Cops Caught Misbehaving During Pot Dispensary Raid Sue Police Dept. To Prevent Recording From Being Used Against Them
from the the-kind-of-stupid-only-the-amoral-and-entitled-can-deploy dept
The cops who were caught on camera insulting an amputee, disabling security cameras, playing darts and sampling THC-laced edibles during a raid on a pot dispensary are suing to prevent Santa Ana Police Department investigators from using the recording against them. (via Reason)
Here's one of the two videos the officers are seeking to suppress.
There is an almost incomprehensible amount of audacity and stupidity in the officers' lawsuit.
First off, through their lawyer (provided by co-plaintiff Santa Ana Police Officers Association), the officers claim the recording they previously weren't aware of was "heavily edited" by the owners of the raided dispensary and "misrepresents" what actually happened that day.
[Attorney Corey W.] Glave said Pappas has altered the video in a way to make the police look bad.This is just the beginning of the stupidity. Of course the edited video only shows the raiding officers' misbehavior. No one has any interest in regular, orderly police work. But the tape does not make the officers "look bad." The OFFICERS make the officers look bad. They're the ones that ate pot-laced edibles and offered to kick an amputee "right in the fucking nub."
“The attorney representing the drug dispensary intentionally has misrepresented what happened,” Glave said.
To put it in another context, the officers' claim of misrepresentation by videotape is roughly equivalent to telling your boss when he's firing you for showing up for work drunk that he's "misrepresenting" the situation by "editing" down your work history to the day you showed up drunk for work. What about all the days you showed up sober?
This argument is asinine. This claim that anyone other than the officers themselves made the officers look bad is the sort of blame-shifting usually seen only in small children and lousy employees.
It gets worse. So much worse.
The suit also claims the video shouldn’t be used as evidence because, among other things, the police didn’t know they were on camera.Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
“All police personnel present had a reasonable expectation that their conversations were no longer being recorded and the undercover officers, feeling that they were safe to do so, removed their masks,” says the suit.
Police officers have no reasonable expectation of privacy -- at least not while performing their public duties in a business open to the public. The only "expectation of privacy" here is an illusion created by the officers themselves, who thought they had completely disabled the store's security cameras. There's nothing "reasonable" about this "expectation of privacy." Sure, the officers "reasonably" thought they were capable of disabling a surveillance system. But an expectation of privacy doesn't spring into existence simply because the officers failed to do so.
The lawsuit follows this stupidity up with more stupidity.
The dispensary also did not obtain consent of any officer to record them, the suit says.The dispensary doesn't "obtain consent" from its customers, but it has every right to utilize security cameras. No business anywhere has to obtain the permission of the public before recording them in publicly-accessible areas. This includes cops, even though these cops seem to believe otherwise.
The officers are trying to bend part of California's recording law to fit their situation. But they can't do that because it doesn't apply to them.
All parties to any confidential communication must give permission to be recorded, according to California’s eavesdropping law. Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute, however, specifically excludes from its application any conversations made in public places, government proceedings, or in circumstances where the participants of the conversation could reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded.Again, just because the officers believed they had disabled all of the store's cameras doesn't give a publicly-accessible business filled with public servants a reasonable expectation of privacy. The officers were aware their activities would be recorded. That's why they disabled the cameras. So, any expectation of privacy they mistakenly thought they might have had when the raid began would have dissipated the moment they saw the cameras.
And finally, here's the most ridiculous assertion in this sea of stupidity, even though it is (in one way) entirely correct.
“Without the illegal recordings, there would have been no internal investigation of any officer,” the suit says.True. If there had been no recording, the officers very likely WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT.
If these officers are unhappy with the recording's "portrayal" of their actions and displeased they're now being investigated by the department, all they had to do to avoid this was behave like professionals and not do the things they did during the raid. It's as simple as that. Everything else is the horrendously misguided whining of a bunch of entitled brats masquerading as officers of the law.
I cannot wait for a judge to get his or her hands on this filing. I am looking forward to the swift benchslap that is sure to follow. I sincerely hope the judge throws this case out before the defendants even have to file a response. Failing that, a motion to dismiss stating nothing more than "this is bullshit" should be all that's needed to end this debacle.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Right to be Oblivious
Are they showing a weakness here by trying to use laws they do not respect to protect their own fragile asses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right to be Oblivious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not showing undue respect? That's a tazin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F*** it!
That sounds to me like:
Hey guys we aren't recorded so let's do what ever the f*** we want! You there, kick that retard in the balls, and why haven't you over there punched that idiot yet? Punch him! What was that? No, we are safe because we can't expect to be recored here so do whatever the f*** you want but do not and I repeat DO NOT touch that loaded bong! That one is mine! Ok, now let's play some freaking darts!... Are you sick? Not on the cripple, the dartboard! Take some edibles before you speak again!
Well my imagination might have gotten the better of me on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: F*** it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: F*** it! Happens all the time
http://www.dailytech.com/Cops+Caught+Playing+Wii+During+Raid/article16325.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: F*** it!
"So, if you weren't being recorded, you would have raped the owner?"
Because that's what the suit implies - that had there been no recording, the officers woudl have broken the laws to their severest extent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: F*** it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ROFLMAO!
Video at 1:00 to 1:06.
Imaginary voice:
"I ram that thing into floor otherwise I might fall"
Serious question, how stoned where those guys when they raided that store? I have been on quite some highs and I never damaged my floor like that to get off a chair!
#toohightocop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who we are in the Dark.
We can expect them to continue to conduct themselves accordingly.
We can expect similar conduct from any organizion that condones or defends such conduct, including their precinct, their union and their council.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sauce for the goose?
Because, yeah, that's what these people were, ordinary criminals.
Perhaps they think that they should rob a bank and then object to any videos of them in the act? How would that be any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sauce for the goose?
Two things:
1. I'd love to see how it plays out if cops rob a bank. Just for the statistical value of it.
2. Do you really think they would be charged if they can make believe that a terrorist org. was responsible for it? Because as you know "TERRRRRORRRR" is worth more than the bank card. For a figure of how much it is worth look at some arms manufactures compared to federal reserve debt spending figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sauce for the goose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“The attorney representing the drug dispensary intentionally has misrepresented what happened,” Glave said.
That's a good point actually. If only there was a complete video recording, from multiple cameras, to show what happened...
... oh, right, they destroyed every camera and/or recording device they saw, intentionally making sure that there wouldn't be multiple recordings of what happened, with the intent that there wouldn't be any recordings of what happened.
They're just put out that they missed a camera and it shows them acting like corrupt thugs and idiots, since apparently if only all the other cameras had been left alone the recordings from them would have shown paragons of professionalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obstruction of Justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obstruction of Justice
Fell free to correct me if I am wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice
That phrase brings up a very specific period in history when one hears it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice
and comes very close to, but does not activate, Godwin's Law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice
You're wrong. They may or may not have had approval or encouragement from supervisors, but they did want they did because they wanted to and thought they could get away with it. No decent human being would follow orders to do what they did. They're thugs with no respect for the laws they've been entrusted to uphold. This incident reflects terribly on the processes for vetting police candidates and monitoring ongoing behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice
Really? Their supervisors told them to use the drugs they found? Seems doubtful.
Even if everything they did was what their supervisors told them to do, though, that excuses nothing at all. The officers are still corrupt and criminal. The only thing "I was ordered to do it" means is that your boss is corrupt and criminal as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obstruction of Justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice
They were "utilizing a new, highly effective field test" to confirm the presence of schedule 1 drugs in the Pot Shop.
The test results are in...and they're apparently quite positive...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to abuse the analogy, but I'm guessing there aren't too many days where these cops showed up sober.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey lets all use the excuse. All those other days I killed the people I was just fine! It was only the heavily edited recording that showed I killed that person. I swear they never got my consent to film me. So, it is totally illegal. Throw it out ok judge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, it would be a shame if we cops were convicted of something and later be required to ensure your safety for some reason, as cops do, which we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sort of like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh yes that would not be misused at all...
It is totally valid reasoning... Remember, they are the good guys who protect and serve...
(Gah just threw up a little when I wrote the last line)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That whole "I agree with the police simply because they are police and thus can do no wrong" idiotic thinking that most courts seem to have
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a nut shell:
Now here is a single video recording against the word of several police officers.
Does not look good for the recording.
The only saving grace is that
a) the police officers are the plaintiffs, so the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant
b) the defendant is the police department
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least the police officers are good sports
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyer : This is an outrageous abuse of civil rights, your Honor. My client is accused of breaking into the home of a local millionaire, but the only so-called 'evidence' the Police Department has is a video recording, from inside the property, of my client. That is tainted evidence, and must be excluded. My client was in a private property, and clearly had an expectation of privacy.
Judge : Not his own private property, however?
Lawyer : Doesn't matter, your Honor. Still not in public, so he clearly had an expectation of privacy!
Judge : How so? There were clear signs at each entrance to the property warning that, for security purposes, there were CCTV cameras recording.
Lawyer : Well, yes, granted - but earlier during the day, my client's accomplice had snuck in under the pretext of being an air-conditioning maintenance man, and had disabled all the cameras he could see. Therefore, my client CLEARLY in his own mind had an expectation of privacy as he was not expecting to be recorded.
Judge : But it would seem a hidden camera was missed?
Lawyer : Exactly, your Honor! A SPY camera SPYING on my client, who very clearly in his own mind had an expectation of privacy when he took his mask off. Ergo, being on private property and with his reasonable expectation of privacy fully intact, this evidence must obviously be suppressed.
Judge : Wow. Just ... wow. That's certainly a very novel argument.
Lawyer : Thank you, your Honor.
Judge : Not novel in a good way, counsellor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An arbitrator will put them back on the job with back pay.
Shake your head all you want, but time & time again we see those unfit for the job, forced back onto the public who thought that the rules were for everyone and that the bad apples were out of the barrel now. Why bother taking the bad apples out, when the system keeps shoving them back in with a bonus for their misdeeds? Why be shocked when good apples don't bother to report the bad apples or do anything, because they know it is pointless and they will face repercussions from those we've made untouchable and unaccountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back on the job with back pay.
Letting them work as law enforcement officers again pretty much lets them behave as they did here as law enforcement officers again.
Since the state refuses to hold them accountable, it's up to us to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back on the job with back pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back on the job with back pay.
So why do such regulations NOT exist for law enforcement? Be convicted of anything wrong results in loss of credential for one year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are police officers still eligible for reinstatement right after serious infractions of duty
They're the guys with the guns and they think that they can do what they want.
Of course it reflects on the entire justice system. As more corruption is revealed then the only reason we are obedient to justice is because of the gunpoint and not because we have respect for law or justice.
At that point, they're the few bank robbers in a vast and spread out facility, where anyone not carefully watched is desperate even obligated to cause mischief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Back on the job with back pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law Enforcement Agents are not held to any standard at all.
This is why this new epidemic of privately owned video recorders is considered such a severe problem within the thin blue line, and why they tried so hard to criminalize unauthorized recording of police activity.
Responses by precincts and the DoJ to breaches of this masquerade have been efforts to cover up, to suppress and to control damage. Very little is done in order to discipline those caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I recommend guillotines
Maybe we'll be more cautious next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grow up america ,
pot is a used by millions of people .
NO one has an expectation of privacy in a public place .
make it legal to sell to anyone over 18 with id from a shop that pays tax.
it would reduce crime and take money from the dealers .
All cops should carry body cameras too .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is what they call freedom these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because in the words of the prophet:
War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually:
That's actually the most important statement in the suit. It states quite definitely that the whole team and probably the department as well is rotten to the core and will routinely and summarily commit perjury in order to cover for each other's crimes. So if you fire the whole team without pension, you will not hit a single innocent person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government we deserve
Drug prohibition does not prevent drug abuse -- it only attracts career criminals to the business of law enforcement. The fools who elected this criminal government are just too stupid to realize that they are also going to be robbed in one way or another, because that is what criminals do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]