Cops Wanting To Track Movements Of Hundreds Of People Are Turning To Google For Location Records

from the wherein-'probable-cause'-is-defined-as-'maybe-this-might-be-helpful? dept

Police in Raleigh, North Carolina are using Google as a proxy surveillance dragnet. This likely isn't limited to Raleigh. Google harvests an astounding amount of data from users, but what seems to be of most interest to law enforcement is location info.

In at least four investigations last year – cases of murder, sexual battery and even possible arson at the massive downtown fire in March 2017 – Raleigh police used search warrants to demand Google accounts not of specific suspects, but from any mobile devices that veered too close to the scene of a crime, according to a WRAL News review of court records. These warrants often prevent the technology giant for months from disclosing information about the searches not just to potential suspects, but to any users swept up in the search.

The good news is there are warrants in play. This likely isn't due to the PD's interest in "balancing civil rights with public safety," no matter what the government's frontmouths have stated to the press. The WRAL report includes a warrant request containing a footnote indicating Google pushed back when the cops showed up with a subpoena demanding info on everyone who had been in the vicinity of a crime scene.

The State of North Carolina maintains that the information sought herein consists entirely of "record[s]" other than the "content of communications…" Such records, require only a showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe the information sought is relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation… Despite this, Google has indicated that it believes a search warrant, and not a court order, is required to obtain the location data sought in this application. Although the Government disagrees with Google's position, because there is probable cause to believe the information sought herein will contain evidence of the criminal offenses specified in this affidavit, the Government is seeking a search warrant in this case.

But the bad news is that warrants are supposed to be tailored to specific searches related to specific suspects. These warrants are allowing law enforcement to obtain information on dozens or hundreds of people entirely unrelated to the criminal act being investigated, other than their proximity to the crime scene.

At least 19 search warrants issued by law enforcement in Wake County since 2015 targeted specific Google accounts of known suspects, court documents show.

But the March search warrants in the two homicide cases are after something different.

The demands Raleigh police issued for Google data described a 17-acre area that included both homes and businesses. In the Efobi homicide case, the cordon included dozens of units in the Washington Terrace complex near St. Augustine's University.

Cellphones -- and any other devices using Google products that serve up location info -- are steady generators of third party records. Conceivably, this puts a wealth of location info only a subpoena's-length away from the government. It appears Google is pushing back, but that tactic isn't going to work in every case. The Raleigh PD may have been willing to oblige Google to avoid a fight in court (and the risk of handing over information about how often it approaches third parties for records and what it demands from them), but not every PD making use of Google's location info stash is going to back down this easily.

Other warrants obtained by WRAL show local law enforcement has collected phone info and location data on thousands of people while investigating such crimes as arson and sexual battery. Despite having no evidence showing the perpetrators of these crimes even had a cellphone in their possession at the time the incidents occurred, agencies approached Google with judge-approved warrants to collect data on people living in nearby apartment units or visiting local businesses near the crime scene.

The government's attorneys believe everything is perfectly fine because no communications or other content is collected. But defense attorneys and rights advocates point out these warrants approach civil liberties from entirely the wrong direction, making everyone in the area a suspect before trimming down the list. In one way, it's a lot like canvassing a neighborhood looking for a suspect. But this analogy only holds if everyone officers approach is viewed as a suspect. This isn't the case in normal, non-Google-based investigations.

After five years as a Wake County prosecutor, Raleigh defense attorney Steven Saad said he's familiar with police demands for Google account data or cell tower records on a named suspect. But these area-based search warrants were new to him.

"This is almost the opposite technique, where they get a search warrant in the hopes of finding somebody later to follow or investigate," Saad said. "It's really hard to say that complies with most of the search warrant or probable cause rules that we've got around the country."

The Wake County District Attorney believes these warrants are solid enough to survive a challenge in court. The government may get its wish. Officers using these to obtain data will likely come out alright, thanks to good faith reliance on approved warrants, but the magistrates approving dragnet collection as an initial investigatory step may have some explaining to do.

The DA says it's just like watching business surveillance video when investigating a robbery. Lots of non-criminals will be captured on tape and their movements observed by officers. But the comparison fails because, in most cases, the criminal act will be caught on tape, limiting further investigation to the perpetrators seen by officers. In these cases, everyone with a cellphone within a certain distance of crime scene becomes a suspect whose movements are tracked post facto by officers who have no idea -- much less actual probable cause to believe -- that any of this data actually points to the suspect they're seeking.

Then there's the problem of effectiveness. Starting an investigation with a geofence and attempting to turn it into a bottleneck that will result in pursuable suspects doesn't seem to be working. According to the documents seen by WRAL, only one person has been arrested for any of the crimes in which police approached Google for data on thousands of users. And in that case, the location data law enforcement requested didn't show up until months after the suspect was charged. It may be there have been more success stories, but routine sealing of documents and warrants tends to make it impossible for anyone outside of the police department to know for sure. But the department knows. And if it has good things to say about this questionable search technique, it hasn't offered to share them with the rest of the public.

Filed Under: location info, north carolina, police, raleigh, surveillance, warrants
Companies: google

Leaked Documents Expose NYPD's Long-Running Lack Of Officer Discipline

from the having-had-it-stuck-to-him,-The-Man-retreats-uneasily dept

Buzzfeed has obtained files the NYPD never wanted the public to see. This isn't the result of a protracted public records battle, but rather the work of an anonymous whistleblower. Presumably, those further up the chain of command are already familiar with the department's disinterest in holding officers accountable, so there's no whistleblowing outlet there. Also, presumably, the Civilian Complaint Review Board's hands are tied and it cannot hand out disciplinary reports for officers never formally disciplined. So, leak it is. And what a leak it is.

Secret files obtained by BuzzFeed News reveal that from 2011 to 2015 at least 319 New York Police Department employees who committed offenses serious enough to merit firing were allowed to keep their jobs.

Many of the officers lied, cheated, stole, or assaulted New York City residents. At least fifty employees lied on official reports, under oath, or during an internal affairs investigation. Thirty-eight were found guilty by a police tribunal of excessive force, getting into a fight, or firing their gun unnecessarily. Fifty-seven were guilty of driving under the influence. Seventy-one were guilty of ticket-fixing. One officer, Jarrett Dill, threatened to kill someone. Another, Roberson Tunis, sexually harassed and inappropriately touched a fellow officer. Some were guilty of lesser offenses, like mouthing off to a supervisor.

At least two dozen of these employees worked in schools. Andrew Bailey was found guilty of touching a female student on the thigh and kissing her on the cheek while she was sitting in his car. In a school parking lot, while he was supposed to be on duty, Lester Robinson kissed a woman, removed his shirt, and began to remove his pants. And Juan Garcia, while off duty, illegally sold prescription medication to an undercover officer.

In every instance, the police commissioner, who has final authority in disciplinary decisions, assigned these officers to “dismissal probation,” a penalty with few practical consequences. The officer continues to do their job at their usual salary. They may get less overtime and won’t be promoted during that period, which usually lasts a year. When the year is over, so is the probation.

There's an NYPD Snowden out there somewhere, exposing the dirty non-secret that is the continued lack of accountability within the largest police force in the nation. New York's Finest, the NYPD calls itself, ignoring the fact that it does almost nothing to ensure it's only staffed with the finest human beings.

Sure, 319 out of 40,000 officers is only a small percentage, but there's nothing in Buzzfeed's blockbuster article that indicates what it's seen is all that's available. What it has seen is only a small part of a larger whole. These are the probation files, which don't include officers dismissed. Add that to the mix and the total rises to over 1,400 officers caught breaking laws and policies -- many of which were allowed to resign while charges were still pending, keeping their records clean and their pension plans intact.

This exposé of kid glove treatment for repeat offenders contains this PR-friendly statement from the deputy commissioner of the office charged with handling internal disciplinary issues. Kevin Richardson, speaking on behalf of the job he's failing to do, made assertions clearly contradicted by the documents in Buzzfeed's possession.

“The department is not interested in terminating officers that don't need to be terminated. We're interested in keeping employees and making our employees obey the rules and do the right thing,” he told BuzzFeed News. “But where there are failings that we realize this person should be separated from the department, this police commissioner and the prior police commissioner have shown a willingness to do that.”

From what's being reported here, "separating" someone from the department is a last resort. And when it is done, it's often done in a way that allows bad officers to move on to other police departments or sit at home collecting a pension for a job well poorly done. Richardson is in denial, but at least he's a bit more reasonable than the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association.

Al O’Leary, a spokesperson for the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the largest police union representing NYPD officers, had a different message: “We’re not going to talk to you about anything negative as far as any of our officers.”

Well, if you won't, others will. Burying your head in the filthy sand doesn't make the problem go away. And it certainly doesn't put an entity willing to stand up for any officer, no matter how egregious their misconduct, in a better light.

Case in point: Officer Raymond Marrero. Marrero is still employed by the NYPD despite being named in four serious complaints in his first six years and racking up $900,000 of lawsuit settlements. This colorful story is just one of Marrero's many abusive escapades.

[I]n early 2009, a former police department volunteer named Louis Deluca confronted a man who, Deluca found out, had groped his brother’s 17-year-old girlfriend. The man took off with his friends, just as Marrero was pulling up. “I was telling him, 'There's some guys that groped a family member of mine,’” Deluca said. “‘They're right around the corner.’”

Marrero and his partner told Deluca to shut up, Deluca said. Incredulous, Deluca called Marrero a cunt. The officers pushed him to the ground and arrested him, according to a lawsuit Deluca later filed.

Back at the precinct, as Deluca was being taken out of the car, Marrero struck him with his police baton, opening up a gash on the top of his head. Another officer said there was so much blood, they had to clean it up with a mop. It took 12 staples at the hospital to close the wound.

In a deposition, Deluca said Marrero told him “You can’t disrespect us in the street like that.” Deluca received a $398,000 settlement, of which Marrero was ordered to pay $4,000.

Marrero pled guilty to several internal charges during this six-year period, including deploying excessive force and lying to department investigators. Despite this, Commissioner Ray Kelly felt Marrero still added value to the force. He was placed on probation and lost 45 vacation days, but was never terminated or asked to resign. An outside commission on police corruption reviewed these files and suggested Marrero be fired, as he "lacked the temperament necessary to be a police officer." This suggestion was ignored.

There's nothing about local laws or NYPD policies that encourage any sort of positive change. The NYPD says local laws allow it to withhold disciplinary records from the public. Disciplinary trials for officers are open to the public… so to speak. They're held without prior announcement of schedules or locations. They're presided over by a police official appointed by the NYPD Commissioner, rather than a neutral adjudicator. And if a top cop decides an accused cop should be terminated, the Commissioner can overturn the ruling. (And even if the Commissioner allowed the discipline to stay in place, there's a good chance the PBA would get the ruling overturned.)

A closed disciplinary does no favors for the public. Unsurprisingly, it does no favors for police officers, either. Bad cops become worse cops as no one's willing to engage in serious deterrence and the system itself is often used to retaliate against good cops who blow the whistle on bad behavior or sue the department for discriminatory practices. Ultimately, no one's accountable to anyone, despite everyone involved being a public servant.

This leak will likely provoke some changes within the department, but with zero oversight, the positive changes likely won't last. My money's on an internal investigation into the leak being the largest expenditure of time and effort as a result of this exposé.

Filed Under: nypd, police, police misconduct

Maryland Court System Arbitrarily Decides Public Should No Longer Have Access To Police Officers' Names

from the reverse-regulatory-capture dept

Supposedly completely of its own volition, Maryland's court system has decided to extend extra rights to law enforcement officers. Going to bat for opacity, the Maryland Judiciary has made it harder for the public to find out what officers are doing (or how often they're being sued). This comes against a backdrop where more sunlight would seem essential, what with several Baltimore police officers facing corruption charges in a wide-ranging investigation that has already netted a handful of convictions and guilty pleas.

Citing a favorite cop excuse, the state's courts have decided the public should be less informed.

Maryland’s Judiciary on Friday defended a decision to remove the names of police officers and other law enforcement authorities from the state’s searchable public online court database, saying the change was made in response to “safety concerns raised by law enforcement.”

The change took effect Thursday, following a decision by a judicial rules committee last June. Officers’ names no longer appear on cases they were involved with, and searches using an officer’s name cannot be performed.

The Judiciary claims this "balances" public access to court information with its "obligation" to protect officers from "potential misuse." It did not cite any actual misuse in defense of its position. Nor did it cite any support from law enforcement agencies or "safety concerns" raised by them. While the Anne Arundel County police admitted to lobbying for a change, all the department had asked for was the removal of first names, not removal of officers' names entirely.

Multiple law enforcement agencies contacted by The Baltimore Sun expressed their concern with the Judiciary's decision.

[T]he Maryland State Police said they had not lobbied for such a change, and the [Baltimore] Police Department said they did not agree with it.

A spokesman for Gov. Larry Hogan said: “Public information should be public. End of story.”

[...]

Baltimore police said they didn’t lobby for a change and “really don’t see why they got rid of what was already publicly available.”

“We use it too,” chief spokesman T.J. Smith said of the data.

Even more bizarrely, the Judiciary claims this removal only affects "remote access." Supposedly the names of officers can still be accessed by using local court kiosks. This makes no sense. Why would cops be "safer" if their names can only be accessed inside a local court? Wouldn't that make these (apparently imaginary) threats to officer safety much more proximate to the officers affected?

Beyond that, there's the fact that kiosk access is limited. Or, in the case of the Baltimore Circuit Court, kiosks are nonexistent. According to the Sun, the Baltimore court runs searches through an "archaic" computer system (not a kiosk) that does not provide the same search options as its online counterpart.

Local public defenders were unaware officer information was being removed, which seems to be a key oversight in the process. Public defenders are very much a part of the judicial process, yet they were never informed information they need on a daily basis would no longer be available. Already overworked, public defenders will now be forced to visit courts to access officer information and hope that court has kiosks that actually provide the search functions they need.

The Judiciary claims all of this was done in the open and with the consultation of stakeholders. This can't possibly be true since both law enforcement agencies and defense lawyers were apparently unaware of the change until The Baltimore Sun contacted them. The Judiciary's own paper trail suggests this was done under the radar with zero public debate about the rules change.

The committee’s annual report from last year shows that the change was made by eliminating a clause in the section “Access to Judicial Records,” which said, “Unless shielded by a protective order, the name, office address, office telephone number and office e-mail address, if any, relating to law enforcement officers, other public officials or employees acting in their official capacity, and expert witnesses, may be remotely accessible.”

It was unclear whether the change was debated — the rules committee has not posted minutes of its meetings since April 2016.

No one agrees with the Judiciary's change, which is probably why no one was consulted before the change was made. Everyone from city council members to state's attorney candidates to journalists find the change unwarranted, unhelpful, and a serious blow to trust-building efforts between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.

This unpopular move from the state judiciary suggests its members will show plenty of deference to law enforcement agencies and officers in the future. And it will continue to do so even when there's plenty of evidence out there showing officers are often untrustworthy, when not completely corrupt. It has a single reason for making this move -- officer safety -- but there's nothing in the judiciary's past that even suggests court records are being used to target police officers. Even local police departments release the names of officers involved in shootings and cases involving apparent excessive force. The Judiciary has decided to roll back transparency at the worst possible time, giving cops extra privileges they weren't even asking for and further damaging the public's trust in their public servants.

Filed Under: law enforcement, maryland, police, secrecy, transparency

Police Department With Eight Full-Time Officers Acquired 31 Military Vehicles Thru DoD's Surplus Program

from the closing-in-on-a-half-million-in-military-surplus-per-officer dept

The Defense Department's 1033 program has allowed law enforcement to muddy the water on the distinction between police force and military force. Given the right reasoning (most commonly cited: Wars on Terror/Drugs), police departments are allowed to pick up surplus military gear, often for free (utilizing DHS grants) and start pretending they're an occupying force, rather than public servants.

This came to a head following protests in Ferguson, Missouri, where viewers around the world were treated to the sight of local law enforcement rolling up on residents in mine-resistant vehicles while clad in gear that made officers look far more like soldiers than cops. This prompted a rollback of the 1033 program by Obama, limiting the sort of gear police departments could obtain to more innocuous surplus, like computers and furniture.

That has since changed. President Trump, showing his support for all things law enforcement, rolled back Obama's rollback, giving police departments access to assault vehicles and military weapons. With this comes a rollback in trust, as it has been shown giving military gear to cops makes them believe they're soldiers in a war zone, rather than public servants in a community.

Not everyone abuses this program, but those that do, do so spectacularly. An 11-member police force for a Delaware town with 400 residents has availed itself of more than $3 million in 1033 gear over the last five years. This first came to light late last year when documents obtained by Muckrock prompted town officials to wonder why they hadn't been notified of the department's stockpile.

When asked if the Dewey PD could account for all of the items by providing the physical location of items in their possession and paper trails for items sold, Sgt. Cliff Dempsey said, “We’re not going to comment on that matter at this time.”

On the agenda for a Nov. 11 Dewey Beach commissioners’ meeting is the discussion of three options for to the 1033 program:

1. require the DBPD to provide complete accounting for property received through any federal or surplus property program,

2. accept a recommendation from the town’s audit committee to utilize the town’s auditors, or

3. hire an independent consultant to conduct a more comprehensive review.

Some of the military equipment can be located. A recent report by the Milford Beacon contains a photo showing five military trucks and two ATVs parked in the department's storage lot. But that is only a small part of the Dewey PD's total holdings.

[A]mong hundreds of line items turned over between March 2013 and December 2017, the police acquired a total of 12 ATVs, 51 jackets or parkas and 13 space heaters, and 19 trucks of all kinds.

Dewey’s department has just eight full-time and three part-time officers, the town population is less than 400 people and the town itself is a just mile long and two blocks wide.

This includes a mine-resistant armored car and an armored Humvee -- all to oversee 400 people residing in a one-mile, two-block stretch. The justifications for even the more innocuous acquisitions are questionable, if not downright laughable. As the Beacon points out, the Dewey PD requested boats for water rescues, something already handled by a separate beach patrol and the Coast Guard. ATVs were supposedly handed to the department for something termed "homeland security patrols."

Many items were obtained to support the PD's private shooting range, including multiple tractors to shore up backstop berms and parkas to wear on colder days. The location of the range is kept secret by the department and the town was not (knowingly) involved in financing its construction. This secret range is mentioned more than 50 times in the PD's 1033 requests.

Despite this news surfacing last November, town commissioners have yet to receive any answers from the department it apparently can't oversee.

At their Feb. 10 meeting, Commissioner Gary Persinger lamented, “We’re three months down the road and we don’t have information in response to that request.”

As of March 1, [Mayor T.J.] Redefer said had not yet been privy to the departmental justifications of need.

On top of this, the department has apparently been selling some of the surplus it has received. Certain sales are permitted by federal law, but there has been no reporting by the police department detailing the amount of money received or what is being done with the funds. The extensive list of items obtained makes it appear the Dewey PD has stocked and furnished its office at federal taxpayers' expense while avoiding any sort of local accountability.

All of this is legal under state and federal law. In Delaware, law enforcement agencies aren't required to notify local governments about 1033 acquisitions and sales. And so they don't, apparently, even though it would make more sense in the long run to be upfront about it. When details about acquired military equipment remain solely in the hands of law enforcement recipients, the general assumption is something is being abused. After all, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide, right? But as is so often the case, details are uncovered years after the fact and often by unrelated third parties who apparently care more about police oversight than the local governments charged with overseeing their law enforcement agencies.

Filed Under: 1033, delaware, dewey, military surplus, police

Cop Hits Woman's Car At 94 MPH, Killing Her Infant. Police Arrest Woman For Negligent Homicide.

from the this-will-surely-endear-them-to-the-community dept

This is how things go in the US, where law enforcement is treated like a favored religion and everyone who isn't on the inside is just grist for prosecution mills. Here's the setup, via Matt Pearce.

A Baton Rouge police officer was arrested Friday on a count of negligent homicide, accused of going 94 mph in a Corvette when he caused an off-duty crash on Airline Highway that killed an infant and injured six others.

The officer, Christopher Manuel, 28, was driving north in a 2007 Chevrolet Corvette shortly after 8 p.m. Oct. 12 on Airline Highway when it struck a Nissan at the intersection at Florline Boulevard that was occupied by four adults and three children.

All of the occupants of the Nissan were taken to the hospital. One of those passengers, a 1-year-old baby, Seyaira Stephens, later died.

The van made a left turn in front of the off-duty officer. Both vehicles had a green light. The speed limit on this road was 50 mph. The speed the officer was traveling was verified by his Corvette's black box. Here's the positive news:

Manuel, of 8508 Greenwell Springs Road, was booked into East Baton Rouge Parish Prison on a count of negligent homicide and speeding, Sgt. L'Jean McKneely, police spokesman, said.

The officer was booked and made bond. So far, so good. Here comes the avalanche of bad news.

Manuel, who has been on paid administrative leave since the accident, will remain on paid leave until after an internal investigation is concluded, McKneely said.

Due process, I suppose, even if it was clear the officer was traveling at nearly twice the posted speed limit. Much of the information needed to conclude the investigation was already in his department's hands, thanks to the Corvette's airbag control module, which recorded this data at the time of impact.

But if there's going to be any justice done, it's going to be severely delayed.

That investigation will not begin until he recovers from his injuries and is released to work by a doctor.

That's the sort of thing never extended to lowly civilians. No officer has ever told an injured arrestee to heal up before worrying about answering questions. No law enforcement agency has backburnered an investigation simply because its subject can't move around on their own yet.

But these investigations took no time to complete. No one at the Baton Rouge PD waited around for victims of the officer's reckless driving to be fully healed before they began their arrests.

Just weeks after a Baton Rouge police officer was arrested on negligent homicide and accused of causing a crash that injured several people and killed a baby, the child's mother was also arrested on the same charge because police said she failed to properly secure the baby's car seat.

Brittany Stephens, 20, was arrested Tuesday after police found that her daughter's car seat was not secured and the straps were not adjusted correctly for the child's height, according to her arrest report. Police said the "lack of securing the seat to the vehicle and the loose straps are a contributing factor in the death" of the child and "show gross negligence" on the mother's part.

Ah, the healing power of criminal charges, brought against someone involved in an accident that was no fault of her own. She (and her daughter) were just passengers in the van. Not to worry, the police issued citations to everyone else in the vehicle the officer hit. But the mother of the infant the cop killed is facing the same charges he is. And she's not going to be given a chance to rest up before the police move forward with their investigation. The PD has already wrapped this one up and forwarded charges to the DA's office.

East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore III said Tuesday his office has not yet determined whether Stephens or Manuel will face charges, but prosecutors "will review all reports, charges and arrests and make the appropriate decisions based upon facts and law."

There is nothing right about this, not even technically. The reckless driving performed by the officer should nullify the culpability of the people in the car he hit. While Officer Manuel may have had the right of way, his excessive speed changed the contours of the incident. In a case involving law enforcement officers manufacturing a reason to stop a car, a court pointed out unsafe driving by officers nullifies moving violations performed by other drivers.

[T]he Court finds as a matter of fact and law that Defendant did not fail to yield to the cruiser because the cruiser was not proceeding in a lawful manner. Rather, the cruiser was itself speeding on a dark, rainy night at low visibility further compromised by road glare. By proceeding in such a reckless manner – and in violation of both state and local law – Ofc. Davis forfeited the preferential status afforded a lawful driver under the right-of-way statute.

This isn't apples-to-apples (the court making this declaration was in Ohio, not Louisiana, where this accident took place) but it's a good rule of thumb. If someone is driving 44 mph over the speed limit, they've effectively forfeited their right-of-way status. A left turn taken in front of a speeding officer should give the officer zero preferential treatment in the eyes of the law. The officer should be 100% culpable for the damage and loss of life. Arresting a mother who lost her infant to an officer's reckless actions is needlessly cruel and serves zero deterrent purpose. Her daughter can't be killed again.

The way the Baton Rouge PD is handling this ensures Officer Manuel's eventual conviction will also have zero deterrent value. It shows officers the PD is willing to arrest victims of their unlawful actions and give them all the time they want -- with pay! -- to heal up before they're forced to confront the results of their recklessness. If the DA is smart, the charges against the mother will vanish and the cop will be rung up for his negligent actions.

Filed Under: baton rouge, brittany stephens, christopher manuel, negligent homicide, police, seyaira stephens

LAPD Finally Starts Fixing Its Awful Body Camera Policy, But It's Not All Good News

from the chipping-away-at-opacity dept

It appears the city of Los Angeles is finally going to revise its terrible police body camera policy. Nearly $60 million was spent outfitting officers with cameras, but the end result provided little value to taxpayers. As it stands now, the only way to access footage is to engage in civil litigation with the police department (over violated rights, not rejected records requests) or be a defendant in a criminal case. Even then, a judge still has to be convinced you have a right to see the footage, even if you're one of the subjects.

The proposed law change would flip the situation entirely around, putting the burden on law enforcement to show why footage should remain out of public view.

Under the proposal drafted by Richard Tefank, executive director of the Police Commission, video shot during critical incidents -- which includes shootings, in-custody deaths and other major events -- would be released within 45 days. The new policy would apply to body cameras, in-car video, police facility surveillance video, drones and video, in the department's possession, that was captured by third parties.

That very last bit is concerning as it gives police control of third-party footage, which will incentivize the seizure of bystanders' phones and nearby businesses' surveillance video. This might work if law enforcement only makes copies of this footage, leaving third parties free to release their footage whenever they want.

But it would definitely dial back the restraints on police-generated footage. It creates a presumption of release that must face review every 14 days if law enforcement agencies wish to continue withholding footage. Unfortunately, this process will still be mostly an inside job. Review of requested delays will fall on the police chief and two selected commissioners from the LAPD's Board of Police Commissioners. While the Board is composed of five "civilian" commissioners, its independent power will be somewhat weakened by its limited presence during footage release reviews.

The single bright note in all of this is that it appears the Board is generally responsive to citizens' concerns and complaints. According to the NBC Los Angeles story, this small step towards openness was prompted by public input on body-worn camera policies.

The commission last year retained the Policing Project at New York University School of Law to gather public input into a new policy regarding the release of body-worn camera video. According to a report it released last September, a majority of members of the general public who responded to a Policing Project survey said video shot during critical incidents should be made publicly within a short period of time.

It's not as good as it could be. And the land grab on third-party video hopefully only limits the release of copies maintained by the LAPD. While it would be all but impossible to make the current situation worse, the hesitant step in right direction shows LAPD officials are starting to realize running a closed shop only further alienates the communities the department serves. Hopefully, additional public input will continue steering the agency towards more openness in the future.

Filed Under: body cameras, lapd, police, transparency

After Controversial Traffic Stop, Police Chief Says He Won't Release Recordings To 'Anti-Police' Requesters

from the always-forget-the-'unless-you-don't-like-the-government'-clause-in-t dept

The Chesterfield County Police Department is willing to violate your rights. If it's not your Fourth Amendment rights, it'll be your First. And this is fine with the department's chief, who's gone on record as a supporter of rights violations.

A traffic stop for a minor violation quickly escalated into a life-or-death situation for a black college student cops. Elie Mystal of Above the Law breaks it down as only Elie can.

Yesha Callahan’s son survived his encounter with police. The Virginia State University freshman was pulled over last month on suspicion of being black (the police are calling it marijuana something or other, but I’ve long since stopped trying to sugarcoat their probable cause for them). Police saw something in his waistband, they claimed, and pulled a gun on him. For 38 seconds, the boy’s life was at the mercy of the state. But he kept his cool, and survived. No shots were fired.

If you think this is too "anti-police," here's a different take from Michael Paul Williams of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, who has seen the body camera footage.

In the police body camera footage, the car rolls through a red light on Chesterfield Avenue as it turns right onto East River Road in Ettrick.

An unmarked Chesterfield County police car flashes its lights and pulls the vehicle over. The traffic stop seems unremarkable until an officer wearing a body camera asks the driver — by now, standing outside the car at the officer’s request — if he’s in possession of anything illegal. The driver attempts to tell the officer he has a knife and starts to reach for it.

The knife, as it turns out, was legal. But the situation instantly spiraled from calm to chaotic.

“Don’t reach. Don’t reach. Do not reach,” shouts the officer’s partner, who points a gun at the driver from the other side of the vehicle.

“He’s got something clipped in front of his pants,” he shouts to his partner, as the driver continues to attempt to explain himself. “OK, don’t you freaking grab for a knife!”

As the driver, a Virginia State University student, is being handcuffed, the gun remains trained on him for 38 seconds. When the handcuffs are secured, the officer lowers the weapon. Throughout the encounter, a passenger in the car who is also enrolled at VSU remains still in his seat.

The knife was legal and the student compliant. But still guns were drawn by men who seem to only stop yelling when they start "fearing for their safety." No marijuana was found and the driver was released without a citation. His mother took her complaint to the court of public opinion. (She also filed one with the police department.)

Callahan, though, was not merely satisfied that her boy was spared an execution. Callahan is a writer for the Root and shared her experience there. She tweeted about it. She made herself an issue for the Chesterfield County Police Department. She filled out a FOIA request demanding that the department release the body cam footage of her son’s nearly deadly traffic stop.

The Department denied her request.

Callahan wants to know what happened to her son -- how a minor traffic violation turned into a guns-drawn situation. Police Chief Jeffrey Katz doesn't want to give it to her. At first, the department claimed it couldn't release the video because of an "ongoing investigation." It's a bullshit reason, considering no ticket was issued and no charges were filed. When this was pointed out, the police spokesman spun it, claiming it was part of an internal investigation of the officers involved in the stop. But the police chief wasted no time undercutting his spokesperson's excuse.

“This is a video we would want out in the public,” Katz said. “There’s nothing in the video bad for the officer or bad for the department or bad for the profession.”

This doesn't sound like the words of man running an investigation. This sounds like the involved officers have already been cleared. But this statement comes at the end of a string of statements by the police chief which show he's violating Yesha Callahan's First Amendment rights, along with public records laws, just because he doesn't like her.

Katz says part of the reason the department has not released the video to Callahan is that she has “an anti-law enforcement agenda.”

That's not a valid reason to withhold records. Lots of people who requests records aren't supportive of the entities they request records from. Katz is creating serious, legally-actionable First Amendment issues by stating he'll only release records to friendly requesters. Chief Katz goes further, though, suggesting he won't release records to anyone who might present them along with negative commentary.

“I believe we have a responsibility to maintain custody of the video and not put it in the public domain,” he said, “because we want to ensure that it is not spliced, that voice overs are not placed over it and that we can maintain and control the authenticity of the video. But we are more than willing to share the video with anybody who wants to come in and view it.”

This is beyond stupid. The best weapon against speech you don't like is more speech. If someone alters the video and/or adds commentary, the department can release unedited videos for comparison. You cannot withhold records just because you think you won't like how they'll be used. Chief Katz is violating Callahan's First Amendment rights because he apparently believes "anti-police" people have fewer rights than those with more neutral viewpoints.

The invitation to view the recordings on Chief Katz's home turf doesn't make the rights violations disappear. There's little to like about viewing recordings surrounded by people who don't like you. This would be a five-hour round trip for Callahan -- one she'd prefer to make with her lawyer. It would be simpler for everyone if Katz would just hand over a copy of the recordings. But he won't. And his statements make it clear he'll violate the First Amendment in the future if it keeps documents from falling into the hands of his enemies.. you know, members of the public he serves. Fortunately, he's said these things out loud to members of the press, which will come in handy for Callahan when she files her public records lawsuit against the department.

We all know public agencies will do everything they can to keep documents out of the hands of critics. But most of those agencies have been smart enough to use FOIA exemptions, excessive fees, and years of foot-dragging to withhold documents from the public. Chief Katz, however, is a transparency pioneer: one willing to tell journalists he won't release records to people he doesn't like. This isn't going to end well for him.

Filed Under: anti-police, chesterfield county, foia, motives, police, transparency, yesha callahan

Kansas Legislature Introduces Two Bills Mandating Speedy Release Of Police Body Cam Footage

from the thinning-the-blue-line dept

Two new bills have been introduced in the Kansas state legislature with the intent of forcing law enforcement agencies to turn over body camera footage in a timely manner. They appear to have been prompted by the family of a man shot and killed by police officers late last year. It took police 11 weeks to turn over footage of the incident. Even then, it wasn't as though the footage was given to the executor of Dominique White's estate. Instead, White's father was "granted access" to the the body cam footage, which means he was able to watch the video on police equipment at a police station by himself with no other surviving family members.

This is the state of Kansas' current laws regarding body camera footage. Very few people are given access to footage and, with rare exceptions, the footage remains completely in the hands of law enforcement. The only people granted access to footage at this point in time are subjects of recordings, parents of minors who are subjects of recordings, attorneys for a recording subject, or a person's heir.

These bills aim to change that. The Senate bill [PDF] would require law enforcement agencies to produce footage for these recipients within 24 hours of a request. It would also add to the list of viewers, albeit with an additional delay. Anyone requesting video footage would have access to it within 30 days if the recording contains use of force resulting in injury or death. Agencies would still be able to redact footage in certain instances (mainly to remove the name/face of an officer currently under investigation) but would have to remove redactions once this investigation concludes. And slow-rolling an investigation won't help police keep footage at least partially buried: the law says all redactions must be removed within 270 days.

The House bill [PDF] speeds up that timetable. Both require a 24-hour turnaround for subjects of body cam footage, but the House bill would force law enforcement agencies to turn over video to anyone requesting it within five days of the use of force incident.

Needless to say, law enforcement agencies aren't happy with the proposed laws. Critics from affected departments spoke up against the bill by insinuating citizens were too stupid to handle unredacted footage of use of force incidents.

Body cameras don’t have the same perspective as the officers, said Greg Smith, a special deputy/sheriff’s liaison with the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office.

“If you’re looking for this to be some kind of panacea to fix police and community relations, this is not the bill,” he said.

Olathe Police Chief Steven Menke said a body camera is a tool but “rarely tells the entire story.”

“We cannot lose sight of the fact that police officers have the same due process rights as every other citizen,” he said.

Shorter law enforcement: trust cops, not your lying eyes. Yes, body cameras "rarely tell the entire story," but that objection is never raised when footage clears officers of wrongdoing or shows subjects apparently engaged in criminal acts. And cameras are not a panacea. But burying footage behind legislated barriers is about as far removed from a "panacea" as law enforcement can get.

It's true a 24-hour turnaround time is extremely tight, especially if the responding agency doesn't have much practice handling camera footage and/or applying redactions. That being said, too long of a grace period for redaction just invites stonewalling, even when footage is edited and ready to go. Without hard limits on production, everyone's still going to be subjected to interminable waits to access body cam footage.

The complaint by the local police union is even more nonsensical.

"If this bill becomes law, law enforcement agencies would be forced to disclose the video long before their criminal and/or administrative reviews are completed," said Blaine Dryden, president of the Kansas State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police. "Unquestionably, the disclosure with this much haste is not accompanied by any substantial factual context that a complete investigation provides."

Law enforcement agencies are Johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to delivering rap sheets, surveillance footage, questionable social media posts, or whatever else puts victims of excessive force in a bad light. But they're oh so reluctant to turn over footage showing officers engaged in questionable behavior. Somehow we're expected to wait for everything to get sorted out over the next several months-to-years before we're allowed to take a look at footage officers captured in public while performing their public duties.

The clock is ticking on these bills and legislators pushing for the new laws claim they're being met with law enforcement stonewalling.

Sen. Molly Baumgardner, R-Louisburg, a supporter of the bill, said the issue of providing access to police recordings has been around the Legislature for at least three years, and she said opponents of the measure have so far been reluctant to negotiate.

If they can wait it out, the legislative deadline for bill passage will come and go with the bills still in the starting dock. That's only a few days away. Without forward progress, the bills will idle until the next session and may not be picked up again until next year.

It's unrealistic to think the release of footage will single-handedly reform law enforcement agencies. But allowing them to maintain the opaque status quo will result in zero change whatsoever. Hopefully, at least one these bills will move forward before the deadline and start making its way towards the governor's desk.

Filed Under: body cameras, kansas, police, transparency

Research Paper Links Police Unions To Increased Officer Misconduct

from the more-rights,-more-problems dept

Some research [PDF] has emerged indicating handing officers extra rights results in more citizen complaints. This may seem to be of the "water is wet" research variety, but there's no reason to shrug this off. While most of us can infer that shielding officers from the consequences of their actions would naturally result in increased misconduct, almost all evidence to date has been anecdotal. (h/t Marginal Revolution)

University of Chicago researchers were given the perfect chance to weigh the addition of a collective bargaining agreement against year-to-year complaint totals. Thanks to a 2003 Florida state supreme court decision, Florida sheriff's deputies were allowed to unionize, finally joining their police department counterparts. This gave the researchers a dividing line for a before and after comparison. The results were unsurprising.

We construct a comprehensive panel dataset of Florida law enforcement agencies starting in 1997, and employ a difference-in-difference approach that compares sheriffs’ offices and police departments before and after Williams. Our primary result is that collective bargaining rights lead to about a 27% increase in complaints of officer misconduct for the typical sheriff’s office.

That's an impressive jump and it can be tied to the addition of a collective bargaining agreement. The union's bargaining power secured a lengthy list of extra rights for deputies. While due process should be afforded to everyone, the version of due process citizens make do with contains none of these perks and protections.

[F]lorida provides by statute a Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights (“LEOBOR”), which includes a variety of procedural protections for officers facing disciplinary investigations. One provision gives such an officer the right to “be informed of the nature of the investigation before any interrogation begins,” and to receive “all witness statements . . . and all other existing evidence, including, but not limited to, incident reports, GPS locator information, and audio or video recordings relating to the incident under investigation, . . . before the beginning of any investigative interview of that officer” (F.S.A§ 112.532(1)(d)). That is particularly generous given another requirement that “[a]ll identifiable witnesses shall be interviewed, whenever possible, prior to the beginning of the investigative interview of the accused officer” (id.).

And that's not even the whole list of additional "due process" goodies Florida deputies received.

[S]ome Florida CBAs give law enforcement officers the right to challenge any discipline the local government seeks to impose through arbitration or other administrative review, thus depriving the government of the power to make independent disciplinary decisions. Other rights include a time limitation on internal disciplinary investigations, expungement of old records even when the officer is found to have engaged in misconduct, and inspection of investigation files prior to a disciplinary hearing… [A]ll of these additional procedural rights raise the cost of terminating misbehaving officers and thereby lower deterrence.

The researchers note the conclusions aren't definitive. There's no control group to observe and it's tempting to let correlation infer causation. But the research is as thorough as it can be, given the limited dataset. Law enforcement agencies closely guard internal documents on police misconduct. In some states, public records laws make it illegal to release any of these files to the public, forcing researchers to work blind.

But this paper does show there's something wrong with union agreements and has the math to back up the seemingly obvious conclusions. When you give people with power more power and less accountability, abuse is usually the result. Whether the union agreements are responsible for all of the 27% jump in complaints is debatable, but the numbers show the agreements have made policing worse, rather than better.

Filed Under: police, police misconduct, police unions

Court Sends Cop Back To Prison For Bogus 'Contempt Of Cop' Arrest

from the classic-seven-words-you-can't-say-to-cops-skit dept

It shouldn't take an appeals court to reach this conclusion, but that's the route taken most frequently by people challenging their convictions. Former sheriff's deputy Matthew Corder doesn't want to serve time after being convicted of depriving Derek Baize of his constitutional rights, and so we've ended up at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (h/t Sixth Circuit Blog)

This all stems from a "contempt of cop" incident. Baize returned home one night to find Deputy Corder parked in his parking spot in front of his home. Baize asked what was going on, only to be told to "mind his own business." Baize then asked the deputy to move his car so Baize could park in front of his house. The deputy said he'd move his car "when he was ready."

Nonplussed by the behavior of this supposed public servant, Baize told the deputy to "fuck off." Deputy Corder asked for clarification. Baize responded: "I did not stutter. I said 'fuck off.'" Baize then walked into his house. Corder claimed he yelled for Baize to stop. Baize said he didn't hear this. It really doesn't matter. Citizens are under no legal obligation to engage in conversations with law enforcement officers. The deputy's testimony indicates Baize wasn't committing any crime nor was he wanted for a suspected criminal act when he walked away from the yelling deputy.

Baize went into his house. The deputy followed. He banged on the door and told Baize to come outside. Baize refused, again well within his rights. Baize also pointed out Corder might want to get his paperwork in order if he wanted to set foot in the residence. The following was all caught on Corder's body camera:

Baize opened his front door but left his screen door closed. Defendant opened Baize’s screen door and told Baize to come outside “or there are going to be issues.” Baize repeatedly refused, saying that defendant needed a warrant, but defendant responded that he did not “need no warrant.” Defendant told Baize that “right now you’re out here hollering at me and you ran in there, which means there’s exigent circumstances.” Baize again refused to come outside. Defendant reached inside Baize’s home to grab Baize, who braced himself against his doorjamb and said “you are not allowed in my house.” Defendant then entered Baize’s home, grabbed Baize by the back of the neck, and began to arrest him. Defendant’s fellow deputy, Billy Allen, arrived and assisted with the arrest. Defendant tased Baize into submission and completed the arrest.

Corder was wrong multiple times during this interaction. He did need a warrant to enter the residence. Given the circumstances, it seems highly unlikely he could have obtained one, having only the probable cause of being disrespected while parked in someone else's driveway. He was also wrong about the circumstances. There's nothing "exigent" about someone entering the home where they live, even if there's a law enforcement officer on the lawn trying to find some way to regain control of the situation.

Nevertheless, Corder entered the home and arrested Baize, ringing him up on the two bullshit charges: fleeing (in the second degree) and resisting arrest. Baize was nailed with $1500 cash bond. The judge refused to allow an unsecured bond because Baize had been arrested for "evading" the deputy. Baize couldn't afford the full $1500 and spent two weeks in jail. During that stay, he lost his job.

On top of that, the prosecutor and Baize's public defender agreed on an order of dismissal (without Baize's knowledge) stipulating that he agreed there was probable cause to arrest him for these charges. This was presented to the judge as something Baize had agreed to, even though it obviously lacked Baize's signature.

Following all of this, Deputy Corder was indicted by a grand jury and convicted on both counts after a four-day trial. Corder appealed his conviction, raising questions about the sufficiency of evidence against him as well as jury instructions regarding the Fourth Amendment and the physical boundaries of residences protected under this amendment. Corder asserted Baize's decision to answer the door after he began knocking on it somehow generated probable cause for a fleeing/evading arrest. The Sixth Circuit Appeals Court [PDF] doesn't buy it.

[W]e reject defendant’s theory that the fifth element — “in fleeing or eluding the person is the cause of, or creates a substantial risk of, physical injury to any person” — was satisfied when Baize resisted arrest after returning to answer the door. For defendant to have had probable cause to arrest Baize for fleeing and evading, he must have had probable cause to believe that all of the elements of the crime were satisfied at the moment he sought the arrest. Wesley v. Campbell, 779 F.3d 421, 429 (6th Cir. 2015). By defendant’s own account, however, the fifth element — Baize’s creation of the risk — was not satisfied until after defendant initiated the arrest and Baize physically resisted. See Trial Tr. vol. II at 160:11-161:5 (defendant admits that he did not make the decision to arrest until “we were trying to bring [Baize] out [and] he resisted”) (PageID # 832-33); Def. Br. at 18 (“The substantial risk of injury occurred when Baize resisted arrest . . . .”). It is therefore impossible, under defendant’s theory, that defendant had probable cause to believe Baize had met all of the elements of fleeing and evading when defendant made the decision to arrest.

As for his argument that he did not cross the threshold to effect the arrest (or, conversely, that circumstances allowed him to enter the home without a warrant), the appeals court points to the deputy's own body camera footage as evidence of Corder's Fourth Amendment violations.

Defendant’s body camera shows Baize open his inner door, leaving the screen door shut. Defendant was unable to cross the threshold and touch Baize without opening the screen door himself (which he did), and all the while Baize remained several feet removed from his threshold, inside of his home. Baize was not exposed to the same degree of public view, speech, hearing, and touch as though he was on his porch.

As to the allegedly faulty jury instructions, the court has this to say:

Defendant’s proposed jury instruction is also legally flawed, as it incorrectly suggests that the hot-pursuit exception to the warrant requirement applies any time a suspect retreats into his home, no matter the circumstances…

Even if defendant’s proposed instruction contained a properly limited definition of the hot-pursuit exception, defendant fails to explain how the exception applied to his decision to enter Baize’s home. In Kentucky, second-degree disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 525.060(2), and there was no physical evidence of disorderly conduct that Baize could have destroyed.

This isn't Corder's first outing as a defendant. He's faced lawsuits before for misconduct, excessive force, and other civil rights violations. This David Meyer Lindenberg post for the now-defunct FaultLines details 20 years of abusive behavior by Deputy Corder.

In 1997, when Corder was an officer with the Louisville PD, a man named John Dennis Wilson accused him of pepper-spraying him in the face as he sat handcuffed in the back of a police car. Notably, Corder’s police report didn’t mention any pepper spray, and he failed to file a use-of-force report in violation of department policy. After Wilson sued him in federal court, Corder admitted everything. The city settled with Wilson for $15,000 ($22,500 in 2016 money). Corder was not punished.

On New Year’s Day, 1998, Corder arrested Adrian Reynolds, 34, who was wanted on a domestic violence charge. When other officers arrived on the scene, they found Reynolds with a broken face and Corder’s uniform soaked in blood: Corder had repeatedly beaten Reynolds in the head with his fist and flashlight. An internal affairs investigation cleared Corder, though the arrest made the news when prison screws beat Reynolds to death six days later.

Also in January, 1998, Corder was sued by 36-year-old Gary Branham after Corder punched him in the face and pepper-sprayed him while moonlighting as security for an amateur boxing tournament. Although Corder hit Branham with a number of charges, including disorderly conduct, they were all dropped when Corder failed to appear at Branham’s preliminary hearing. Branham’s suit was resolved when a jury found in favor of Corder and the city. Corder was not punished.

In October, 2002, Corder pulled a gun on and arrested a man for trying to repossess Corder’s SUV. This earned him his first trip to criminal court. According to the Louisville chief of police, Robert White, who fired Corder in 2003, Corder tried to make a deal with the repo company: in exchange for releasing the arrested worker, they’d let him keep the car.

This history -- along with Corder's history of lying to police investigators about his misconduct -- forms the basis of Corder's Fifth Amendment argument. Corder believed the jury was unfairly prejudiced when his past lies to police departments he worked for were brought up during cross-examination. The court denies Corder on this one as well, pointing out jurors had every right to know whether the officer on the stand was a trustworthy person.

Defendant argues that permitting cross-examination concerning his lies to internal affairs investigators in 1991 and 1998 violated both his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b). (Def. Br. at 34.) Over defendant’s objection, however, the district court permitted the government to elicit defendant’s testimony admitting these lies. The district court based its ruling on Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148 (1958), concluding that defendant’s testimony about his own truthfulness had opened the door to such cross-examination.

[...]

On the record before us, as well as the authority offered by defendant, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that defendant waived his Fifth Amendment right as to his prior statements to police investigators. Defendant’s belief in the veracity of his charges against Baize was a chief issue in the case against him, and he voluntarily took the stand to vouch for that belief. Evidence of defendant’s willingness to lie to other police departments to protect himself from allegations of misconduct is relevant to, and probative of, whether he would lie to the Bullitt County Sheriff’s Office for the same general purpose.

Matthew Corder swings and misses on all arguments. This means he'll head back to prison to serve the remainder of his 27-month sentence. He should count himself lucky. He was facing a possible eleven years for both counts. With any luck, Corder's imprisonment will serve as a cautionary tale for officers who think they can arrest people just because they feel they haven't been shown the respect they think they deserve. If a cop wants to tell you to "mind your own business" when he's parked in your driveway, you should feel free to tell him to "fuck off" without worrying about losing your job and your freedom.

Filed Under: contempt of cop, derek baize, matthew corder, police, sixth circuit