Recent FYR Blog Posts
Judge Says Stun Guns Can't Be Mentioned in Autopsies
Submitted by scottmorgan on May 7, 2008 - 8:54pm.This is creepy:
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.
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.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.
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 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.
Racial Profiling Continues to Shape Our Prison Population
Submitted by scottmorgan on May 7, 2008 - 7:15pm.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?
Why Would You Cooperate With Someone Who's Trying to Arrest you?
Submitted by scottmorgan on April 30, 2008 - 10:15pm.In a fascinating NYT article on overzealous marijuana policing in New York City, I found this rather revealing passage:
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.
"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.'"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.
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.
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 is Bad, But not as Bad as it Sounds
Submitted by scottmorgan on April 23, 2008 - 9:07pm.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.
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.
No Warrant, No Search [Video]: Flex Goes Door-to-door with DC ACLU
Submitted by Steven Silverman on April 22, 2008 - 6:16pm.A couple weeks ago Scott and I joined the National Capitol Area ACLU for a door-to-door outreach effort in Southeast D.C. warning citizens about a "knock and talk" program the DC Police Department threatened to implement.
This short video, which was my first behind-the-camera creation, tells the story:
I couldn't have scripted this much better: At about 1:35 into the video, a woman mistakes us for the police and eagerly invites us in to search her home. It's funny, but it proves our point about why this information is needed. (For all she knows, someone could have left some marijuana under her couch cushion for an officer to find and get her and her family kicked out of public housing.)
Responding to the unexpected public backlash generated through such community outreach, DC Police Chief Lanier recently announced that her so-called Safe Homes initiative would be scaled back. Under the new plan, police will not go door-to-door requesting consent. Citizens wishing to be searched must instead call the police and invite them into their homes.
In other words, the good guys won, and Chief Lanier was left to take the blame for her hare-brained initiative.
For a refresher on how to refuse home searches, watch this.
This short video, which was my first behind-the-camera creation, tells the story:
I couldn't have scripted this much better: At about 1:35 into the video, a woman mistakes us for the police and eagerly invites us in to search her home. It's funny, but it proves our point about why this information is needed. (For all she knows, someone could have left some marijuana under her couch cushion for an officer to find and get her and her family kicked out of public housing.)
Responding to the unexpected public backlash generated through such community outreach, DC Police Chief Lanier recently announced that her so-called Safe Homes initiative would be scaled back. Under the new plan, police will not go door-to-door requesting consent. Citizens wishing to be searched must instead call the police and invite them into their homes.
In other words, the good guys won, and Chief Lanier was left to take the blame for her hare-brained initiative.
For a refresher on how to refuse home searches, watch this.
A Great 4th Amendment Ruling in Alaska
Submitted by scottmorgan on April 21, 2008 - 9:16pm.This is one of the smartest 4th Amendment decisions I've seen in a while:
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.
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.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.
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]
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.
No thanks, Officer. I'm not interested in your free home search offer.
Submitted by Steven Silverman on April 3, 2008 - 3:47pm.This Saturday the National Capital Area ACLU is organizing a training day to educate the community on how to prevent warrantless police searches of their homes. Scott Morgan and I will be there representing FyR, and I'll try to get some interviews with my new video camera that I'll post online.
This event is in response to MPD's new "Safe Homes" initiative, which sends officers out to act as door-to-door canvassers asking residents to voluntarily let them search their homes for illegal guns. (FYI: Until the SCOUS rules otherwise, handgun possession in DC is a felony).
Needless to say, many residents aren't appreciating these unsolicited offers. Oh yeah, if the police are at your door, be like Valerie.
This event is in response to MPD's new "Safe Homes" initiative, which sends officers out to act as door-to-door canvassers asking residents to voluntarily let them search their homes for illegal guns. (FYI: Until the SCOUS rules otherwise, handgun possession in DC is a felony).
Needless to say, many residents aren't appreciating these unsolicited offers. Oh yeah, if the police are at your door, be like Valerie.
Video: Baltimore Officer Physically and Verbally Abuses Skateboarder
Submitted by scottmorgan on February 15, 2008 - 5:53pm.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.
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.
Are Racist Cops Better Organized Than We Thought?
Submitted by scottmorgan on February 14, 2008 - 3:44pm.This is just chilling:
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.
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.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.
…
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]
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.
Plaintiffs Wanted for Right-to-Record-Police-Officers Case
Submitted by Steven Silverman on December 20, 2007 - 6:41pm.Eugene Volokh, of The Volokh Conspiracy got this request from Michael Rosman at the Center for Individual Rights writes:
Like many of your readers, I was intrigued by your recent post concerning the conviction of individuals for taping or videotaping police officers while the officers are doing their job in public. Some of your readers thought that there may be some federal constitutional problem in laws that make such tapings illegal. My employer, the Center for Individual Rights, is interested in possibly representing individuals who want to challenge such laws as a violation of constitutional rights.
Ideally, a potential client would be a person or organization that legitimately is concerned about being arrested for taping police officers, or who would engage in that conduct were it not for a law making it illegal. Obviously, it would have to be in a state where the law makes that concern reasonable. (Your post referred to Massachusetts. We believe that Pennsylvania may be another such state, although the law there is more in flux.) Someone who has already gotten in trouble for violating such a law is fine, but we would not be the best lawyers to represent someone currently involved in an ongoing criminal or civil proceeding in state court.
If any of your readers are among those who would like to challenge a law of this kind, or can help us identify the states where such laws exist by giving us cites to relevant statutes or cases, (s)he can email me at rosman [at] cir-usa.org.