scottmorgan's blog

This is creepy:

AKRON, Ohio - A medical examiner must change her autopsy findings to delete any reference that stun guns contributed to the deaths of three people involved in confrontations with law enforcement officers, a judge ruled.

Friday's decision was a victory for Taser International Inc., which had challenged rulings by Summit County Medical Examiner Lisa Kohler, including a case in which five sheriff's deputies are charged in the death a jail inmate who was restrained by the wrists and ankles and hit with pepper spray and a stun gun. [kstar.com]

I can't speak to the specific cases at issue here, but we're hearing more and more about this dubious "excited delirium" diagnosis that's being offered when people die in police custody. Drug use is often a factor, thus we must consider the possibility that tasers, though not typically lethal, may pose heightened risk of fatality when used on people who are under the influence. After all, people who are super wasted are among the most likely recipients of a thorough tasing by police.

I wouldn't want tasers to be erroneously identified as a cause of death, but as fatal outcomes involving these weapons are reported with increasing frequency, it's clear that more research is needed. In the meantime, scratching these weapons out of autopsy reports sounds to me like the opposite of what we should be doing to address growing concerns about their alleged safety.

From yesterday's New York Times:

More than two decades after President Ronald Reagan escalated the war on drugs, arrests for drug sales or, more often, drug possession are still rising. And despite public debate and limited efforts to reduce them, large disparities persist in the rate at which blacks and whites are arrested and imprisoned for drug offenses, even though the two races use illegal drugs at roughly equal rates.

Two new reports, issued Monday by the Sentencing Project in Washington and by Human Rights Watch in New York, both say the racial disparities reflect, in large part, an overwhelming focus of law enforcement on drug use in low-income urban areas, with arrests and incarceration the main weapon.

It's essential that this type of research continues, although I think we know now what to expect when scholars take a look at the racial breakdown of our prison population. Our press and policy makers need to be aware of the impact this lock 'em all up mentality is having and if that means documenting these same depressing disparities every six months, then so be it.

I also think this shows the need for some new angles in the broader struggle for criminal justice reform. Hmmm, maybe some sort of innovative film project could be helpful?

In a fascinating NYT article on overzealous marijuana policing in New York City, I found this rather revealing passage:

"I came out of the building, and this unmarked car, no light, no indication it was police, was right on me,” said the man, a Latino who asked that his name not be used because he was concerned about his job. "Right on my tail. An officer got out, he said, 'I saw you walking from that building, I know you bought weed, give me the weed.' He made it an option: 'Give me the weed now and I will give you a summons, or we can search your vehicle and can take you in.'"

He opened the console and handed them his marijuana — making it "open to public view."

"I was duped," he said. But the deception was legal, and his pot wasn’t.

The officers escorted him in handcuffs to the unmarked car.

Amazingly, police must actually trick citizens into displaying their marijuana in order to make an arrest, since New York's marijuana decrim law requires plain view discovery. NYPD officers have become quite adept at initiating this through the typical threats and coercion that have long been the hallmark of petty drug war police practices.

It's a terrific, yet disturbing, example of how police can intimidate citizens into incriminating themselves. As always, the best strategy is to ignore incriminating questions and ask if you're free to go. After all, cooperating with police who are trying to arrest you just might get you arrested.

Today's Supreme Court ruling in Virginia v. Moore upheld the use of evidence seized during arrests that are illegal under state law. It's a terrible ruling to be sure, but it's hardly the deathblow to our 4th Amendment rights that some may assume. As always, we hope concerned citizens will take a moment to learn what the ruling does and does not do and remember that asserting your constitutional rights during police encounters remains the best choice.

David L. Moore was arrested for driving on a suspended license, subsequently searched and found with crack. It turned out that under VA law he should have been issued a citation and not arrested, thus the search that followed his arrest (and turned up the crack) shouldn't actually have happened. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the evidence anyway, finding that when officers have valid probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, they may arrest and search the suspect, even if state laws prohibit arrests for that particular offense.

As absurd as it is to uphold evidence seized in violation of state law and allow that evidence to be used in state court, my main concern with this ruling is that it will be widely misunderstood to permit illegal arrests and searches on a massive scale. It doesn't do that. We're not talking about any illegal arrest, we're talking about arrests for actual crimes that police can prove, but for which suspects aren't typically cuffed and taken downtown. So yes, the ruling is disgraceful, but the circumstances under which it applies are relatively narrow.

The worst-case scenario here is that police may, in some cases, perform arrests for misdemeanor offenses that normally result in a ticket simply to justify a search of the suspect or his/her vehicle. That's awful, but it's not a new problem. This same concern has been voiced for some time with regards to the Court's rulings in Whren v. U.S. and Atwater v. Lago Vista, which combined permit police to stop vehicles for any observed infraction and perform arrests for any misdemeanor offense.

The real problem here is that police have long been permitted by the Court to search the suspect (U.S. v. Robinson) and the passenger compartment (New York v. Belton) of the vehicle when any arrest is made. The policy is intended to provide for officer safety and prevent the destruction of evidence, yet an arrested suspect is typically handcuffed and rendered immobile before the search even takes place. Moreover, there's no rational basis to assume that someone arrested for driving with a suspended license, for example, would attempt an escape or try to destroy evidence to begin with.

In sum, today's ruling possesses fundamental logical flaws, but doesn't expand police power in any substantial new directions. The worst aspects of the Moore decision are derived from prior bad rulings that we've already been living under for a long time. This Supreme Court is no friend of the 4th Amendment, but the damage they've inflicted is compounded when civil libertarians respond by prematurely eulogizing our constitutional rights. Anyone who needs a reminder that the 4th Amendment ain't dead should check out these glorious success stories.

This is one of the smartest 4th Amendment decisions I've seen in a while:

The Alaska Court of Appeals on Friday put law enforcement agencies on notice that it would not tolerate "implicitly coercive" search requests during traffic stops. The warning came in the form of a ruling on the case of Susan S. Brown, a driver pulled over on November 24, 2004 allegedly because of the light illuminating her car's rear license plate was dirty.

On that night, Alaska State Trooper Maurizio Salinas never explained to Brown the reason for the stop, nor that he had no intention of issuing a ticket. Instead, Salinas convinced Brown to allow him to search her car and her body -- even though Brown had no warrants and showed no signs of illegal conduct. Salinas testified that his policy was to conduct as many random searches as possible during traffic stops. In this case, Salinas discovered a crack pipe hidden in Brown's coat. Speaking for the unanimous court, Judge David Mannheimer found that such search requests not based upon any reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct abused the rights of motorists.
…

"Motorists who have been stopped for traffic infractions do not act from a position of psychological independence when they decide how to respond to a police officers request for a search," Mannheimer wrote. "Because of the psychological pressures inherent in the stop, and often because of the motorists' ignorance of their rights, large numbers of motorists guilty and innocent alike accede to these requests." [thenewspaper.com]

We'll have to wait and see whether Alaska's Supreme Court picks up the case, but if allowed to stand, this decision should significantly undermine precisely the type of "fishing expedition" policing that Flex Your Rights so vehemently opposes.

This ruling reaches the right conclusion for the right reasons, and provides a helpful example of the 4th Amendment's potency at the state level. When you are stopped by police in your neighborhood, it is not George Bush or the PATRIOT Act that determines whether or not your rights were violated. Each state has its own Bill of Rights and sets its own constitutional standards that must be respected by law-enforcement. Those who habitually lament the supposed "death" of the 4th Amendment would do well to familiarize themselves with this concept.

A citizenry that understands and appreciates 4th Amendment rights is more likely to produce and appoint judges who will rule in this way. Thus, while we must recognize and expose the many threats to the 4th Amendment that have emerged in recent years, it is essential that such conversations do not indulge the same sense of defeatism that leads citizens to waive these rights in the first place, when they matter most.

This one's been making the rounds over the past couple days:



It's amazing how quickly the situation escalates. Sure, the young man would have done well to keep his mouth shut, but it obviously didn't take much to set Officer Rivieri off. Physical force was completely uncalled for here, and it will be interesting to see what comes of this. Rivieri is currently on paid suspension pending an investigation.

Whenever footage like this goes viral, a few commenters predictably come along arguing that it's the citizen's fault for failing to be fully cooperative and deferential to the police officer. And along these lines, it is always our advice to refrain from "talking back" in any way. Regardless, being rude to cops may be stupid, but it isn't a crime. Using physical force to settle an argument is. So insisting that one should expect to get roughed up for "talking back" is to rationalize and tolerate widespread police brutality. Let's not.

It shouldn't even be necessary to explain why police must have more control over their temper and emotions than the people they deal with on the street.

This is just chilling:

INSIDE the locker of a narcotics cop, Philadelphia police officials recently made a shocking discovery: A cartoon of a man, half as an officer in uniform and half as a Klansman with the words: "Blue By Day - White By Night. White Power," according to police officials.
…

Schweizer, 33, joined the force in June 1997 and makes $54,794 a year, city payroll records show. He became part of the elite Narcotics Strike Force about six years ago. As an undercover, plainclothes cop who worked day and night shifts, Schweizer was part of a surveillance team that watched drug buys and locked up hundreds of suspected drug dealers. He frequently testified in court as a witness for prosecutors. [Philadelphia Daily News]

Racial disparities abound in the war on drugs, but most analysis of the drug war's disparate impact focuses on institutional bias. Rarely are we confronted with such a disturbing window into the racist mindset of an individual officer. Such beliefs render one thoroughly unqualified to carry out law-enforcement duties in any capacity and raise serious questions about this officer's past actions.

More troubling, however, is the possibility that Schweizer is just the tip of the iceberg. Is he a cartoonist? Did he draw the thing himself, or is there a larger organization that produces and markets police-themed racist merchandise to a clientele of closeted white supremacist police officers? I don't know the answer, but this poster sounds like a logo for something very creepy.

Of course, this is just one anecdotal incident, but when such revelations occur within an institution with such a hideously rich tradition of racial bias, it certainly doesn't feel like a coincidence. It is an unflattering portrait of our criminal justice system that adherents to such ideology are able to assimilate within it. Indeed, had he merely possessed the wisdom to keep racist cartoons out if his locker, this officer would still be hard at work filling our prisons with young black and Hispanic drug offenders.

Horrifying videos of police tasering people are finding their way onto the internet with alarming frequency as of late. This one from Utah has caused quite a stir:



It's just awful to see the taser take the place of physical force, which would have been perfectly sufficient in this case. It's a torture device and it should never be used unless the officer perceives a direct threat to his personal safety.

While we don't condone the officer's handling of the incident, there are a few lessons to be learned from the suspect's poor handling of the situation:

1. Arguing over a ticket at the scene of the traffic stop is not in your interest. Deal with it in traffic court.

2. Signing a "promise to appear" simply means you agree to appear in traffic court or pay the fine. It's not an admission of guilt and refusing to sign it can get you arrested. Always read police documents before signing them, but don't get angry over a speeding ticket even if it's undeserved.

3. When told to place your hands behind your back do it immediately. Anything else you do could be considered resisting. The validity of the arrest can only be addressed in court, and you're more likely to get the outcome you want if remained quiet and calm.

4. NEVER inform the officer of your intention to sue him for excessive force or other forms of misconduct. The officer will prepare a story and the video evidence might even disappear. The officer should not find out about your suit until the papers have been served.

5. Don't demand to have your rights read to you. The officer will only read you your rights if you are going to be interrogated, which will not be the case for a traffic violation and most other arrests. You should already know your rights. Telling police how to do their job just pisses them off more, thereby strengthening their resolve to make sure the charges stick to you.

Our advice to remain calm during police encounters has nothing to do with your guilt or innocence. The fact of the matter is that people who lose control of their emotions get worse outcomes. As police around the country go increasingly taser-crazy, it becomes that much more important to know your rights and make smart choices in tough situations.

While most police officers are hard working professionals, far too many are total psychos. Knowing your rights is an important first line of defense against harassment by law-enforcement, but sometimes a personal dashboard camera is the only way to expose our country's ongoing problems with police misconduct.

This video depicting Sgt. James Kuehnlein terrorizing a young motorist has erupted on the internet, shocking the nation, and providing a poignant reminder that police lunacy is alive and well in the USA.

It all started when 20-year-old Brett Darrow left his cell phone at a friend's house. They made plans to meet at a public parking lot, but upon entering the lot after dark, Darrow was confronted by Sgt. Kuehnlein. When he asked the officer what was wrong, Sgt. Kuehnlein flew into a frenzied rage, hurling threats and obscenities.

Sgt. Kuehnlein: Ever get smart mouth with a cop again, I show you what a cop does. You understand me?

Brett Darrow: Yes Sir

Sgt. Kuehnlein: Try to talk back, talk back to me again and I bet I could say you resisted arrest or something. You wanna come up with something? I come up with nine things.

There's plenty more where that came from, and Sgt. Kuehnlein is now on unpaid leave. His superiors are in full damage control mode, distancing themselves from the officer's behavior and assuring the public that this sort of thing will not be tolerated.

As an advocate for civil rights and police accountability it is upsetting to know that such gratuitous misconduct still comes easily to some officers. These events persist despite decades of social justice activism and systemic reforms aimed at increasing police professionalism. Moreover, the outrageous actions of the worst officers undermine our efforts to inform the public about basic constitutional rights that really do still protect most citizens most of the time.

That said, it is certainly encouraging to see forums like YouTube and Google Video blossoming into powerful tools for exposing and combating police misconduct in the 21st century. Through these venues, unfiltered images can enter the public consciousness with remarkable efficiency. Once the video went online, it became successful on Digg.com, a site that ranks stories through a democratic voting system. In sum, internet users broke this story and forced the mainstream media to pay attention. That's exciting to see.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court stood up for the 4th Amendment with a forceful unanimous ruling in Brendlin v. California:

WASHINGTON — Passengers in cars that are stopped by the police are "seized," the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday, and therefore have a right to contest the legality of the stop if they are searched and arrested. The 9-0 ruling clarifies the law on traffic stops, and it overturns the view of the California Supreme Court. [LA Times]

The case involved a suspicionless "registration-check" traffic stop, which escalated into a search and arrest when the officer recognized Brendlin and determined that he was a parole violator.

There's nothing particularly surprising about the Court's determination that passengers are effectively seized when a traffic stop is made. To hold otherwise would be to suggest that passengers must immediately exit the vehicle and walk away the second the car comes to a stop, or else risk forfeiting their 4th Amendment rights. As the Court notes, no reasonable person would assume that they may simply walk away during a traffic stop, particularly before officers have a chance to see what's going on in the vehicle.

It's great to see the current Supreme Court reach a unanimous ruling in favor of 4th Amendment rights. Legal experts considered this case a bit of a no-brainer, but it's still required reading for those of you who won't stop shouting that the 4th Amendment is dead and buried.

Asserting your 4th Amendment rights during police encounters and issuing 4th Amendment challenges in court when those rights are violated is essential if we wish to preserve these freedoms for future generations to enjoy.