French Surveillance Programs Eerily Echo The NSA's, Right Down To Codifying Unconstitutional Collections

One Of Six Omaha Cops Fired For Excessive Force, Illegal Search And Seizure Is Already Back In Uniform

from the you-can't-keep-a-bad-man-down dept

Thu, Jan 30th 2014 8:02pm — Tim Cushing

As we covered very recently, the city of Omaha is being sued by the ACLU on behalf of a family whose house was raided by 20+ cops (sans warrant) in order to seize cellphone footage taken of their arrest tactics (read: excessive force) deployed to detain someone asking questions about a vehicle being towed. Despite the multitude of police officers swarming the neighborhood, a person filming the incident from across the street went unnoticed.

By the time it was all said and done (and footage released to the press), 32 police officers had been named as co-defendants, and six of those officers had been fired. But like many police officer firings, it didn't take.

Omaha police officer Bradley D. Canterbury has been reinstated after being fired for a rough arrest at 33rd and Seward last Spring.

Canterbury is the one in the video who seems to throw Octavius Johnson to the ground.

Not only did Canterbury throw Johnson to the ground, but he got in a few swings when (he thought) no one was looking. Here's the video for a refresher. The throw happens about 11 seconds in. At 2:55, Canterbury looks around for watchful eyes, and seeing none, punches Johnson a few times.

An arbitrator decided that those punches don't count, even if Canterbury suspiciously omitted them from his report.

According to the TV report, an arbitrator decided in a 38-page ruling that Canterbury’s use of force was justified, calling the strikes “hammer hits” and noting he didn’t kick or elbow Johnson. The arbitrator also decided the city didn’t have enough evidence to show Canterbury purposely failed to mention the second series of strikes, against an already subdued Johnson, in his report, even as two of the officers are facing charges related to the cover-up of the incident.

Now, it's unclear to me how a "hammer hit" differs from "repeatedly punching" a prone, subdued suspect, but I'm not in the business of putting bad cops back on the street. What it looks like is Canterbury extracting a little "aggravation pay" from the person who kicked off this whole debacle. Finding the street clear of fellow officers (who were warrantlessly storming a house to illegally seize cellphone footage, injuring a wheelchair-bound woman in the process) and, more importantly, citizens with phones, Canterbury "hammer hit" Johnson to remind him who was in charge. Then he submitted a report that glossed over his "hammer hits."

I'm not sure what evidence the city would need to show a reasonable human being that Officer Canterbury purposely failed to include the extra punching in his report other than:

a.) Canterbury's report that doesn't detail the hammer hitting, and

b.) the above video footage.

Perhaps the city should have mentioned that the illegal seizure and destruction of camera footage was indicative of a coverup. Actually, I'm sure it did, considering it used that claim to get rid of the cops in the first place. If cops are covering something up, omitting tiny details like bonus blows is just par for the course.

Now, if Canterbury can get his job back after being caught on tape and caught omitting details, then it stands to reason the other five fired cops have a chance to reclaim their badges. This isn't a great way to weed out bad cops. In the private sector, most fired people stay fired. But on the other side of the blue line, being canned for violent acts or violating rights is often little more than a momentary setback.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: omaha, police brutality

45 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 30 Jan 2014 @ 6:30pm

...and noting he didn�t kick or elbow Johnson.

'Well you see your Honor, while I did beat the suspect just a little, to the point where I perhaps broke a bone or two, I could have shot them, so obviously it doesn't count.'

... yeah, it takes a pretty screwed up person to excuse a badge toting thug beating on someone they've already thrown to the pavement, by saying they could have done more but didn't, meaning what they did do shouldn't count.

Crap like this is why more and more people distrust cops, even when they get caught breaking the law and/or abusing their authority, and evidence is provided proving it, all they seem to get is a slap on the wrist before being sent right back out, badge, gun, and legal immunity still intact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2014 @ 8:32pm

what defines a 'good' cop
The definition of a good cop must be different between the police deparment and the public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2014 @ 9:17pm
  
  Re: what defines a 'good' cop
  You're starting to learn.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2014 @ 8:49pm

They're a family of thugs. Just like the mafia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2014 @ 8:51pm

you mean to tell me you've never heard of the canterbury tales?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
krolork (profile), 30 Jan 2014 @ 9:23pm

In Florida, if you suspect your life or the life of another is in danger, you have the right to shoot the perpetrator dead. Why don't we apply this to police as well? They are not above the law and should be treated as such.

We need a revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 31 Jan 2014 @ 1:54am
  
  Re:
  If people approached by police will tend to shoot at sight, I doubt that this will lead to more appropriate police behavior.
  
  No, the only viable road is to fire all policemen unfit to engage in respectful and proportionate behavior.
  
  The idea of having a police force is to have fewer rather than more thugs roaming the streets.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 31 Jan 2014 @ 7:16am
  
  Re:
  its like anything else these days: THEORETICALLY you have that 'right', in reality, fugiddaboutit...
  
  it don't matter you have kops on video k-k-k-konspiring to kill you, and then go to kill you, THEY WILL GET OFF, YOU WILL BE LOCKED UP (because somethingsomethingsomething your babies will die in a fire!)
  
  THAT is the new world odor, get used to it, peasants...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- KissMyWookiee (profile), 31 Jan 2014 @ 4:51pm
  
  Response to: krolork on Jan 30th, 2014 @ 9:23pm
  Many people agree with you - which is why so many in government are trying hard to remove the "tools of revolution" from the hands of the populace and stocking up on billions of rounds of hollow-points themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2014 @ 9:29pm

Union Rules, ya know...
Unions' position in the negotiations of these things is truly suspect. If the Union who represent these officers were made responsible for the Cities liability in these situations, I respectfully predict that they would do a whole lot of house cleaning on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- WysiWyg (profile), 31 Jan 2014 @ 2:04am
  
  Re: Union Rules, ya know...
  Actually, the Union's position is exactly the right one. Their duty is to defend their members. Just like a defense attorney.
  
  The problem comes when the other parties, in this case the arbitrator (why did they bring one of those in?), doesn't do their job properly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 31 Jan 2014 @ 8:46am
    
    Re: Re: Union Rules, ya know...
    I disagree. The union's job is to represent their workers collectively in terms of how they're treated by management. It's not the union's job to defend their members against legitimate charges. The union should feel as much pressure to get rid of bad cops as everybody else. Their presence makes all cops look terrible, after all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - WysiWyg (profile), 31 Jan 2014 @ 10:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Union Rules, ya know...
      Unions in general, yes. But, at least according to my infallible sources (TV-shows), the Police Union (which I know remember isn't a thing) are supposed to defend their members in these circumstances.
      
      I may have flawed logic, but at least I have it. I think.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- robert spano, 31 Jan 2014 @ 5:53pm
  
  Re: Union Rules, ya know...
  take it out of their pension fund
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 30 Jan 2014 @ 9:40pm

Hammer hit the arbitrator
I'm sure after being "hammer hit" in a similar manner, the arbitrator would have a different opinion about whether or not they count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter (profile), 30 Jan 2014 @ 10:08pm

On the other hand ...
'The mother of an activist with links to the Anonymous hacking group was sentenced to six months' probation on Friday, for helping her son hide laptops from the FBI.'

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/09/barrett-brown-anonymous-mother-probation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2014 @ 10:10pm

Hey, how about that pedophile cop who retired with full benefits? Is he going to get his job back?
I mean, here we've literally got armies of cops breaking into houses to destroy evidence of their previous misbehavior, getting caught (again), a few of them got fired, and apparently they're not going to have any trouble being rehired.
Why not rehire the pedophile? Give him a cushy desk job. Maybe a 14 year old secretary. If you're going to be cartoonishly evil, why hold back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeezer (profile), 30 Jan 2014 @ 10:44pm

It angers me when you hear about bad cops because they are the ones making the headlines and not the vast majority of good officers who are risking their lives every day to protect us. When you get situations like this where there are so many from one department it means that the higher ranking officials there have failed to set standards and discipline cops who get out of line. I have seen many examples over the years of our local department suspending, firing and even prosecuting cops who violate policy. The Wichita police chief would never tolerate what these cops did. Heads would roll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2014 @ 1:10am
  
  Re:
  However, it is fairly commonly asserted that 'A few bad apples spoil the bunch'. This kind of thing should be the main thing for which a police officer is fired and jailed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Harry Payne, 31 Jan 2014 @ 2:17am
    
    Re: bad apples
    The whole point of the "few bad apples in the barrel" metaphor is that unless you remove the bad apples as soon as you find them, they corrupt the whole barrel.
    
    It's not a pretty sight, either for apples or a Police force.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- halley (profile), 31 Jan 2014 @ 4:31am
  
  Re:
  Take these two points:
  
  * there are only a few 'bad apples' on the force
  * each good cop knows one or more of those 'bad apples' on the force
  
  Any cop who protects a bad cop is a bad cop.
  
  If those good cops want respect, they will arrest and prosecute the bad cops, and they won't let arbitrators or unions get them off the hook. Period.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2014 @ 6:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    halley (profile), Jan 31st, 2014 @ 4:31am
    
    Re:
    Take these two points:
    
    * there are only a few 'bad apples' on the force
    * each good cop knows one or more of those 'bad apples' on the force
    
    Any cop who protects a bad cop is a bad cop.
    
    If those good cops want respect, they will arrest and prosecute the bad cops, and they won't let arbitrators or unions get them off the hook. Period.
    
    ***
    
    Good cops are weeded out by the bad ones for a reason!
    
    The only way to get good cops back on the team will be to fire the entire current one and to hire a new one to replace it. Including a new union along with it.
    
    Good luck getting these things to happen without blood shed. Corrupt people in power like to keep their power.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2014 @ 6:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The only feasible way to reign in a corrupt police force is from above, at the state or even federal level.
      
      The State of Texas has more than once fired a town's entire police force for misconduct. I think the city of Iowa Colony was the last to take such a hit, and that was 20 years ago.
      
      But Iowa Colony's problem was not beating up poor people (which is generally much safer politically) but running a speed trap scam that got the ire of a few wealthy people traveling between Houston and their beach-front mansions and passing through a remote section of highway the town annexed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 31 Jan 2014 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...which goes to show that the State of Texas does not actually handle the problem of bad cops.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2014 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In the case of what he is describing, it is which is a little different for a couple of reasons.
        
        1. It's a very small police force for what really isn't even a town but rather more of a suburb located between Houston and Galveston, so the likelihood that the corruption permeates the entire force is very high.
        
        2. The situation he is describing is something that is orchestrated from the top down and is planned from the beginning. It's not the same sort of problem as an officer with a chip on his shoulder who in reaction to having his authority questioned during a particular incident, steps over the line and abuses that authority which is then covered up by others who don't want to deal with the backlash from the outrage. One is premeditated. The other is a lack of self control and judgement. Two very different situations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2014 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, that's actually between Houston and Freeport rather than Houston and Galveston. I forgot which freeway it was on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 31 Jan 2014 @ 8:48am
  
  Re:
  Yay for Wichita, then! But that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
  
  "it means that the higher ranking officials there have failed to set standards and discipline cops who get out of line."
  
  True. But it also means that all those "good cops" are failing to police their coworkers. Standards-setting by higher ranking officials doesn't mean that much of the standards aren't enforced by the rank and file as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - OldGeezer (profile), 31 Jan 2014 @ 9:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Several of you have pointed out the code of silence prevalent in so many police departments. Sad but unfortunately true. Even good cops don't like snitches. I don't have an answer of how to change this except for offering better protection for whistle blowers.
    
    I still have comfort in knowing if someone breaks into my house and I call 911 that cops will show up and come in not knowing if the intruder is armed and they will become the next entry on the Officer Down web site.
    
    One good thing is I believe the Wichita police chief is a man of integrity and has shown this on many occasions. If something like what happened in Omaha occurred here I think most of these guys would be quickly suspended or fired.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Clownius, 2 Feb 2014 @ 9:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The reality is in this case the cop was fired and rightly so. Some arbitrator overturned that decision sadly.
      
      Im sure the city doesnt want the guy back either as hes a massive liability at best now any time someone calls excessive force they can point to the fact he has a history of it.....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Crusty the Ex-Clown, 1 Feb 2014 @ 6:48am
  
  Re: risking their lives
  If you look at actuarial tables, police work is somewhat more dangerous than the average job but far, far below the level of risk seen by miners, loggers, commercial fishermen, and even farmers.
  
  The good police officers I have know displayed a level-headedness seemingly unperturbed by risk or stress.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - OldGeezer (profile), 1 Feb 2014 @ 7:26am
    
    Re: Re: risking their lives
    Yes, those are dangerous occupations. Accidents do happen but they occour unexpectedly. Working at Boeing would be considered a reasonably safe job but in my years there I know of 4 accidental deaths. None of them had a clue when they came to work that a crane load would fall or they would be hit by a fork lift. The difference is police officers knowingly go into dangerous situations. They get a call of shots fired or a holdup in progress they move in even though it could mean they could be killed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2016 @ 5:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: risking their lives
      Well sure, They have bullet proof vests and combat gear and numbers that their force is insurmountable. Then, they shoot first and handcuff the dead/dying guy and then THINK about asking questions. Although in every video of armed/unarmed shooting of people, never have I seen them question a down guy or render care only handcuff and let them bleed out. I guess that's so they know the person will never tell HIS SIDE of the story and that they'll never have to deal with him again. I'm so proud of what the police have become (sarcasm, in case you missed it).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Somebody (profile), 31 Jan 2014 @ 2:19am

The problem
It seems to me the root of the problem is

"we protect our own."

I see at least one video like this every few days.

Planting evidence (drugs, drugs and drugs)
Excessive force
Aggravating a situation instead of calming things down.

The way police are being trained and the illegal activities accepted from them, it is an us and them situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCL, 31 Jan 2014 @ 8:39am
  
  Re: The problem
  So it seems the popular Police motto of:
  
  "To Protect and Serve"
  
  has evolved to:
  
  "Protect our own and Serve with military force"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2016 @ 5:59pm
  
  Re: The problem
  Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
  
  Found it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2014 @ 3:52am

ROFL! I don't feel comfortable with you walking up.
The way he said that was pretty damn funny, but the officer he should be jailed for assault. There is no excuse he should know the law in full it is his job after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STJ, 31 Jan 2014 @ 4:04am

hammer hit
So, if I "hammer hit" a cop, that isn't an assault charge? Can I get training from this guy so I can learn how to do it correctly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2014 @ 5:50am

There is one sure way of getting a cop fired and possibly face jail time...have the cop report the criminal activities of fellow cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fiorello, 31 Jan 2014 @ 6:56am

There is a reason the police is hiring only people with an IQ of room temperature, and NEVER the ones with PhDs. Intelligent cops would start arresting their own bosses with ironclad evidence, and prioritize enforcement. Like bank fraudsters before weed smokers.

What prosecutors would do then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2014 @ 7:19am

OFF-TOPIC QUESTION: I just submitted a story about a typical abuse-of-authority issue, but what should I select in the pulldown that says "Please select the closest topic"?

Is the all-encompassing "Legal Issues" category the closest Techdirt category for an abuse-of-authority, police-state, or bad-cop story?

Considering how often Techdirt reports abuse by government authorities ("police" and otherwise) that hold the power of law over our heads, maybe an additional category might be considered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2014 @ 8:24am

BAD COPS

Y U NO STAY FIRED?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2014 @ 9:08am

also consider that the other officers involved wont be fired now anyway and there is no footage of the guy who was assaulted being anything except subdued. he didn't throw any punches but, as has been seen many times now, the police did. they have the availability of being able to use any amount of force even when a member of the public is doing nothing to represent any threat at all. not good guys! if it were these officers on the receiving end of something, for doing nothing, while on holiday or at an airport, for example, they would be causing all sorts of grief!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2014 @ 11:55am

Oh, stop whining. At least he wasn't
shot in the back, despite surrendering with his hands in the air:

http://stopbeingfamous.com/2014/01/29/arizona-police-fatally-shoots-unarmed-man/_3308199.html

No doubt that bully, thug, liar, and coward Canterbury WOULD have shot him in the back...but he probably wasn't bright enough to think of that at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2014 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re: Oh, stop whining. At least he wasn't
  Unarmed citizen, not fighting, not running, just standing there ... so the cops just start shooting, and even after the *suspect* turns away from them and puts his hands in the air, they keep on firing until the guy is absolutely dead?
  
  And what's with the cop trying over and over to break the arm of a completely-limp corpse?
  
  ......................................................
  
  Now how about a video of something that never happens in America -- police showing so much restraint, it's shocking to watch.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhVrey_sDx8
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bryan Dreyfus, 5 Sep 2016 @ 5:42pm

'qualified Immunity'
Why don't these guys charge them with violating their right(s) and suing them individually?
Ex Parte Young 209 US 123 (1908), Harlow v. Fitzgerald, Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986) & more outline the ways cops actions strip 'qualified Immunity' from police officers.
I think the only way we will see these members of THE BLUE Gang start acting civilized is to take their money away when they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]