Deaths and Injuries in Police Custody

[Andrea]

How Fake Cops Got $1.2 Million in Real Weapons

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/07/21/how-fake-cops-got-1-2-million-in-real-weapons?ref=hp-1-112#.Cs5eHRmFT

When you think of a federal sting operation involving weaponry and military gear, the Government Accountability Office doesn’t immediately jump to mind. The office is tasked with auditing other federal agencies to root out fraud and abuse, usually by asking questions and poring over paperwork.

This year, the agency went a little more cowboy. The GAO created a fictitious law enforcement agency — complete with a fake website and a bogus address that traced back to an empty lot — and applied for military-grade equipment from the Department of Defense.

And in less than a week, they got it.

A GAO report issued this week says the agency’s faux cops were able to obtain $1.2 million worth of military gear, including night-vision goggles, simulated M-16A2 rifles and pipe bomb equipment from the Defense Department’s 1033 program, which supplies state and local law enforcement with excess materiel. The rifles and bomb equipment could have been made functional with widely available parts, the report said.

From left, examples of night-vision goggles, a simulated M-16A2 rifle and a pipe bomb trainer obtained from the Department of Defense by the Government Accountability Office through a fictitious law enforcement agency. GAO

“They never did any verification, like visit our ‘location,’ and most of it was by email,” said Zina Merritt, director of the GAO’s defense capabilities and management team, which ran the operation. “It was like getting stuff off of eBay.”

In its response to the sting, the Defense Department promised to tighten its verification procedures, including trying to visit the location of law enforcement agencies that apply and making sure agents picking up supplies have valid identification, the GAO report said. The department also promised to do an internal fraud assessment by April 2018.

A Defense Department spokesman declined to comment further.

The sting operation has its roots in the 2014 fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. At the time, many were surprised to see law enforcement respond to protests with armored trucks, sniper rifles, tear-gas bombs and other weapons of war.

Reporting by The Marshall Project and others found that much of the equipment came from the obscure 1033 program, which dates back to the Clinton era. Any equipment the U.S. military was not using — including Humvees, grenades, scuba-diving gear and even marching-band instruments — was available to local cops who could demonstrate a need.

The program has transferred more than $6 billion worth of supplies to more than 8,600 law enforcement agencies since 1991.

After Ferguson, then-President Barack Obama issued an executive order prohibiting the military from giving away some equipment and deeming other equipment “controlled,” establishing strict oversight and training requirements for law enforcement agencies that wanted it. The order also required a Defense Department and Justice Department working group to ensure oversight.

But since President Donald Trump took office, the group has not met, according to the Constitution Project, a bipartisan thinktank that had been participating in the meetings. Trump has said that he will revoke Obama’s executive order, although he has not yet.

Congress ordered the GAO to look into the program last year. A survey of local law enforcement did not turn up any instances of outright abuse at the state level but did find one illegitimate agency that had applied as a federal entity and was approved for equipment, Merritt said.

That’s when the agency launched the sting. Contrary to its public image, GAO has snagged other agencies with undercover work in the past, including an investigation of the Affordable Care Act in which the agency submitted fictitious applications and was approved for subsidized healthcare coverage.

In this case, the GAO created the fake law enforcement agency — whose name the agency would not reveal — and claimed it did high-level security and counterterrorism work. Once approved, the agency easily obtained the items from a Defense Department warehouse of unused military goods.

Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, which lists rescinding Obama’s executive order one of its top priorities for the Trump administration, said the possibility of fraud does not indict the whole program.

“It suggests only that the U.S. military is one of the world’s largest bureaucracies and as such is going to have some lapses in material control,” Pasco said. “Law enforcement is going to get that equipment and we’re going to use it, to protect both officers and civilians. And if we don’t get it free from the military, we’re going to have to buy it with taxpayer dollars.”

But to Madhuri Grewal, senior counsel for the Constitution Project, and other opponents of police militarization, the problem is more fundamental.

“There just aren’t many everyday policing uses for military equipment like this,” Grewal said. “The question is why can real law enforcement agencies get some of this stuff, let alone fake ones?”

Andrea: Bolding mine

[Andrea]

Two Baltimore detectives plead guilty in racketeering case

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/us/baltimore-police-guilty-pleas/index.html

Two former Baltimore police officers pleaded guilty Friday to federal racketeering charges, admitting that they committed armed robberies, made fraudulent overtime claims and filed false affidavits.

Detectives Maurice Ward and Evodio Hendrix were among seven Baltimore officers indicted in March as part of an alleged conspiracy involving those and other crimes. The seven officers, members of Baltimore's Gun Trace Task Force, were accused of stopping people -- some of whom were not suspected of any crimes -- seizing their money, and pocketing it.

In one instance, Hendrix and Ward, allegedly with another officer, stole $17,000 in cash from a suspect's house following a SWAT raid.

In another instance, several officers stopped a nursing home maintenance supervisor and stole $1,500 that he was planning to use to pay his rent, according to the indictment.

The stolen amounts range from $200 to $200,000, authorities said.
"These are really robberies by people who are wearing police uniforms," said then-Maryland US Attorney Rod Rosenstein in March.

Attorneys for Ward and Hendrix did not respond to requests for comment on Friday. A spokesperson for the Baltimore Police Department said the men are no longer employed with the department.

The other five officers included in the indictment are awaiting trial, scheduled for January 2018.

The indictment said the seven officers schemed to steal money, property and narcotics by detaining people, entering residences, conducting traffic stops and swearing out false search warrant affidavits.

The investigation began a year ago and included electronic surveillance of the officers.

Hendrix and Ward committed "large-scale time and attendance fraud," according to prosecutors, a charged leveled at their five co-defendants as well.

In one instance, Ward, Hendrix and another officer were paid for two days of work while on vacation in the Dominican Republic, according to the indictment.

Two of the officers were heard on a phone call boasting about their colleagues, including Hendrix and Ward, committing overtime fraud for "a whole year" and making "at least $8,000 to $10,000 a month," the indictment states.

"These are 1930's style gangsters as far as I'm concerned," Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis said in February. "This is a punch in the gut for the Baltimore Police Department."

The pleas come as the State's Attorney's office reviews about 100 cases in a separate investigation sparked by body camera footage allegedly showing a Baltimore police officer planting evidence at the scene of a January drug arrest.

It is also about seven months after the Justice Department, under former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the city of Baltimore announced a consent decree mandating police reforms in Baltimore.

That followed a DOJ report which said unconstitutional practices by some of Baltimore's officers lead to a disproportionate rates of stops, searches and arrests of black residents, and excessive use of force against juveniles and those with mental health disabilities.

[homoe]

I see Betsy Hodges has thrown her Police chef under the bus! By what I saw on the news, I thinking the voters will do the same to her!

[*Anya*]

They must have watched the Jonah Hill movie (War Dogs) or read the book first. These two guys exploited holes in bidding on government contracts and bought weapons to sell.

Watching it, I kept thinking, "This didn't really or couldn't really happen, could it?"

Our tax dollars at work:

"With the war in Iraq raging on, a young man (Jonah Hill) offers his childhood friend a chance to make big bucks by becoming an international arms dealer.

Together, they exploit a government initiative that allows businesses to bid on U.S. military contracts. Starting small allows the duo to rake in money and live the high life. They soon find themselves in over their heads after landing a $300 million deal to supply Afghan forces, a deal that puts them in business with some very shady people."

From IMDb.com

Originally Posted by Andrea

How Fake Cops Got $1.2 Million in Real Weapons

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/07/21/how-fake-cops-got-1-2-million-in-real-weapons?ref=hp-1-112#.Cs5eHRmFT

When you think of a federal sting operation involving weaponry and military gear, the Government Accountability Office doesn’t immediately jump to mind. The office is tasked with auditing other federal agencies to root out fraud and abuse, usually by asking questions and poring over paperwork.

This year, the agency went a little more cowboy. The GAO created a fictitious law enforcement agency — complete with a fake website and a bogus address that traced back to an empty lot — and applied for military-grade equipment from the Department of Defense.

And in less than a week, they got it.

A GAO report issued this week says the agency’s faux cops were able to obtain $1.2 million worth of military gear, including night-vision goggles, simulated M-16A2 rifles and pipe bomb equipment from the Defense Department’s 1033 program, which supplies state and local law enforcement with excess materiel. The rifles and bomb equipment could have been made functional with widely available parts, the report said.

From left, examples of night-vision goggles, a simulated M-16A2 rifle and a pipe bomb trainer obtained from the Department of Defense by the Government Accountability Office through a fictitious law enforcement agency. GAO

“They never did any verification, like visit our ‘location,’ and most of it was by email,” said Zina Merritt, director of the GAO’s defense capabilities and management team, which ran the operation. “It was like getting stuff off of eBay.”

In its response to the sting, the Defense Department promised to tighten its verification procedures, including trying to visit the location of law enforcement agencies that apply and making sure agents picking up supplies have valid identification, the GAO report said. The department also promised to do an internal fraud assessment by April 2018.

A Defense Department spokesman declined to comment further.

The sting operation has its roots in the 2014 fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. At the time, many were surprised to see law enforcement respond to protests with armored trucks, sniper rifles, tear-gas bombs and other weapons of war.

Reporting by The Marshall Project and others found that much of the equipment came from the obscure 1033 program, which dates back to the Clinton era. Any equipment the U.S. military was not using — including Humvees, grenades, scuba-diving gear and even marching-band instruments — was available to local cops who could demonstrate a need.

The program has transferred more than $6 billion worth of supplies to more than 8,600 law enforcement agencies since 1991.

After Ferguson, then-President Barack Obama issued an executive order prohibiting the military from giving away some equipment and deeming other equipment “controlled,” establishing strict oversight and training requirements for law enforcement agencies that wanted it. The order also required a Defense Department and Justice Department working group to ensure oversight.

But since President Donald Trump took office, the group has not met, according to the Constitution Project, a bipartisan thinktank that had been participating in the meetings. Trump has said that he will revoke Obama’s executive order, although he has not yet.

Congress ordered the GAO to look into the program last year. A survey of local law enforcement did not turn up any instances of outright abuse at the state level but did find one illegitimate agency that had applied as a federal entity and was approved for equipment, Merritt said.

That’s when the agency launched the sting. Contrary to its public image, GAO has snagged other agencies with undercover work in the past, including an investigation of the Affordable Care Act in which the agency submitted fictitious applications and was approved for subsidized healthcare coverage.

In this case, the GAO created the fake law enforcement agency — whose name the agency would not reveal — and claimed it did high-level security and counterterrorism work. Once approved, the agency easily obtained the items from a Defense Department warehouse of unused military goods.

Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, which lists rescinding Obama’s executive order one of its top priorities for the Trump administration, said the possibility of fraud does not indict the whole program.

“It suggests only that the U.S. military is one of the world’s largest bureaucracies and as such is going to have some lapses in material control,” Pasco said. “Law enforcement is going to get that equipment and we’re going to use it, to protect both officers and civilians. And if we don’t get it free from the military, we’re going to have to buy it with taxpayer dollars.”

But to Madhuri Grewal, senior counsel for the Constitution Project, and other opponents of police militarization, the problem is more fundamental.

“There just aren’t many everyday policing uses for military equipment like this,” Grewal said. “The question is why can real law enforcement agencies get some of this stuff, let alone fake ones?”

Andrea: Bolding mine

[Andrea]

Officers kill man with no active warrants at wrong house

http://m.wmctv.com/wmctv/db_401748/contentdetail.htm?full=true&contentguid=AUdiWnEV&p n=&ps=#display

SOUTHAVEN, MS (WMC) - Documents show that Southaven officers went to the wrong house to serve a warrant on Monday, which resulted in the shooting death of a man who did not have any active warrants out for his arrest.

A warrant out of Tate County shows Samuel Pearman was wanted for domestic assault. But, when Southaven officers arrived on Surrey Lane to arrest Pearman, they did not show up to the correct house.

Instead, officers missed their target by 36 feet. Those 36 feet made all the difference to Ismael Lopez and his wife.

"Someone didn't take the time to analyze the address," attorney Murray Wells, who represents the family, said. "This is incredibly tragic and embarrassing to this police department that they can't read house numbers."

Wells pointed out that the house officers should have gone to, the one where Pearman was located, had a large 'P' on the door. While officials sort out what happened, the man they were looking for took to social media.

Pearson even posted on Facebook Live on Tuesday afternoon claiming he didn't do anything wrong.

"They made me out to be something I'm not," he said. "I haven't hurt her. She's the one who slapped me."

Ismael Lopez and his wife, Claudia Linares, were asleep inside their house across the street from Pearson when officers arrived.

Linares said her husband went to the door to see what was happening outside. That's when she heard gunshots and by the time she reached her husband, he was already dead.

"Bullet holes suggest they shot through the door," Wells said.

Officers said Lopez came to the door pointing a gun at them. Those officers claim to have asked Lopez multiple times to drop the gun before they started shooting.

But, neighbors said they didn't hear anything like that.

"I didn't hear yelling," neighbor Nicholas Tramel said.

Tramel's room is right next to the Lopez home. He said he never heard police tell Lopez to put his rifle down.

Wells implied that officers had reasons not to tell the truth in their account of what happened. Namely, because they could face consequences for shooting Lopez. He also said that Claudia, who was the only one on the property who could not be held responsible for shooting Lopez, did not hear any commands or instructions being given. In addition, Wells said Lopez never pointed a gun at the officers.

"There was a gun on the premises, but the man did not have the gun with him when police shot him," he said.

Wells said Claudia Lopez wants justice and for the world to know that her husband was a good man.

"When they came to my office, it wasn't money they sought. They wanted the story to come out," he said. "What they want everyone to know is who he was and what happened."

Wells described Lopez as a hardworking employee who, up until about four years ago, worked for City of Bartlett as a mechanic.

"They've been in that home for 13 years. The only time the police had ever been there was when they had been robbed," Wells said. "No criminal history whatsoever. A long-standing employee of the city of Bartlett, mechanic. Loved in the neighborhood."

He continued, "This could have happened to anyone. Her [Claudia's] sense of justice doesn't really come from a place of anger, but of confusion."

[Andrea]

Cellphone videos raise questions about Kentucky State Police cover-up in man’s arrest

http://www.wdrb.com/story/36066730/sunday-edition-cellphone-videos-raise-questions-about-kentucky-state-police-cover-up-in-mans-arrest

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) – The testimony in front of a Harlan County grand jury last summer left little doubt Lewis Lyttle did not follow orders, became combative and assaulted Kentucky State Police officers as they tried to arrest him outside a hospital.

“We was trying to get him handcuffed and I think Detective Miller was trying to hold his legs to keep him from kicking and he ended up getting kicked too in the chest,” Trooper Jimmy Halcomb testified on Aug. 1, 2016, according to a recording of the grand jury hearing.

“We finally had to force the handcuffs on him because he wasn’t complying with anything.”

But cellphone videos and more than a dozen sworn statements from eyewitnesses paint a different picture, and are the focus of a wrongful arrest and assault lawsuit against police.

State police said an internal investigation completed last month concluded that one of the officers used excessive force and was suspended four months and demoted.

Lyttle’s attorneys argue, however, the investigation didn’t go nearly far enough, and that evidence shows state troopers lied to prosecute Lyttle and tried to cover up their actions from the June 15, 2016 arrest.

“There were several glaring omissions in (Halcomb’s) testimony,” said defense attorney Douglas Asher, who represented Lyttle in his criminal case. “The sad part of it is, that if it weren’t for these witnesses, this old man would be in the penitentiary.”

Lyttle, 68, is a former construction worker who has been disabled since 1992 with a back injury.

On the day of the incident, Lyttle left his home in St. Charles, Virginia, to drive his neighbor to Harlan Appalachian Regional Hospital because she was having problems with chronic bronchitis.

Someone called the police to complain that Lyttle was exposing himself in the hospital parking lot.

When the first witness video begins, Lyttle can be seen sitting on the ground, his hands already handcuffed behind his back as Halcomb and KSP Sgt. Rob Farley hover over him.

In an instant, Farley reaches down and slaps Lyttle across the face, sending him to the pavement.

The woman who filmed the incident on her smartphone from an office overlooking the parking lot and those watching with her can be heard gasping after Lyttle is struck.

“He had no business smacking him in the face,” one woman can be heard saying on the video.

“I bet that’s part of the movie, reckon?” another said, talking about a crew filming in Harlan at the same time.

A second witness, also using a smartphone, captured what happened next.

The officers pick Lyttle up and uncuff him. Farley stands in front of Lyttle and Halcomb behind him. Then, two other KSP officers arrive.

Because the video was filmed inside an office building, it was unclear what was said between Lyttle and the officers, but Lyttle doesn't appear to make any aggressive movements toward them.

Unlike some local departments such as Louisville Metro, state police do not equip their officers with body cameras to record their interactions with the public.

After about 30 seconds, Farley reaches out and grabs Lyttle by his beard, knees him in the stomach and yanks him to the ground.

As Lyttle lies on the pavement, Farley punches him while another officer kicks him, the video shows.

“They are just punching him, beating the s--- out of him,” said the man recording the incident from the window of a nearby building. “Four cops for one man, and as old as he is.”

The officers then handcuffed Lyttle, again, and arrested him.

When he testified to the grand jury, Halcomb did not disclose that he had successfully handcuffed Farley before other officers arrived.

Instead, he tells grand jurors Lyttle resisted, kicking him, and the trooper “hollered for assistance.”

“So it took all of you all to try and get him handcuffed?” the prosecutor asked Halcomb.

“Yes,” Halcomb said.

Halcomb also did not tell jurors about how the officers slapped, punched and kicked Lyttle.

Based on Halcomb’s account, the grand jury indicted Lyttle on charges of assaulting Halcomb and Det. Kevin Miller, driving drunk, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and menacing, among other charges.

Both Lyttle’s criminal attorney and the lawyers representing him in the civil case claim Halcomb lied and intentionally omitted evidence.

“Trooper Halcomb said (Lyttle) was resisting arrest and that he kicked two of the troopers, but the video clearly shows it was the troopers who were kicking Mr. Lyttle as he was laying on the ground,” said David Ward, a Louisville attorney representing Lyttle in the lawsuit, which was filed two days after the incident on June 17, 2016.

The lawsuit remains pending.

“Mr. Lyttle did nothing, he complied with all of the officers’ requests and, during that period of time, he was submissive with them. And as a result of that, he was assaulted, brutally assaulted, for no reason,” Ward said.

Case dismissed

The criminal case against Lyttle unraveled and in January, prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss the felony charges.

Prosecutors based the decision on evidence that came to light after Lyttle was indicted. That evidence included the two cellphone videos of the incident and 16 sworn statements by witnesses who said Lyttle was the one assaulted.

Harlan County Commonwealth’s Attorney Parker Boggs, who handled the criminal case, did not return phone messages seeking comment.

In February, eight months after the arrest, state police launched an investigation “shortly after the events were brought to our attention,” Trooper Josh Brashears, a KSP spokesman, said in a statement emailed to WDRB News.

In a report completed last month, investigators found Farley used excessive force. He was suspended for 120 days and demoted from sergeant to trooper.

Brashears wrote that troopers were called to the hospital after Lyttle was accused of exposing himself to a juvenile and he then became combative, resisted arrest and spit on troopers.

“But even under these circumstances, KSP officers are trained and expected to uphold professional standards of conduct and must be held accountable for violations,” Brashears wrote in an email to WDRB.

The state police internal investigators questioned the other officers involved with Lyttle’s arrest and cleared them of wrongdoing. Lyttle still has a misdemeanor indecent exposure case pending in Harlan District Court.

And attorneys for the troopers said video of Lyttle’s arrest represents only an incomplete snapshot of what happened.

“You can’t form a conclusion based on just the video,” said attorney Scott Miller, who represents Trooper Kevin Miller, who is accused of kicking Lyttle.

Attorney Jason Nemes, who represents Halcomb, said “we believe our guy did what was appropriate.” Nemes is also a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives, where he represents a Middletown-area district.

The attorneys declined to go into detail. Lawyers for the other troopers declined to comment.

In court records, Halcomb said in his investigative summary that after he “forcibly cuffed” Lyttle and sat him on the ground, the trooper noticed the cuffs were too tight and Lyttle’s wrists were bleeding.

When Farley arrived, Halcomb said he decided to uncuff Lyttle and reapply the handcuffs for the defendant’s comfort, according to Halcomb’s summary of the arrest.

After taking the left cuff off, Lyttle “clinched his fist and pulled it back,” prompting Farley to grab his beard and “put his hand up,” Farley wrote in his summary.

When Lyttle would not let Halcomb cuff him, Farley “applied a knee strike” and officers took him to the ground, Halcomb wrote.

Lyttle then “started kicking and being aggressive” and troopers forcibly cuffed him, according to Halcomb.

In a response to the lawsuit, troopers said they were reacting to Lyttle’s conduct and trying to get him to comply with being handcuffed and arrested, claiming he was “fiercely combative, spit at the officers, kicked the officers, tried to draw back his fist ... and refused to comply with repeated lawful commands from the officers to submit to the attempt to peacefully arrest him.”

"Had to fight him"

But the KSP findings, and Halcomb’s investigative summary, are just part of a larger cover-up by state police, Ward said.

He pointed out that several witnesses provided affidavits to investigators saying Lyttle was not aggressive with troopers, didn’t resist arrest and never spit at them.

The other officers should have been punished, and state police failed to hold Halcomb accountable for lying to the grand jury, Ward said.

The lawsuit argues that Halcomb uncuffed Lyttle and Farley began “verbally taunting him in order to provoke him to fight. When Lyttle refused to fight, Farley became infuriated, grabbed Lyttle's long, white beard, violently jerked his head downwards, and then kneed him in the groin area.”

Ward also argues that KSP knew about the alleged use of excessive force long before February, noting multiple witnesses called police during the arrests claiming Lyttle was being assaulted.

One witness identified Farley specifically and told a dispatcher in a 911 call during the incident that she wanted to talk to a supervisor about what she saw, according to a recording of the call in court records.

Lyttle’s attorneys also point to the murky circumstances surrounding the resignation of Lt. Jason Adams, the state police supervisor who immediately followed up on the incident. They claim Adams coached the officers on what to say to avoid culpability.

Adams called the hospital on the day of the arrest and asked for any video, saying his troopers “ended up arresting a guy over there and they had to fight him,” according to audio of a phone call in court records.

The lawsuit claims Adams helped the troopers draft “untruthful memorandums regarding the assault of Lyttle. These memorandums were crafted so that” the troopers “would not be disciplined or criminally charged for their conduct.”

On Jan. 13, 2017, the day the charges against Lyttle were dropped, Adams resigned. On his resignation letter, KSP officials wrote that he would not be considered for rehire as a trooper “or in any other capacity.”

Another note on the resignation letter said: “Based on the circumstances surrounding Lt. Adams’ retirement, I am unable to recommend him” for a program that allows retired troopers to work part-time. The notes do not go into further detail.

One of the hospital employees interviewed by Adams a few weeks after the incident said in an affidavit she believed Adams was trying to protect the troopers rather than find out what really happened.

Misty Mullins said Adams interviewed her about what she saw and “for someone who is supposed to be an un-biased fact finder, (he) went out of his way to inflame my emotions against the old man,” according to her affidavit. “In fact, I think he was nothing but biased.”

She claims Adams told her “that if that old man had exposed himself to my child and I had beaten the old man up that ‘we’ (KSP) … would not even arrest you for it.

“I told Lt. Adams that it didn’t matter what the old man had been accused of, the officers couldn’t just beat him like that,” she said in her sworn statement.

She said Lt. Adams theorized that while he didn’t know what Farley was thinking, he had a young daughter and “he was just upset over what the old man had done (allegedly).”

Mullins wrote that several of her coworkers who also witnessed the incident would not talk to Adams “because it will all be covered up like it normally is and nothing will be done about it anyway.”

The findings by state police also ignore conduct by the other troopers, Ward said.

“To only discipline Sgt. Farley for what occurred, and not the other troopers – who were on video kicking a helpless old man – is troubling,” he said.

The lawsuit is on hold as Lyttle’s attorneys last month asked a federal judge to order Kentucky State Police to turn over records from the internal investigation.

“The ultimate goal in filing the suit is to hold the troopers accountable for their actions,” Ward said. “What they did was reprehensible and … they should be subject to the same laws as everybody else.”

[Andrea]

A cop stopped a car for speeding - then pointed a gun at a passenger for more than 9 minutes

http://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article165788587.html

A video taken during a traffic stop in California is drawing debate over the officer's decision to keep his gun pointed at the passenger for more than nine minutes.

The stop took place last Wednesday morning along U.S. Route 101, south of San Jose, after an officer noticed a car pass him going 85 mph, according to the Campbell Police Department.

After stopping the car for speeding, the officer requested the driver's license and additional paperwork. The driver and passenger spent several minutes looking for the paperwork before the officer walked back to his motorcycle to write a citation, police said.

It was at that point their stories diverged. According to police, the passenger began reaching "under his seat."

"It is not clear why the passenger chose to reach under the seat since the officer was not requesting any other paperwork," Campbell police said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the passenger's unexpected movement towards the bottom of the seat, caused the officer to perceive a threat and draw his handgun."

However, a man sitting in the vehicle's passenger seat - the target of the officer's gun - maintained throughout the incident that he had simply been reaching for some papers on the floor to try to find the vehicle's license and registration, as requested.

A video that apparently was recorded by a woman in the car begins as the male passenger is expressing incredulity that the officer has pulled a gun.

"Wow," the passenger says in the video, laughing. "We're looking for the f-ing paperwork, bro. Oh my God."

"I understand that," the officer replies. "Don't move, all right?"

The passenger sounds indignant as his hands remain on his lap. "Why are you still pointing that gun at me, bro?" he asks the officer. "Why are you still pointing the gun at me, though? Record this sh-t. Why are you still pointing the gun at me, bro? My hands are right here."

"I understand," the officer says.

"No, you don't understand," the passenger protests, as the officer tells him to relax. "No, I'm not going to relax. Get the f-king gun off me."

A woman in the car asks the officer: "Is that really necessary? His hands are both out."

The officer says that it is necessary as he waits for backup to arrive, eliciting another round of protests from the vehicle's passengers. For several more minutes, they remain at an impasse, with the passenger muttering periodic complaints as music plays in the background. The entire time, the officer's gun is trained on the man.

Toward the end, the officer relays something through the radio and the passenger begins protesting again. At one point in the video, the officer mentions that there had been a screwdriver on the floor of the car.

"Why are you trying to make this bigger than it is, bro?" the passenger says. "We complied with everything you asked for."

The video lasts a little more than nine minutes total, and the officer's gun is pointed at the male passenger the entire time. Police said in a statement the officer had to wait longer than usual for backup to arrive "and provide assistance in safely resolving the situation."

"We understand that it is never a comfortable position to have a gun pointed at you, regardless of whether it is a police officer," police said. "Unfortunately, the length of time that the officer's gun was drawn lasted much longer than normal based on his location."

Police said the traffic stop was resolved amicably.

"In the end, the officer had a conversation with the passenger of the vehicle explaining his actions and why the gun was pointed at him," police said. "The passenger indicated he understood why it happened and actually apologized to the officer. Both the driver and the passenger were issued citations and were allowed to leave."

However, the video was uploaded to Facebook last Saturday with a caption that suggested there may not have been as much understanding as police thought. (Note: The video contains profanity.)

"CAMPBELL COP IS A B--!!!!!!!!!!" wrote a Facebook user named "Feo Mas" who identified himself as the passenger in the video. "(He) pulled out a gun cuz I reached for paperwork he asked for."

A week later, the video had amassed nearly 2 million views on Facebook, as well as tens of thousands more on YouTube. Online, a debate raged: Several people defended the police officer and said they felt the passenger should have remained quiet, while others were outraged at how long the officer had trained his gun on the passenger despite the man's hands being visible at all times.

Police departments are under increased scrutiny for violent, often fatal interactions with suspects. So far this year, 594 people have been shot and killed by police, according to The Washington Post's Fatal Force database. Last year, police shot and killed 963 people.

The Facebook user who posted the video did not respond to an interview request sent by Facebook Sunday.

The Campbell Police Department said in a statement it was aware of the video circulating online, as well as the thousands of comments surrounding it. Police also cited an officer-involved shooting that had taken place in nearby Los Banos, California, as an example of the "unfortunate reality" that people sometimes attack police.

"As an agency, we can understand the response to the Facebook video, and that is why we have and will continue engaging our community," police said. "The comments on the Facebook video bring up a lot of different viewpoints about how the officer could have responded differently or used different tactics. Our officers receive a tremendous amount of training on a consistent basis and that training is what dictates our response. This is intended to protect our officers as well as those they come in contact with."

Police said they had reviewed footage from the officer's body cam, which included the beginning and end of the incident not shown in the Facebook video. The department did not release any footage from the officer's camera and did not immediately respond to an email Sunday.

"We are thankful that this incident resolved itself with no one getting injured and hope that this additional information provides clarification," police said.

[Andrea]

Deputies Go Unpunished for Invasive Cavity Search on Houston Roadside

https://www.texasobserver.org/cops-go-free-warrantless-body-cavity-search-houston-roadside/amp/

The courts have long ruled that warrantless body cavity searches are, in most circumstances, unconstitutional. Impromptu roadside anal and vaginal probes are prohibited by both state law and policies adopted by many of the state’s largest law enforcement agencies, including the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean cops who engage in warrantless roadside cavity searches will always face consequences. This month, Harris County prosecutors dropped criminal charges against two Harris County sheriff’s deputies accused of helping vaginally probe Charnesia Corley after they smelled weed during a June 2015 traffic stop in north Houston. The sheriff’s office has already cleared both deputies of any wrongdoing, and both are expected to stay with the department. One of them could even soon return to patrol duty.

That’s what prompted the attorney handling Corley’s federal lawsuit against the county to release dash-cam footage on Monday that he says proves she was subjected to an illegal search. The video, first published by the Houston Chronicle, appears to show the deputies forcing Corley face-first on the pavement near her car before spreading her legs and shining a flashlight around her genitals.

Corley’s attorney, Sam Cammack, also called for officials to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue charges against the deputies. In a phone call with the Observer this past weekend, ahead of the video’s release, Cammack called the footage “undeniable proof this woman was violated.”

The deputies’ attorneys have claimed they “never penetrated” Corley during the stop, something that the dash-cam footage released Monday doesn’t seem to prove or disprove. In a response filed in the federal lawsuit, Harris County attorneys deny the deputies ever conducted a body cavity search, but rather forced Corley to the ground during a “visual strip search.” Natasha Sinclair, chief of the DA’s civil rights division, which investigates allegations against police officers, told the Observer that while grand jurors didn’t think the deputies committed any crime, “We don’t condone this type of search at all. This is by no means us saying this is an appropriate way to conduct a search.”

The courts have long ruled that the kind of warrantless search Corley says she endured is only justified when police can show that waiting for a judge’s approval would have resulted in “imminent loss or destruction of evidence,” which the county hasn’t even argued in Corley’s case.

However, roadside probes like Corley’s have surfaced in state and federal courts across Texas in recent years. In 2014, a North Texas state trooper pleaded guilty to two counts of official oppression after sticking her hand inside the pants of two women on the side of the George Bush Turnpike while searching for drugs. Even after DPS updated its policy to ban warrantless roadside cavity searches, drivers still complained of deputies probing them during traffic stops. In 2015, state lawmakers passed a new law requiring cops to obtain search warrants before conducting roadside body cavity searches.

That law, which went into effect three months after deputies strip-searched Corley in a Texaco parking lot, carries no criminal penalties for law enforcement officers who violate it.

Citing the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, Sinclair wouldn’t explain why her office dropped charges against the deputies in Corley’s case earlier this month, other than to say her office had discovered new evidence they presented to another grand jury, which on August 4 cleared the deputies of any wrongdoing. “I’m prohibited from commenting on exactly what that content was,” she told the Observer.

Cammack meanwhile bristles that the deputies, who were both cleared of wrongdoing by an internal sheriff’s office investigation, will likely remain with the department. In a statement published by the Chronicle on Monday, Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said, “I understand and respect the community’s concerns” regarding Corley’s treatment. Gonzalez said both deputies are expected to remain with the department. One of them, he said, “will be allowed to return to patrol duties.”

Cammack says that’s an unacceptable outcome. “This woman was half-naked, handcuffed and face-down on the ground when they penetrated her,” he said. “That deserves some kind of accountability.”

[Andrea]

California prison psychologist alleges guards locked her in with a convicted rapist

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article167322442.html

A California prison psychologist has filed a lawsuit against the state alleging she was threatened and demoted after she reported mistreatment of gay and transgender inmates at a correctional facility in Vacaville.

On two occasions, psychologist Lori Jespersen alleges, a correctional officer locked her in a confinement area with dangerous criminals after she filed complaints on behalf of transgender inmates at the California Medical Facility.

“The shocking nature of (the corrections department’s) retaliation against Dr. Jespersen – trapping her in units with notoriously dangerous prisoners, soliciting prisoners to harm her, and more” compelled her to take a one-month leave from her job in 2016, the lawsuit says.

Jespersen, 41, has worked for the corrections department since 2008 and at the Vacaville prison for the past eight years. She is a married lesbian who claims that the prison subjected her to a hostile work environment, illegally retaliated against her and violated state whistleblower protection laws by punishing her after she attempted to report misconduct.

Representatives for the corrections department and the federal program that oversees California prison health care declined to comment on the lawsuit because they had not seen it. The lawsuit was filed late Monday at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Jespersen’s attorneys, Felicia Medina and Jennifer Orthwein, said the psychologist wants her lawsuit to compel the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to better protect gay and transgender inmates, who according to studies are more likely to experience unwanted sexual contact in prison than the general population.

Jespersen wants “to fight for members of her community that are being horribly treated and abused at the CMF. For her, this is about seeing people be held accountable,” Orthwein said.

The lawsuit describes a number of incidents in which Jespersen believed prison employees were complicit in the abuse of gay and transgender inmates. It says she attempted to report the incidents to prison officials and to outside state departments but believed her complaints did not receive appropriate attention.

Her allegations include:

▪ A correctional officer failed to lock a shower door in March 2016, which enabled a prisoner to rape a gay inmate.

▪ An officer in June 2016 prevented transgender inmates from attending a therapy group and insulted them. The correctional officer reportedly told the transgender women, “You’re no woman ... your breasts can’t give milk and you will never have a man” and “I don’t agree with your lifestyle and I never will, and this is a men’s prison, you are not ‘she.’ ”

▪ Correctional officers have compelled transgender inmates to strip in the open and denied them privacy screens. Correctional officers also have used derogatory language around transgender inmates.

▪ Three prison employees in July 2014 “outted” a transgender inmate by disclosing personal information about her on Facebook. The prison employees referred to the inmate as “he/she” and “that thing,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit describes two instances in which Jespersen said she feared physical harm after reporting alleged misconduct. In one, she was locked in a housing unit with a convicted rapist after she filed a report of a transgender inmate being mistreated by a correctional officer.

In the other, she was locked in a housing unit with two prisoners a day after she filed a complaint on behalf of a transgender inmate. In both cases, she was “unsupervised, alone and without access to a safety alarm.”

Jespersen also reported that a correctional officer insulted her in a manner that was intended to provoke violence against her by inmates. In one instance, the correctional officer allegedly told inmates, “She needs to be reminded where she’s at.”

Jespersen took a leave of absence in June 2016. When she returned, she was given a desk job where she does not work directly with inmates, the lawsuit says.