to the jail in custody at 10:45 p.m. Friday.
George said both suspects were booked into the jail at the request of Downing. He also made it clear that the incident "at this time is solely a city of Sweet Springs municipal charge carrying no bond at this time.
"The Saline County Sheriff's Department is not involved in the investigation and has no additional information to release."
George later issued news releases at the time of Hall's release following his 24-hour hold, at 2:50 p.m. Saturday, and the conclusion of Perez's detention, at 11:57 p.m. Saturday.
Downing said both Hall and Perez have been suspended with pay until further notice and he was awaiting word on the filing of charges Monday from the county prosecutor's office.
In both cases, no charges were forwarded to the sheriff from Saline County Prosecutor Don Stouffer or Saline County Associate Circuit Court Division 6.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Jan 23, 2006 12:39:48 GMT -5
Jan 23, 2006 — A crowd of abortion rights supporters were asked to leave by the Gettysburg Police after gathering on the Gettysburg Square on Sunday to celebrate the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision and to protest against the appointment of Samuel Alito to the highest court.
One man, Bruce K. Davis, of York, was arrested while police dispersed the crowd of around 25 from the square at around 12:50 p.m.
The protesters were on the square for about 45 minutes before being told to leave. Gettysburg Police Chief Rolf Garcia said the group didn't have the required permit to protest on the square.
"The borough code is specific. Nineteen or more people assembled - whether it's for the same thing or not - must have a permit," the chief said. "The group applied for a permit, and the permit would have been signed, but they didn't have liability insurance. So the permit was denied."
Garcia said Davis was arrested because he refused to leave.
"(Davis) was asked nicely to leave," the chief said. "(He) didn't leave. Because of this, (he) will be subject to fines. End of story."
The group, the Gettysburg National Organization for Women, had planned the gathering to celebrate the 33rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling, said Kristin Eyssell, the group's vice chairwoman. But since the group couldn't get a permit, the gathering was cancelled.
"It seems that people are still expressing their rights of free speech," she said on the square, referring to the groups of people holding signs with slogans against Alito and for a woman's right to choose.
Davis' daughter, Kody Hill Davis, 23, of York, said they weren't part of any group.
"We came out a family because of the anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling," she said.
"We're a pro-choice family. It's a family outing of sorts. My father was arrested because he didn't see why he wasn't allowed to express his views."
Luke Norris, a senior at Gettysburg College, said there wasn't a coherent group protesting on the square.
"If there were any groups, there were two, the pro-choice and the anti-Alito" he said.
"Even so, if you divide the anti-Alito group and the pro-choice group, neither was more than 19 people. We were individuals gathered to express our views as the First Amendment dictates we can."
Norris said the police made an assumption that everyone was part of the same group, but they weren't.
Jaime Menegus, of Washington, D.C., said it's hard to get a permit when no one is part of a group.
"We need to improve our communication skills, and it's not going to work if we're not allowed to communicate in a public area," she said. "We're all not part of the same group, so it's kind of hard to get a permit."
Outside the police station about two hours after being arrested, Davis explained that the police officer said he and his family were unlawfully gathering on the square.
"I was handcuffed and taken to the police station because both he and I let it escalate more than it should have," Davis said.
"He told me to leave and I told him I didn't believe that I had to, that I was exercising my rights as an individual. The officer told me that if I didn't leave he would have to arrest me. At that point, I put down my sign and told him, 'I guess you're going to do what you have to do.'"
Davis explained that a brief struggle with the officer resulted because he wanted to give his wife the keys to their car so his family wouldn't be stranded.
"The officer said I was resisting arrest," he said, referring to the struggle that ensued. The officer eventually found the keys and handed them to Davis' wife.
Davis was release and received two citations.
"I didn't get arrested for the publicity," he said.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Jan 23, 2006 12:39:48 GMT -5
Jan 23, 2006 — A crowd of abortion rights supporters were asked to leave by the Gettysburg Police after gathering on the Gettysburg Square on Sunday to celebrate the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision and to protest against the appointment of Samuel Alito to the highest court.
One man, Bruce K. Davis, of York, was arrested while police dispersed the crowd of around 25 from the square at around 12:50 p.m.
The protesters were on the square for about 45 minutes before being told to leave. Gettysburg Police Chief Rolf Garcia said the group didn't have the required permit to protest on the square.
"The borough code is specific. Nineteen or more people assembled - whether it's for the same thing or not - must have a permit," the chief said. "The group applied for a permit, and the permit would have been signed, but they didn't have liability insurance. So the permit was denied."
Garcia said Davis was arrested because he refused to leave.
"(Davis) was asked nicely to leave," the chief said. "(He) didn't leave. Because of this, (he) will be subject to fines. End of story."
The group, the Gettysburg National Organization for Women, had planned the gathering to celebrate the 33rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling, said Kristin Eyssell, the group's vice chairwoman. But since the group couldn't get a permit, the gathering was cancelled.
"It seems that people are still expressing their rights of free speech," she said on the square, referring to the groups of people holding signs with slogans against Alito and for a woman's right to choose.
Davis' daughter, Kody Hill Davis, 23, of York, said they weren't part of any group.
"We came out a family because of the anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling," she said.
"We're a pro-choice family. It's a family outing of sorts. My father was arrested because he didn't see why he wasn't allowed to express his views."
Luke Norris, a senior at Gettysburg College, said there wasn't a coherent group protesting on the square.
"If there were any groups, there were two, the pro-choice and the anti-Alito" he said.
"Even so, if you divide the anti-Alito group and the pro-choice group, neither was more than 19 people. We were individuals gathered to express our views as the First Amendment dictates we can."
Norris said the police made an assumption that everyone was part of the same group, but they weren't.
Jaime Menegus, of Washington, D.C., said it's hard to get a permit when no one is part of a group.
"We need to improve our communication skills, and it's not going to work if we're not allowed to communicate in a public area," she said. "We're all not part of the same group, so it's kind of hard to get a permit."
Outside the police station about two hours after being arrested, Davis explained that the police officer said he and his family were unlawfully gathering on the square.
"I was handcuffed and taken to the police station because both he and I let it escalate more than it should have," Davis said.
"He told me to leave and I told him I didn't believe that I had to, that I was exercising my rights as an individual. The officer told me that if I didn't leave he would have to arrest me. At that point, I put down my sign and told him, 'I guess you're going to do what you have to do.'"
Davis explained that a brief struggle with the officer resulted because he wanted to give his wife the keys to their car so his family wouldn't be stranded.
"The officer said I was resisting arrest," he said, referring to the struggle that ensued. The officer eventually found the keys and handed them to Davis' wife.
Davis was release and received two citations.
"I didn't get arrested for the publicity," he said.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 3, 2006 12:32:52 GMT -5
The demonstrators arrived angry, departed furious. The police had herded them into pens. Stopped them from handing out fliers. Threatened them with arrest for standing on public sidewalks. Made notes on which politicians they cheered and which ones they razzed. Meanwhile, officers from a special unit videotaped their faces, evoking for one demonstrator the unblinking eye of George Orwell's "1984."
"That's Big Brother watching you," the demonstrator, Walter Liddy, said in a deposition.
Liddy's complaint about police tactics, while hardly novel from a big-city protester, stands out because of his job: He is a New York City police officer. The rallies he attended were organized in the summer of 2004 by his union, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, to protest the pace of contract talks with the city.
Now the officers, through their union, are suing the city, charging that the police procedures at their demonstrations - many of them routinely used at war protests, antipoverty marches and mass bike rides - were so heavy-handed and intimidating that their First Amendment rights were violated.
A lawyer for the city said the police union members were treated no differently than hundreds of thousands of people at other gatherings, with public safety and free speech both protected. The department observes all constitutional requirements, the city maintains.
The lawsuit by the police union brings a distinctive voice to the charged debate over how the city has monitored political protest since Sept. 11. The off-duty officers faced a "constant threat of arrest," Officer Liddy testified, all but echoing the complaint by activists for other causes that the city has effectively "criminalized dissent."
The lawsuit is one of three recent legal actions in which the city has been accused of abuses of power that the plaintiffs say crimped free expression, a charge that officials say is belied by the reality of noisy sidewalks and streets, crammed year-round with parades and rallies.
At the core of all three cases are questions about the expanded powers the police were granted after the 2001 attacks, and how much the department needs to know about the politics of people who are expressing their views.
In 2003, a federal judge eased longstanding and strict limits on surveillance of political activity at the request of lawyers from the city's corporation counsel office, who argued that the Police Department needed broader authority to use such tactics to fight terrorism.
Since then, police officers in disguise have taken part in demonstrations, an approach the Police Department says it used before receiving the expanded powers; other officers have made hundreds of hours of videotapes of people involved in protests and rallies, very few of whom were charged with breaking any law. Neither form of surveillance, the city argues, violates the Constitution.
The three pending cases - two of them brought by civil liberties lawyers and the third by the police union - are the first to demand judicial scrutiny of those tactics.
Among those three, the police union was the earliest to challenge the city, and its case has the most striking dynamic: the very people asked to fight terrorism are claiming that the city's new antiterrorism tools have been bluntly and illegally applied to the exercise of their own civil rights.
"It puts the whole issue into stark relief," said Elizabeth McNamara, a lawyer who represents the P.B.A. and other unions in the suit.
In July and August 2004, a few dozen off-duty officers - joined at times by firefighters - popped up at places where Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was scheduled to appear, chanting and handing out leaflets about labor negotiations.
The unions maintain that their demonstrations, in the weeks before the 2004 Republican National Convention opened in New York, embarrassed the mayor just as the national press corps was turning its attention to the city, and that the Police Department responded by cracking down. They are seeking a court declaration that their rights have been violated, as well as damages.
Lawyers for the city say that police union members pestered truck drivers making deliveries, obstructed sidewalks near the mayor's home, and taunted the mayor's press secretary by saying they knew where he lived. The Police Department, the city lawyers say, is neutral about political messages and used barricades and other crowd control methods only to protect the rights of the public and to keep order.
However, the police union said it had uncovered evidence that the department took a keen interest in what the demonstrators were saying, not just how they said it.
During a deposition of the chief of department, Joseph Esposito, who is the department's top uniformed official, Ms. McNamara read parts of a report prepared by the department's Internal Affairs Bureau, which noted that the protesters included members of the Police and Fire Department unions.
"In Paragraph 4, it says that members of both departments called out to the mayor for pay raises," Ms. McNamara said, according to the court transcript, "In Paragraph 5, it notes that the protesters clapped and cheered when former Mayor Koch appeared."
She asked, "What would be the basis for them recording the content of the protesters' demonstrations?"
Chief Esposito responded, "Just to record what they observed."
At a hearing in Federal District Court in Manhattan, Ms. McNamara said the videotaping was punitive. "There was no basis whatsoever for employing the Internal Affairs Division to videotape the police officers except as a means of political harassment," she said. "There wasn't suspicion of criminal activity."
Mark Muschenheim, a lawyer for the city, said that Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly ordered the videotaping for legitimate reasons. "There were threats made to the mayor's press secretary during these demonstrations," Mr. Muschenheim said. "That was a decision made by the police commissioner because the demonstrations were getting out of hand."
At Chief Esposito's deposition, Ms. McNamara asked, "Would there be any reason, to your knowledge, for them to be taping the protest to zoom in and individually photograph each officer at the protest?"
"I don't know," he replied.
"Do you know any legitimate reason for such documentation of individuals at the protest?" Ms. McNamara asked.
The chief replied, "Document presence for further identification in the event there was misconduct."
No criminal activity or misconduct was observed at the union demonstrations, Charles Campisi, the chief of the Internal Affairs Bureau, testified, but the videotapes will remain on file. "The purpose of keeping records is to document the observations, what you've done," he said.
In 2003, a federal judge found that the Police Department had scrutinized the beliefs of antiwar protesters without legitimate reason. After antiwar rallies in February and March 2003, 12 people who were arrested said they were questioned on their political thinking by detectives.
Police officials said basic information was needed for a database that would identify centers of protest organization to help deploy officers at future demonstrations. When the practice was made public, Commissioner Kelly said that while he did not know about it, there was nothing unconstitutional about the questioning. Nevertheless, he said the information was not needed.
The dozen people who submitted affidavits said the interrogations went far beyond basics. Among the questions, they said, was whether the country would be better off if Al Gore had been elected, whether they hated President Bush, whether they belonged to other antiwar groups, what schools they attended, and whether they were politically active. The police denied asking those questions.
The judge, Charles S. Haight of Federal District Court in Manhattan, noting that all the protesters gave roughly the same version of events, said he believed that they were telling the truth, even if Commissioner Kelly and his deputy for intelligence, David Cohen, were not aware of the practice.
In the P.B.A.'s lawsuit, now in pretrial proceedings, Ms. McNamara tried to show that it was unusual for the Internal Affairs Bureau to keep an eye on off-duty police officers. If a group of police officers were going to have "a baseball game, would I.A.B. be called in to monitor to see whether they might engage in illegal activity?" Ms. McNamara asked Chief Esposito.
"Generally speaking, no," he replied.
Asked if Internal Affairs officers with video cameras might intimidate an officer, Chief Esposito said, "I don't think so."
However, Joseph Alejandro, a police officer and union official, testified about the videotaping, "It sends a chill down a police officer's back to think that Internal Affairs would be taping something."
Although city lawyers have not yet addressed the claims in the union's lawsuit at any length, they argued in a related case that the police should be allowed to make and keep videotapes of political gatherings. A group of civil rights lawyers charged that such videotaping violated a standing court order that settled a class action lawsuit, known as Handschu, that put limits on police surveillance. Many of those limits were eased in 2003. The city says that nothing in the United States Constitution forbids police videotaping of people in a public place.
"Even if the N.Y.P.D. were to identify the person whose images were captured on videotape, or disseminated the photographs to other police agencies, a constitutional violation has not occurred," wrote Gail Donoghue, a senior city lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 3, 2006 12:32:52 GMT -5
The demonstrators arrived angry, departed furious. The police had herded them into pens. Stopped them from handing out fliers. Threatened them with arrest for standing on public sidewalks. Made notes on which politicians they cheered and which ones they razzed. Meanwhile, officers from a special unit videotaped their faces, evoking for one demonstrator the unblinking eye of George Orwell's "1984."
"That's Big Brother watching you," the demonstrator, Walter Liddy, said in a deposition.
Liddy's complaint about police tactics, while hardly novel from a big-city protester, stands out because of his job: He is a New York City police officer. The rallies he attended were organized in the summer of 2004 by his union, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, to protest the pace of contract talks with the city.
Now the officers, through their union, are suing the city, charging that the police procedures at their demonstrations - many of them routinely used at war protests, antipoverty marches and mass bike rides - were so heavy-handed and intimidating that their First Amendment rights were violated.
A lawyer for the city said the police union members were treated no differently than hundreds of thousands of people at other gatherings, with public safety and free speech both protected. The department observes all constitutional requirements, the city maintains.
The lawsuit by the police union brings a distinctive voice to the charged debate over how the city has monitored political protest since Sept. 11. The off-duty officers faced a "constant threat of arrest," Officer Liddy testified, all but echoing the complaint by activists for other causes that the city has effectively "criminalized dissent."
The lawsuit is one of three recent legal actions in which the city has been accused of abuses of power that the plaintiffs say crimped free expression, a charge that officials say is belied by the reality of noisy sidewalks and streets, crammed year-round with parades and rallies.
At the core of all three cases are questions about the expanded powers the police were granted after the 2001 attacks, and how much the department needs to know about the politics of people who are expressing their views.
In 2003, a federal judge eased longstanding and strict limits on surveillance of political activity at the request of lawyers from the city's corporation counsel office, who argued that the Police Department needed broader authority to use such tactics to fight terrorism.
Since then, police officers in disguise have taken part in demonstrations, an approach the Police Department says it used before receiving the expanded powers; other officers have made hundreds of hours of videotapes of people involved in protests and rallies, very few of whom were charged with breaking any law. Neither form of surveillance, the city argues, violates the Constitution.
The three pending cases - two of them brought by civil liberties lawyers and the third by the police union - are the first to demand judicial scrutiny of those tactics.
Among those three, the police union was the earliest to challenge the city, and its case has the most striking dynamic: the very people asked to fight terrorism are claiming that the city's new antiterrorism tools have been bluntly and illegally applied to the exercise of their own civil rights.
"It puts the whole issue into stark relief," said Elizabeth McNamara, a lawyer who represents the P.B.A. and other unions in the suit.
In July and August 2004, a few dozen off-duty officers - joined at times by firefighters - popped up at places where Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was scheduled to appear, chanting and handing out leaflets about labor negotiations.
The unions maintain that their demonstrations, in the weeks before the 2004 Republican National Convention opened in New York, embarrassed the mayor just as the national press corps was turning its attention to the city, and that the Police Department responded by cracking down. They are seeking a court declaration that their rights have been violated, as well as damages.
Lawyers for the city say that police union members pestered truck drivers making deliveries, obstructed sidewalks near the mayor's home, and taunted the mayor's press secretary by saying they knew where he lived. The Police Department, the city lawyers say, is neutral about political messages and used barricades and other crowd control methods only to protect the rights of the public and to keep order.
However, the police union said it had uncovered evidence that the department took a keen interest in what the demonstrators were saying, not just how they said it.
During a deposition of the chief of department, Joseph Esposito, who is the department's top uniformed official, Ms. McNamara read parts of a report prepared by the department's Internal Affairs Bureau, which noted that the protesters included members of the Police and Fire Department unions.
"In Paragraph 4, it says that members of both departments called out to the mayor for pay raises," Ms. McNamara said, according to the court transcript, "In Paragraph 5, it notes that the protesters clapped and cheered when former Mayor Koch appeared."
She asked, "What would be the basis for them recording the content of the protesters' demonstrations?"
Chief Esposito responded, "Just to record what they observed."
At a hearing in Federal District Court in Manhattan, Ms. McNamara said the videotaping was punitive. "There was no basis whatsoever for employing the Internal Affairs Division to videotape the police officers except as a means of political harassment," she said. "There wasn't suspicion of criminal activity."
Mark Muschenheim, a lawyer for the city, said that Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly ordered the videotaping for legitimate reasons. "There were threats made to the mayor's press secretary during these demonstrations," Mr. Muschenheim said. "That was a decision made by the police commissioner because the demonstrations were getting out of hand."
At Chief Esposito's deposition, Ms. McNamara asked, "Would there be any reason, to your knowledge, for them to be taping the protest to zoom in and individually photograph each officer at the protest?"
"I don't know," he replied.
"Do you know any legitimate reason for such documentation of individuals at the protest?" Ms. McNamara asked.
The chief replied, "Document presence for further identification in the event there was misconduct."
No criminal activity or misconduct was observed at the union demonstrations, Charles Campisi, the chief of the Internal Affairs Bureau, testified, but the videotapes will remain on file. "The purpose of keeping records is to document the observations, what you've done," he said.
In 2003, a federal judge found that the Police Department had scrutinized the beliefs of antiwar protesters without legitimate reason. After antiwar rallies in February and March 2003, 12 people who were arrested said they were questioned on their political thinking by detectives.
Police officials said basic information was needed for a database that would identify centers of protest organization to help deploy officers at future demonstrations. When the practice was made public, Commissioner Kelly said that while he did not know about it, there was nothing unconstitutional about the questioning. Nevertheless, he said the information was not needed.
The dozen people who submitted affidavits said the interrogations went far beyond basics. Among the questions, they said, was whether the country would be better off if Al Gore had been elected, whether they hated President Bush, whether they belonged to other antiwar groups, what schools they attended, and whether they were politically active. The police denied asking those questions.
The judge, Charles S. Haight of Federal District Court in Manhattan, noting that all the protesters gave roughly the same version of events, said he believed that they were telling the truth, even if Commissioner Kelly and his deputy for intelligence, David Cohen, were not aware of the practice.
In the P.B.A.'s lawsuit, now in pretrial proceedings, Ms. McNamara tried to show that it was unusual for the Internal Affairs Bureau to keep an eye on off-duty police officers. If a group of police officers were going to have "a baseball game, would I.A.B. be called in to monitor to see whether they might engage in illegal activity?" Ms. McNamara asked Chief Esposito.
"Generally speaking, no," he replied.
Asked if Internal Affairs officers with video cameras might intimidate an officer, Chief Esposito said, "I don't think so."
However, Joseph Alejandro, a police officer and union official, testified about the videotaping, "It sends a chill down a police officer's back to think that Internal Affairs would be taping something."
Although city lawyers have not yet addressed the claims in the union's lawsuit at any length, they argued in a related case that the police should be allowed to make and keep videotapes of political gatherings. A group of civil rights lawyers charged that such videotaping violated a standing court order that settled a class action lawsuit, known as Handschu, that put limits on police surveillance. Many of those limits were eased in 2003. The city says that nothing in the United States Constitution forbids police videotaping of people in a public place.
"Even if the N.Y.P.D. were to identify the person whose images were captured on videotape, or disseminated the photographs to other police agencies, a constitutional violation has not occurred," wrote Gail Donoghue, a senior city lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Mar 7, 2006 11:37:28 GMT -5
03/07/2006 - Two Camden County sheriff's deputies were fired Wednesday after an internal investigation of their actions during a three-county chase last month found they endangered the public safety by chasing a car at high speeds and beating the driver when the pursuit ended.
Albert Bannon Crosby, 29, and Richard Sean Billington, 36, both deputies since 2000, were terminated after a review of the chase and arrest of a North Carolina man before dawn on Feb. 6.
The investigation found that Crosby and Billington violated the department policy by not breaking off the chase because it endangered public safety and by using excessive violence during and after the arrest.
The capture was recorded by a video camera on the dashboard of a deputy's patrol car.
"There are some troubling things that see on the tape," Camden County Sheriff's Office Lt. William Terrell said. "Some punches and some kicks that clearly (are) excessive force."
Sheriff's officials told Channel 4's Victoria Warren that the two deputies brutalized the driver even after he appeared to be in custody.
"Once they had him out of the car and on the ground and it looked the struggle pretty much was over, it should have stopped there."
The nearly hour-long pursuit began after Crosby said he clocked Kirk Griffen Jr., 22, of Cary, N.C., going 94 mph on Interstate 95.
Deputies from three counties and the Georgia Highway Patrol eventually joined the chase, which ended 40 minutes later on Highway 82 in Brantley County.
Officials said speeds during the pursuit exceeded 120 mph on some two-lane roads. Terrell said that due to public safety concerns, the chase should not have happened.
According to police reports, deputies reported that Griffen rammed a Camden deputy's patrol car and attempted to hit two Brantley County deputies, which resulted in Griffen being charged with criminal attempt to commit murder, two counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer, criminal interference with government property and felony fleeing and attempting to elude a police officer.
Because the felony charges against Griffen occurred in either Glynn or Brantley counties, Camden County dropped all charges. It would be up to District Attorney Stephen Kelly whether any charges will be filed against Griffen based on offenses outside Camden County.
Police said copies of the internal investigation and termination letters will be forwarded to the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council for review.
The deputies have until Saturday to file appeals to their firing. Efforts to reach them for comment Friday were unsuccessful.
Camden County said they were investigating whether other deputies involved in the pursuit acted appropriately, but there was no decision on whether any additional disciplinary actions would be taken.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Mar 7, 2006 11:37:28 GMT -5
03/07/2006 - Two Camden County sheriff's deputies were fired Wednesday after an internal investigation of their actions during a three-county chase last month found they endangered the public safety by chasing a car at high speeds and beating the driver when the pursuit ended.
Albert Bannon Crosby, 29, and Richard Sean Billington, 36, both deputies since 2000, were terminated after a review of the chase and arrest of a North Carolina man before dawn on Feb. 6.
The investigation found that Crosby and Billington violated the department policy by not breaking off the chase because it endangered public safety and by using excessive violence during and after the arrest.
The capture was recorded by a video camera on the dashboard of a deputy's patrol car.
"There are some troubling things that see on the tape," Camden County Sheriff's Office Lt. William Terrell said. "Some punches and some kicks that clearly (are) excessive force."
Sheriff's officials told Channel 4's Victoria Warren that the two deputies brutalized the driver even after he appeared to be in custody.
"Once they had him out of the car and on the ground and it looked the struggle pretty much was over, it should have stopped there."
The nearly hour-long pursuit began after Crosby said he clocked Kirk Griffen Jr., 22, of Cary, N.C., going 94 mph on Interstate 95.
Deputies from three counties and the Georgia Highway Patrol eventually joined the chase, which ended 40 minutes later on Highway 82 in Brantley County.
Officials said speeds during the pursuit exceeded 120 mph on some two-lane roads. Terrell said that due to public safety concerns, the chase should not have happened.
According to police reports, deputies reported that Griffen rammed a Camden deputy's patrol car and attempted to hit two Brantley County deputies, which resulted in Griffen being charged with criminal attempt to commit murder, two counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer, criminal interference with government property and felony fleeing and attempting to elude a police officer.
Because the felony charges against Griffen occurred in either Glynn or Brantley counties, Camden County dropped all charges. It would be up to District Attorney Stephen Kelly whether any charges will be filed against Griffen based on offenses outside Camden County.
Police said copies of the internal investigation and termination letters will be forwarded to the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council for review.
The deputies have until Saturday to file appeals to their firing. Efforts to reach them for comment Friday were unsuccessful.
Camden County said they were investigating whether other deputies involved in the pursuit acted appropriately, but there was no decision on whether any additional disciplinary actions would be taken.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Mar 7, 2006 11:42:41 GMT -5
03/06/2006 - GLADEWATER — More than 50 residents looking for answers about Gladewater Police Officer Brian Naismith left Monday's town hall meeting frustrated by city officials who said they couldn't address the residents' concerns.
Mayor John Paul Tallent, mayor pro tem Walter Derrick and Councilman Scott Owens attended the meeting, organized by residents concerned about Naismith and other officers on the force. An Upshur County grand jury declined to indict Naismith in January for fatally shooting 25-year-old Jonathan King after a police chase in June. Naismith said King tried to run him down.
Tallent repeatedly told the standing-room-only crowd at Garfield Hill Community Center that he couldn't answer any questions about the police or fire departments because that authority rested with City Manager Jay Stokes. Stokes and Police Chief Jimmy Davis didn't attend the meeting under advisement of attorneys with the Texas Municipal League because of possible pending civil litigation the King family may file because of the incident.
Davis, meanwhile, has told Stokes that he will resign effective June 30 after 37 years in the department.
The meeting was called to organize "African Americans" in the community, according to a flier.
"I've always treated the blacks fair. You're the reason I got elected two years ago, and I'll always be indebted to the blacks," Tallent told the crowd. "I do not have any power over the police department or the fire department. That is solely the responsibility of the city manager. He gets paid the big bucks to do that."
Many of the crowd's questions were met with Tallent's reply: "I can't answer that."
After just 20 minutes of heated debate, resident Tyrone Ruffine shouted, "If we're not going to find out any answers, we're wasting our breath."
The crowd also raised concerns about a complaint filed by Dallas Morning News reporter Dave Michaels, who says Naismith bumped Michaels' car, threatened him and pointed a shotgun at his chest on Thursday when the reporter went to Naismith's house. The complaint was filed with the Upshur County Sheriff's Office.
Tallent told the crowd that Naismith was on vacation when the incident occurred, although the officer arrested a man for possession of methamphetamines and $18,500 this past Tuesday.
The Morning News also reported that Davis and another officer told Michaels that he had provoked Naismith by driving into his neighborhood.
"(Naismith) shot and killed a man, and now he's rammed somebody with his car and pulled a shotgun on him, and you're sending him on vacation. The best I would give him is an air-conditioned room in the jail," said resident Debra Pike.
Tallent again reiterated that he couldn't answer questions about the case, saying, "wish I could comment. I can't comment ... I couldn't answer you if I knew the answers because of pending litigation."
Ernest Deckard, president of the NAACP's Tyler Chapter, told Tallent, "There are some very serious problems here, mister mayor, and something needs to be done about it."
Tallent, Owens and Derrick advised residents to bring their concerns to the City Council by getting placed on the March 16 meeting agenda.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Mar 7, 2006 11:42:41 GMT -5
03/06/2006 - GLADEWATER — More than 50 residents looking for answers about Gladewater Police Officer Brian Naismith left Monday's town hall meeting frustrated by city officials who said they couldn't address the residents' concerns.
Mayor John Paul Tallent, mayor pro tem Walter Derrick and Councilman Scott Owens attended the meeting, organized by residents concerned about Naismith and other officers on the force. An Upshur County grand jury declined to indict Naismith in January for fatally shooting 25-year-old Jonathan King after a police chase in June. Naismith said King tried to run him down.
Tallent repeatedly told the standing-room-only crowd at Garfield Hill Community Center that he couldn't answer any questions about the police or fire departments because that authority rested with City Manager Jay Stokes. Stokes and Police Chief Jimmy Davis didn't attend the meeting under advisement of attorneys with the Texas Municipal League because of possible pending civil litigation the King family may file because of the incident.
Davis, meanwhile, has told Stokes that he will resign effective June 30 after 37 years in the department.
The meeting was called to organize "African Americans" in the community, according to a flier.
"I've always treated the blacks fair. You're the reason I got elected two years ago, and I'll always be indebted to the blacks," Tallent told the crowd. "I do not have any power over the police department or the fire department. That is solely the responsibility of the city manager. He gets paid the big bucks to do that."
Many of the crowd's questions were met with Tallent's reply: "I can't answer that."
After just 20 minutes of heated debate, resident Tyrone Ruffine shouted, "If we're not going to find out any answers, we're wasting our breath."
The crowd also raised concerns about a complaint filed by Dallas Morning News reporter Dave Michaels, who says Naismith bumped Michaels' car, threatened him and pointed a shotgun at his chest on Thursday when the reporter went to Naismith's house. The complaint was filed with the Upshur County Sheriff's Office.
Tallent told the crowd that Naismith was on vacation when the incident occurred, although the officer arrested a man for possession of methamphetamines and $18,500 this past Tuesday.
The Morning News also reported that Davis and another officer told Michaels that he had provoked Naismith by driving into his neighborhood.
"(Naismith) shot and killed a man, and now he's rammed somebody with his car and pulled a shotgun on him, and you're sending him on vacation. The best I would give him is an air-conditioned room in the jail," said resident Debra Pike.
Tallent again reiterated that he couldn't answer questions about the case, saying, "wish I could comment. I can't comment ... I couldn't answer you if I knew the answers because of pending litigation."
Ernest Deckard, president of the NAACP's Tyler Chapter, told Tallent, "There are some very serious problems here, mister mayor, and something needs to be done about it."
Tallent, Owens and Derrick advised residents to bring their concerns to the City Council by getting placed on the March 16 meeting agenda.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Mar 8, 2006 13:29:38 GMT -5
03/08/2006 - AUBURN, Wash. -- A Washington woman is suing after a police officer pulled her out of her car by her hair, an incident that was caught on dashcam video. The 55-year-old woman was arrested for not signing a speeding ticket. In the dashcam video from the officer's car, the officer can be seen asking the woman to step out of the car. When she refused, the officer pulled her out by her hair. The woman's lawyer said it was unnecessary force because the woman had already signed for the ticket. But prosecutors said the tape shows the woman acting irrationally. The woman has been charged with resisting arrest, obstruction and assault. See video- www.nbc11.com/news/7776368/detail.html
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Mar 8, 2006 13:29:38 GMT -5
03/08/2006 - AUBURN, Wash. -- A Washington woman is suing after a police officer pulled her out of her car by her hair, an incident that was caught on dashcam video. The 55-year-old woman was arrested for not signing a speeding ticket. In the dashcam video from the officer's car, the officer can be seen asking the woman to step out of the car. When she refused, the officer pulled her out by her hair. The woman's lawyer said it was unnecessary force because the woman had already signed for the ticket. But prosecutors said the tape shows the woman acting irrationally. The woman has been charged with resisting arrest, obstruction and assault. See video- www.nbc11.com/news/7776368/detail.html
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Mar 9, 2006 11:20:12 GMT -5
03/09/2006 - PORT HURON TWP. - It seemed routine and official when a Detroit police officer came to the St. Clair County jail Tuesday morning to pick up a pri- soner held on a Detroit warrant.
It became suspicious when Detroit police called about two hours later saying they would send an officer to pick up Brandon Crigler, 20, of Detroit, and Crigler was gone, said St. Clair County sheriff Lt. Bill Worden.
Police discovered later Tuesday the Detroit officer came to the jail with his badge and official credentials to pick up Crigler, his stepson, without Detroit Police Department authorization, Worden said.
The officer signed the release forms.
"Our procedures were followed. We had no idea. They had different names," Worden said.
The officer's name is Keith McLain, a Detroit TV station reported.
Crigler's stepfather didn't return him to Detroit police custody, Worden said.
Port Huron police arrested Crigler on Sunday on a Detroit warrant for a weapons charge and took him to the county jail.
He could be held there only until Detroit police picked him up because St. Clair County had no charges to hold him here, Worden said.
Detroit police, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday night, arrested Crigler and put him in the Wayne County Jail on Wednesday.
Worden said St. Clair County sheriff deputies had nothing to do with the search and could not relate the events leading to his arrest.
The Detroit officer is suspended, Worden said.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Mar 9, 2006 11:20:12 GMT -5
03/09/2006 - PORT HURON TWP. - It seemed routine and official when a Detroit police officer came to the St. Clair County jail Tuesday morning to pick up a pri- soner held on a Detroit warrant.
It became suspicious when Detroit police called about two hours later saying they would send an officer to pick up Brandon Crigler, 20, of Detroit, and Crigler was gone, said St. Clair County sheriff Lt. Bill Worden.
Police discovered later Tuesday the Detroit officer came to the jail with his badge and official credentials to pick up Crigler, his stepson, without Detroit Police Department authorization, Worden said.
The officer signed the release forms.
"Our procedures were followed. We had no idea. They had different names," Worden said.
The officer's name is Keith McLain, a Detroit TV station reported.
Crigler's stepfather didn't return him to Detroit police custody, Worden said.
Port Huron police arrested Crigler on Sunday on a Detroit warrant for a weapons charge and took him to the county jail.
He could be held there only until Detroit police picked him up because St. Clair County had no charges to hold him here, Worden said.
Detroit police, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday night, arrested Crigler and put him in the Wayne County Jail on Wednesday.
Worden said St. Clair County sheriff deputies had nothing to do with the search and could not relate the events leading to his arrest.
The Detroit officer is suspended, Worden said.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Mar 10, 2006 11:39:14 GMT -5
3/10/2006 - Documents cast light on the conduct of a Tampa police sergeant under review for his squad's behavior.
TAMPA - Police Sgt. Gene Strickland is waiting to hear what discipline he could face in recent internal affairs investigations calling into question his conduct and leadership.
Documents released this week by the Tampa Police Department show that his decisions as a squad leader have drawn other criticism.
In a May 2005 memo, Strickland told his supervisors that he had directed his squad to manipulate traffic signals at three Tampa Heights intersections with a traffic control device called a "pickle" that allows the user to dictate how long a light stays red.
The operation took place on four or five occasions stretching back to 2004, he said.
Officers kept the stoplights at each intersection red long enough for them to check the license plates of cars and see if they were stolen.
He said he hoped the method of checking tags on stopped cars would allow officers to "box in" the cars and "to negate the probability of vehicular pursuits of stolen cars."
Department officials said the tactic netted no stolen cars. More important, his bosses weren't pleased with his methods.
"In the police business, you have to have a reason to stop somebody," said Chief Steve Hogue. "When you keep somebody at a traffic light beyond the normal cycle of it, then you're essentially detaining that person."
In his memo, Strickland wrote that he usually employed the practice late at night, during light traffic flow. The three intersections he cited: Scott Street at Nebraska Avenue, North Boulevard at Ross Avenue and Florida Avenue at Indiana Street.
Strickland, 49, has had his conduct as a leader questioned again in the months since.
In February, an internal affairs investigation upheld allegations against three other officers who were found to have violated the department's code of conduct and its policy against sexual harassment.
That same investigation found that Strickland, the squad leader and a 25-year department veteran, "never intervened or disciplined the offenders properly," according to the investigation. Tampa police spokeswoman Laura McElroy called it "a very low moment for TPD."
Days later, another inquiry found that Strickland and Cpl. David Watt should have intervened on a traffic stop during which several officers traded curses and insults with a 23-year-old man after pulling him from his car when he refused to sign three citations. The man was also stunned with a Taser, all while hundreds of Ybor City patrons watched.
Another recent IA investigation also found that while Watt was justified in shooting at a 45-year-old man during an undercover drug buy with Strickland in December 2004, the officers were at fault for using guns not authorized by the department.
In his first five years, Strickland received 14 commendations, two minor disciplinary actions and outstanding to above-average ratings on evaluations.
Police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said Strickland has been placed on desk duty while awaiting the conclusion of the disciplinary process. He could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Mar 10, 2006 11:39:14 GMT -5
3/10/2006 - Documents cast light on the conduct of a Tampa police sergeant under review for his squad's behavior.
TAMPA - Police Sgt. Gene Strickland is waiting to hear what discipline he could face in recent internal affairs investigations calling into question his conduct and leadership.
Documents released this week by the Tampa Police Department show that his decisions as a squad leader have drawn other criticism.
In a May 2005 memo, Strickland told his supervisors that he had directed his squad to manipulate traffic signals at three Tampa Heights intersections with a traffic control device called a "pickle" that allows the user to dictate how long a light stays red.
The operation took place on four or five occasions stretching back to 2004, he said.
Officers kept the stoplights at each intersection red long enough for them to check the license plates of cars and see if they were stolen.
He said he hoped the method of checking tags on stopped cars would allow officers to "box in" the cars and "to negate the probability of vehicular pursuits of stolen cars."
Department officials said the tactic netted no stolen cars. More important, his bosses weren't pleased with his methods.
"In the police business, you have to have a reason to stop somebody," said Chief Steve Hogue. "When you keep somebody at a traffic light beyond the normal cycle of it, then you're essentially detaining that person."
In his memo, Strickland wrote that he usually employed the practice late at night, during light traffic flow. The three intersections he cited: Scott Street at Nebraska Avenue, North Boulevard at Ross Avenue and Florida Avenue at Indiana Street.
Strickland, 49, has had his conduct as a leader questioned again in the months since.
In February, an internal affairs investigation upheld allegations against three other officers who were found to have violated the department's code of conduct and its policy against sexual harassment.
That same investigation found that Strickland, the squad leader and a 25-year department veteran, "never intervened or disciplined the offenders properly," according to the investigation. Tampa police spokeswoman Laura McElroy called it "a very low moment for TPD."
Days later, another inquiry found that Strickland and Cpl. David Watt should have intervened on a traffic stop during which several officers traded curses and insults with a 23-year-old man after pulling him from his car when he refused to sign three citations. The man was also stunned with a Taser, all while hundreds of Ybor City patrons watched.
Another recent IA investigation also found that while Watt was justified in shooting at a 45-year-old man during an undercover drug buy with Strickland in December 2004, the officers were at fault for using guns not authorized by the department.
In his first five years, Strickland received 14 commendations, two minor disciplinary actions and outstanding to above-average ratings on evaluations.
Police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said Strickland has been placed on desk duty while awaiting the conclusion of the disciplinary process. He could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
|
|