Category: Police Professionalism

Scalia’s New Professionalism Roundup

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007
  • An Austin cop with a spotty history of being rude and overly aggressive pulls man over for going 5 mph over the speed limit. Within 45 seconds, the cop tasers the motorist, who he said was “argumentative.” In the subsequent investigation, the cop said he hadn’t eaten and conceded he has a medical condition that “makes you kind of edgy.” Internal affairs cleared him of all wrongdoing. The city’s new police chief does at least seem to have a better grasp on reality.
  • Former cop says police made excuses to cover for a fellow officer who killed a woman in an off-duty accident.
  • The state of Massachusetts is having a difficult time with a study to determine if black drivers are disproportionately pulled over because half the state’s police departments won’t comply with the study’s guidelines. This is about par for the course when it comes to police tracking their own mistakes. The Justice Department has been trying to collect data on police shootings for more than a decade now. It hasn’t been able to compile anything useful because most of the country’s police departments refuse to keep detailed statistics. Of course, we have very detailed statistics of police getting shot while on duty.
  • NYC cops arrest two men after a brawl in Yonkers. After discovering the two are off-duty cops, they simply let them go.
  • For good measure, here’s a positive–if a bit strange–story about a police officer who issued himself a ticket for inadvertently passing a stopped school bus.
  • Scalia’s New Professionalism

    Tuesday, September 25th, 2007

    Here’s a charming little website where cops nominate one another for the “Dick of the Month” award.

    Nominees are cops who dared breach police “professional courtesy,” and wrote a ticket to another cop whom he caught breaking the law.

    Thanks to several Hit & Run regulars for the tip.

    Update in St. George

    Thursday, September 13th, 2007

    So remember the kid who videotaped the cop chewing him out?

    The good news is that the officers is on unpaid leave, and may be fired. Or even prosecuted.

    The bad news is that the video from the camera mounted on the officer’s squad car has mysteriously disappeared. Golly. Wonder how that happened?

    Yet another reason why it should always be legal to videotape on-duty police officers.

    MORE: Turns out that the cop in question was able to get a judge to expunge his criminal record….so he could become a police officer. Those records were also helpfully sealed, making it difficult for the public to learn that, for example, the cop was once arrested for assault.

    Oh, and the town’s police chief totally denies those allegations that he sexually harassed a woman during a traffic stop. But he was suspended without pay, put on probation and then….given a job as police chief in another jurisdiction.

    Ah, professionalism. You go, Justice Scalia!

    (Update links via Billy Beck.)

    New Professionalism 1

    Monday, September 10th, 2007

    “I could make up nine things to charge you with.”

    New Professionalism 2

    Monday, September 10th, 2007

    Portland cop was playing video games and posting and chat rooms while on the job. But get a load of what he was posting:

    According to the Portland Tribune article in Friday’s newspaper, the deputy, using the screen name Trafalgar, said, “Seeing someone get Tasered is second only to pulling the trigger. That is money – puts a smile on your face.”

    In another chat, the Tribune article claimed the deputy said, “I crushed a dude’s eye socket from repeatedly punching him in it and then I charged him with menacing and harassment (of me). He took a plea to get away from me. He shoulda picked somebody else to try and fight.”

    The New Professionalism

    Saturday, September 8th, 2007

    This is unreal:

    An undercover cop’s use of a stolen gift card was caught on a security camera and recorded in store receipts, and he admitted it in statements to investigators.

    But after more than two full days of deliberation, an Oakland Circuit Court jury returned a not guilty verdict in the case of Richard Craze in Judge Colleen O’Brien’s courtroom. He had faced up to five years in prison if convicted.

    The 12-year Madison Heights Police veteran was charged with larceny in a building in the theft of a $125 Home Depot gift card he picked up during a Pontiac drug raid in March. He was assigned to the Oakland County Narcotics Enforcement Team (NET) task force at the time.

    “We hoped the jury would weigh all of the evidence,” assistant Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney Paul Walton said outside the courtroom. “But you can never predict an outcome

    “You might have one person who, for whatever reason, just has trouble with convicting a police officer with a crime, regardless of your evidence. Here we apparently had two.”

    The quote from his attorney is great:

    “The card didn’t have someone’s name on it or an amount on it,” said Rickel. “He wasn’t trying to deprive anyone of anything. He picked it up, and when he went to the store he used it. The jury agreed that intent to steal from the homeowner was never established.”

    He will now sue to get his job back.

    Scalia’s New Professionalism Roundup

    Monday, September 3rd, 2007
  • Cop apparently shooting at a snake in a tree accidentally kills a five-year-old boy.
  • Police dog dies after being left in officer’s car for 13 hours in 109-degree heat.
  • Excellent series in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on how police in Washington state are routinely let off by fellow officers when stopped for DWI. Some were driving drunk in their squad cars.
  • Illinois police chief indicted for a 10-year racketeering scam.
  • All sorts of shenanigans going on at the Jupiter, Florida police department.
  • Just as a federal probe is underway investigating the Yonkers, NY police department for discrimination and excessive force, a man was allegedly confronted, arrested, and roughed up by police using racial slurs while walking his dog, all in front of his 8-year-old daughter. There’s video, and witness accounts support the man’s family’s account of the arrest.
  • Isaac Singletary Update

    Monday, July 30th, 2007

    Singletary, you’ll remember, is the elderly man in Florida who, upon seeing drug dealers on his lawn, came out with a gun to scare them off.

    Unfortunately, they weren’t drug dealers, but undercover cops posing as drug dealers. They shot Singletary dead. Even the police and town officials concede that Singletary was involved in no criminal activity, and was merely attempting to protect his property from what he thought were criminals.

    I’ve explained in the past that I think Singletary’s death is drug war collateral damage. His death is the entirely predictable consequence of having crimes on the books that the police have to break in order to enforce, and of ratcheting up the stakes for those crimes by declaring a “war” on them.

    It now looks like
    the cops who killed Singletary won’t face criminal charges. I’m a bit conflicted on this one. But if there are no criminal charges, there should at least be some disciplinary action, at least if that “new professionalism” Justice Scalia was telling us about means anything at all.

    The disturbing parts of this case:

  • The undercover narcotics officers were trespassing on Singletary’s private property. And they were doing so to engage in drug activity. I doubt this is legal. And if it is, it shouldn’t be. Unless they have a warrant, and are investigating Singletary himself (they weren’t).
  • The state’s attorney investigation found the police actions justified because Singletary “was an armed civilian who refused orders to drop his gun.” But the same report criticized the police for not announcing themselves as police before they fired on Singletary. If both of these things are true, then the state’s attorney is saying Singletary should have obeyed orders to drop his gun from armed men he understandably believed were dangerous, and trespassing on his property. If Florida’s new home defense law means anything at all, one would think it would mean the right to hold your ground when armed men are on your property.
  • Singletary was shot four times. Once in the back.
  • The state’s attorney chose to believe police accounts of who fired first (they say Singletary) over the account of a witness who says the police fired first, because the witness is a convicted drug dealer. Seems reasonable. Except when you consider that (a) one of the police investigators changed his story about who fired first, (b) attorneys for Singletary’s family have found four other witnesses who contradict the police account (why didn’t the investigator talk to these people?), and (c) police take the word of convicted drug dealers as gold all the time when it comes to securing warrants for drug raids, or to prosecute other drug dealers.
  • Just as an aside, why isn’t the National Rifle Association all over this case? I’ve been told they won’t get involved in the Cory Maye case because of the minuscule amount of marijuana (a burnt roach) found in Maye’s apartment. But Singletary was an innocent man gunned down for defending his home from what he thought were criminal trespassers. Isn’t what he did what the NRA is all about?

  • Accountability and Professionalism in Annapolis

    Sunday, July 29th, 2007

    Annapolis police are now refusing to release an internal report about what went wrong in a botched raid on an innocent family. Police broke down the door, deployed a concussion grenade, and kicked a man in the groin before realizing they had the wrong house.

    They’re now saying the public–for whom they work, remember–won’t get to see the report because the family is pursuing a lawsuit.

    After initially telling the media that wrong door raids happen “almost never” in Annapolis, they’re now conceding at least 15 incidents in the last 30 years, or once every two years. The most they’ll say is that this particular botched raid was the result of “misinformation and miscommunication.”

    I don’t care if the report might reveal details that will make it harder for the city to fight a lawsuit. If that’s the case, then the family deserves compensation. But more importantly, the people this department serves deserve to know what went wrong, and what the department is doing to make sure it doesn’t happen again in two years.

    Yet More Chicago PD Professionalism

    Saturday, July 28th, 2007

    The hits keep on comin’.

    An officer the Chicago Police Department tried to fire for punching an elderly man in the face after a fender-bender is now accused of doing nothing while fellow cops beat up bar patrons in January.

    On Thursday, the four patrons filed a lawsuit in federal court saying they were beaten by at least five cops early Jan. 7 outside Carol’s Pub at Clark and Leland on the North Side.

    The defendants include Detective John Sebeck, who was suspended for nine months in 2000 after the Police Board rejected then-Supt. Terry Hillard’s request to fire him for beating a 72-year-old man who rear-ended his car while Sebeck was off-duty.

    The four men (none of whom had a prior record, three of whom have college degrees) were arrested, and charged with crimes that included felonies. Police claim they were fighting each other, then resisted when the police attempted to break them up. They plead to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Believe whom you will.

    TFA includes bonus gory cell phone photo goodness.

    More Professionalism from Chicago PD

    Friday, July 27th, 2007

    This is getting a little ridiculous.

    Three days after her name appeared in a Chicago Sun Times report about police harassment of residents in her public housing facility, a narcotics team raided the home of 63-year-old grandmother Carol Wallace.

    Carol Wallace, a 63-year-old grandmother, has no criminal record and said she has never had any run-ins with the police in her 10 years at the Dearborn Homes public housing complex. She accused the police of trying to silence her.

    "They did this just to harass me," Wallace said. "My nerves are shot, and I’m afraid. I feel like I’ve been violated."

    [...]

    Wallace said about six of the officers dumped clothes from a dresser and closet on her bed and floor and rifled through her medications. Police also told a friend at the apartment that visitors weren’t allowed, she said.

    It may have been another case of a wrong-door raid, rather than retaliation. The description of the suspect in the warrant seems to fit one of Wallace’s neighbors.

    Justice Scalia, About That “New Professionalism…”

    Sunday, July 22nd, 2007

    A whopping one out of every twenty cops (or 662 of 13,200) in Chicago has had at least ten official written complaints filed against them in the last five years. This information comes by way of a lawsuit against the police department. Naturally, Chicago PD has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent the list from going public. Note, the list doesn’t point out which of the officers had more than ten complaints. Nor does it include officers who’ve had one or five or nine complaints over the same period. The city had to be forced by a court to finally release the list, and even then, it redacted the names of the officers.

    You know, regular citizens accused of wrongdoing often get their names published in the newspaper. Why not police officers? And why in particular not police officers who’ve garnered ten complaints over five years?

    This, remember, is the same department where this happened. And this. And this. And this.

    I’m sympathetic to the “it’s just a few bad apples” line about bad cops (though the good apples have a troubling tendency to cover for the bad ones). But in Chicago at least, 662 is a heck of a lot more than a “few.”

    Scalia’s New Professionalism Roundup

    Sunday, July 1st, 2007
  • Ivory Webb, the San Bernardino police officer who shot an Iraq war veteran three times at point blank range, has been acquitted on all charges. You may remember that Webb said after the shooting that he inadvertently told the victim to “get up!” when he meant “don’t get up!” and thus shot when the victim obeyed him, and got up. It’s the first time a police officer in San Bernardino has ever even been charged with a crime. So I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that he was acquitted. Here’s amateur video of the shooting, in case you missed it the first time:

  • In Pittsburgh, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has announced that he won’t revoke the promotions of three police officers accused of domestic violence. One apparently broke his wife’s nose with a head butt. Another assaulted his daughter. The mayor says the chief of police didn’t tell him about the incidents while he was considering the promotions and now that they’ve been made, he fears revoking them will provoke a lawsuit from the police union.
  • Police in Vancouver, Washington attempted to serve a warrant in the middle of the night on Erik James Paulsen. Instead, they shot and killed Paulsen’s roommate, 24-year-old Sean Makarowsky when, holding a gun for self protection, he peered out the window to see what was causing the commotion. Makarowski had no criminal record, though he does appear to have had some personal problems. Police Makarowski he should have known they were law enforcement. Witnesses say there was no announcement. They also shot and killed Makarowski’s dog.
  • Here’s an infuriating story from California. Mistaken eyewitnesses wrongly identify a man in a carjacking. After hearing the judge threaten to throw the book at him if he fights the charges and is convicted, the guy takes a plea offered by prosecutors, and wrongly admits guilt. Nearly a year later, he’s exonerated by DNA evidence. Prosecutors concede he’s innocent. But they refuse to compensate him for his wrongful conviction because they say his guilty plea was “voluntary.” When you’re looking at ten years for a crime you didn’t commit, and you take two because you’ve just heard two eyewitnesses ID you, I’d hardly call that choice “voluntary.”

    The really aggravating thing here is when suspects maintain their innocence, don’t plea, and insist on their constitutional right to a trial, they typically get harsher sentences for being so “stubborn.” See Richard Paey.

  • The New Professionalism

    Wednesday, June 20th, 2007

    Man tasered for riding a bicycle. And a cop with a history of disciplinary problems in a police department with a history of stealing cash from motorists during traffic stops…gets caught stealing cash from a motorist during a traffic stop.

    Scalia’s New Professionalism

    Friday, June 15th, 2007

    A MADD gold-star winner gets caught cheating:

    In one year, Brock arrested 58 people whose blood-alcohol content was below 0.08, the level at which state law presumes a driver is impaired, an internal affairs audit showed.

    "I don't prescribe to the theory that somehow you have to be 0.08 to be drunk or impaired, " Brock, 38, told investigators.

    A driver may be charged with DUI if the blood-alcohol level is between 0.05 and 0.08 percent, but there must be other evidence of impairment, such as a swerving vehicle.

    In 43 of those 58 cases, motorists demonstrated no visible impairment behind the wheel, according to an internal affairs report made public Thursday. In 41 arrests, Brock also failed to make a case with urine samples, the report states.

    Repeatedly, investigators found Brock reported failures in field sobriety tests when his patrol car video camera documented the opposite. He wrote, for instance, that a driver on Oct. 25, 2005, lost balance while turning. The video of the encounter showed that wasn't the case. The driver blew a 0.01 in the breath test but was arrested anyway.

    He said drivers incorrectly recited the alphabet, used arms for balance and slurred speech - when the video showed correct alphabets, perfect balance and clear speech.

    He's also not the sharpest tool in the shed:

    He failed to activate his cruiser's audio and video equipment in 40 percent of his stops, instead relying on his "wrought memory" to recall important arrest details, the audit showed.

    So what's MADD's reaction?

    "We always felt he was a good officer, " said Becky Gage, 55, the victim advocate for Hillsborough's MADD chapter. "As long as officers are within the scope of the law, then we support their efforts to remove impaired drivers."

    Not a hint of regret, eh? This is a little odd, too:

    He told investigators that given the chance, he would conduct his DUI stops the same way.

    Said Brock: "I mean, perfect world, we need more deputies and fewer people."

    So what happens to all of those people who now have a record, paid thousands of dollars, sat through tedious alcoholism group sessions, and suffered the personal and professional repercussions of a false DUI arrest? And how many other cops are fudging the numbers due to incentive systems that reward cops who make lots of arrests?

    Thanks to Mark Hemingway for the tip.

    Scalia’s New Professionalism

    Sunday, June 10th, 2007

    Remember Steven Blackman? He’s the man whose home Ft. Worth police raided last summer. His house was destroyed. They broke down his door, and fired four rounds of tear gas into the house. They also weirdly slashed the tires on his truck. Fortunately, he wasn’t home at the time, or he could well be dead. The cops had the wrong address, of course. They commenced the raid due to a mistaken, uncorroborated tip from an informant (but don’t worry, this almost never happens).

    Well, the reviews and reports have been written. So what about all that professionalism, all those checks and balances, all that new police accountability Justice Scalia assured us was taking place all over the country in his opinion in the Hudson case?

    One officer was suspended for five days. And last week, that suspension was reduced to one day.

    Note also that the man police were actually looking for was wanted for possession of an illicit drug. Not distribution. They used tear gas bombs, a SWAT team, broke down the back door, and slashed the wrong guy’s tires trying to arrest someone for possession.

    Keep that in mind too next time defenders of these tactics say they’re only used to go after the big-time dealers.

    The New Professionalism: A Roundup for Justice Scalia

    Saturday, May 5th, 2007
  • Yet more accounts of lying police in Atlanta. And, more importantly, more proof that there’s no accountability or oversight at APD.
  • In Memphis, cops plead guilty to pulling over suspected drug dealers (black men driving expensive cars), shake them down for payoffs, then let them go. Two dozen Memphis police officers have been charged with corruption since 2004.
  • In New Jersey, two deejays noted postings on a password-protected website indicating that the state police may be planning a “ticket blitz” because they’re upset about the way the media has been treating the state trooper who crashed while driving Gov. John Corzine. According to media reports, the trooper was traveling in excess of 90 mph, and apparently checking his Blackberry at the time of the accident. When the deejays read the anonymous posts on-air, the head of the police union responded by broadcasting one of the deejays home address and license plate on the local news. He says posting word of the ticket blitz threatened police safety, because it would cause motorists to question the legitimacy of their tickets. Much more here.
  • The former head of the Monroe, Louisiana police union was arrested and charged with lying to federal investigators about an insurance scam. He’s on paid administrative leave.
  • Pick your side in this one, I guess. Here’s an account from a more interested party. Here’s my question: Is it illegal to have an expired tag on an inoperable vehicle that’s parked on your own property?
  • A labor board has recommended that a Windsor, Connecticut police officer who was fired after having held a gun to a woman’s head and pulling the trigger now be reinstated.
  • A Lawrence, Massachusetts cop who beat a handcuffed man until he fell unconscious got a whopping 30-day suspension.

  • Scalia’s New Professionalism

    Wednesday, April 25th, 2007

    An off-duty cop got drunk, got into an argument with another off-duty cop about whether he was too drunk to drive, then shot the other man in the hip.

    He was put on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an internal investigation. After pleading guilty he received–wait for it–probation.

    Scalia’s New Police Professionalism

    Wednesday, April 4th, 2007

    Eight city police officers in St. Louis were busted last year after using World Series tickets seized from scalpers for themselves and family and friends.

    They’ll each get a two-week suspension. And their names won’t be released to the public.

    [Police Chief] said what they did was “intolerable” but added that they are “not thieves” and “can be redeemed.”

    Really? If taking and using tickets that don’t belong to you doesn’t make one a “thief,” what does?

    The New Professionalism

    Wednesday, March 21st, 2007

    Holy crap.

    Note that until the incident hit the news, the schmuck had only been charged with misdemeanors. I’d also like to know more about the threats and intimidation the reporter vaguely alluded to.