The Nation's Criminals Can't Keep Up With The Government's Legalized Theft Programs

from the the-only-solution-is-a-more-productive-criminal-element dept

The Institute for Justice has released its latest report on asset forfeiture. Despite some recent legislative attempts to add a much-needed conviction requirement to the seizure of property, most of the country still allows law enforcement to proceed under the assumption that money, vehicles and houses are "guilty," even if those they take this property from are, for all intents and purposes, innocent.

The absence of this key factor has resulted in decades of nationwide abuse. The IJ's updated chart ranking states' asset forfeiture policies on an A-F scale shows only one A rating: New Mexico. The state's recent passage of significant asset forfeiture reform is the only highlight in the report. The rest of the nation continues on its path of underachievement, preferring to defer to law enforcement's best judgment on how to fight the Drug War. (While also occasionally used to target fraud and organized crime, forfeiture programs are now mostly deployed to take money from people/vehicles that smell like marijuana.)

The largest amount of resistance to asset forfeiture reform efforts come from the agencies that benefit most from the liquidation of seized property.


The highest grades correspond directly to states where local agencies have the least to gain from seized assets. Unsurprisingly, removing the incentive to simply take money/property has resulted in less abuse of forfeiture programs.

But these (few) speed bumps have done next to nothing to slow the asset forfeiture machine. It's been on a downhill roll since the late 80s, resulting in $12.6 seized at the federal level from 1989 to 2010. Since 2010, though, the year-to-year increases have been exponential. In 2014 alone, US Attorneys "forfeited" $4.5 billion. This dollar amount now places federal law enforcement at the top of the list of of "People Who Take Stuff That Belongs To Others."

According to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals.

Of course, there are several legitimate (i.e., tied to convictions) forfeitures included in that amount, whereas no burglary can ever be considered "legitimate." And, as the DOJ points out, some recent sizable seizures have produced gaudy forfeiture numbers.

A Justice Department spokesman pointed out that big cases, like the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment and a $1.2 billion case associated with Toyota, have led to large deposits to forfeiture funds in a single year.

So, there are mitigating factors in this law enforcement-to-criminals comparison, but that doesn't mean asset forfeiture programs are largely "right" or free from abuse. The federal government has argued it has the right to seize even "untainted" funds and a majority of cash seizures -- especially at the local level -- don't rise to "drug kingpin" levels. As was noted, when Washington, DC moved forward with asset forfeiture reform, its local police force more resembled pathetic stickup men than the dismantlers of drug empires.

In addition, the bill sets other limits. Vehicles may not be seized unless "clear and convincing evidence" exists that they were used in the commission of a crime. Cash amounts under $1,000 would be presumed "innocent," i.e., not subject to forfeiture. This stipulation cuts to the heart of the DC PD's abuse of asset forfeiture -- more than half of its $5.5 million in cash seizures were for less than $141, with over 1,000 of the 12,000 seizures being for less than $20.

Further watering down the comparison is this depressing fact: in asset forfeiture, the government (both local and federal) tends to place the burden of proof on the former owners of seized property. Arrested burglars, however, are given the Constitutional benefit of a doubt (presumed innocent) when they end up in court.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, crime, legalized theft, police

Documents Show 1033 Program Still Resulting In Lots Of Lost Weapons And Other Abuse

from the surely-you-can-trust-a-few-thousand-cops? dept

The Pentagon's 1033 program is a case study in unintended consequences. The idea -- put military equipment back into service rather than simply scrapping it -- has some merit. The actual deployment has been a nightmare.

The Dept. of Defense wondered who could possibly make use of military weapons, armor and vehicles, and came to an almost-logical conclusion. Law enforcement agencies became the military's little brother, taking ownership of cheap/free hand-me-downs and putting them to use in the War at Home.

Of course, a militaristic mindset evolved to match the acquired gear. Police departments became armies and citizens, combatants. Worse, the program was badly mismanaged and subject to very little oversight. The DoD had no idea how much equipment it had dispensed and the agencies on the receiving end weren't much better at tracking their own inventories.

Shawn Musgrave has obtained two mostly-depressing spreadsheets from the Dept. of Defense listing law enforcement agencies which are currently suspended from the program, or have been in the past. He sent this "expedited request" during the Ferguson fallout, during which the DOJ itself expressed concern about the military aura the local PD projected. Not that the Pentagon's Defense Logistics Agency cared about the timeliness of its response. 14 months after issuing his "please hurry" request, the DLA has finally responded.

The lists contain plenty of suspensions for lost weapons, which possibly means military-grade weapons are in the hands of private citizens. The lists also contain intriguing redactions and a few moments of WTF-ness.

For instance, an Arkansas county coroner's office is participating in the program for reasons unknown. It could be that it only used the program to obtain harmless office equipment, but if so, it seems these sorts of acquisitions -- no matter how badly handled or poorly inventoried -- would not result in a suspension. The question of why it was suspended remains unanswered.

Reason can not be released at this per State Coordinators request.

And the state of North Carolina appears to have gone rogue. Among the many agencies listed as "terminated" by the DLA is the state's Parks and Recreation department.



North Dakota is possibly headed for a bloodbath, seeing as its Highway Patrol has misplaced a street gang's-worth of weapons.

DURING PCR ON JULY 23, 2013, 159 WEAPONS WERE UNABLE TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY A SIGNED CUSTODY RECEIPT

And one wonders how this sort of situation arises, considering the logistics required to make it happen in the first place. (Richland County Sheriff's Office, South Carolina)

Misappropriation of aircraft

The list of agencies no longer suspended from the program isn't exactly heartening. The Searcy (AR) Police Dept. is back in the DLA's good graces despite the ATF serving a search warrant for its (former) police chief.


And we discover that the Richland County Sheriff's Office isn't the only South Carolina agency to abuse 1033 aircraft.


Many of those on the "Unsuspended" list have never recovered weapons they reported as lost or stolen, but have been designated by the Office of the Inspector General as "cold cases." Once the trail goes dead, so does the suspension, apparently.

In other oddities, it appears the entire state of Montana took a year off from performing required 1033 inventories and the nation's biggest, baddest police force -- the NYPD -- faced (briefly) the threat of termination for reasons not detailed in the responsive documents.

So, in other words, it's business as usual for the 1033 program. Even those "responsibly" partaking in the program are loading up with military gear which they then deploy against combatants citizens in war zones their communities.

Filed Under: 1033, dod, lost weapons, militarized police, oversight, police, police militarization, weapons

Indiana Supreme Court Says Cop Can't Have His '01NK' License Plate

from the and-the-government-can-handle-plate-requests-however-the-hell-it-wants dept

Earlier this year, a police officer and the ACLU performed a "strange bedfellows" act in hopes of overturning Indiana's Bureau of Motor Vehicle's rejection of the officer's vanity license plate request. Rodney Vawter, a rare law enforcement officer capable of enjoying a laugh at his own expense (literally/figuratively), applied for a plate reading "01NK." The BMV gave it to him. Three years later, it changed its mind, claiming the plate was now "offensive."

Vawter took the BMV to court, claiming the agency's denial of his plate infringed on his free speech. The BMV countered that it could pretty much do whatever it wanted, right up until a district court judge called its scattershot approval process ('BIBLE4ME" - OK. "UNHOLY" - rejected, etc.) unconstitutional. The BMV, rather than adjust its process, simply stopped issuing plates until the issue could be fully resolved.

The state's Supreme Court has delivered the final word on the BMV's actions. It's bad news for Vawter, who won't be getting his "01NK" plate back. (h/t Free Thought Project)

The court found that, while speech is indeed at the center of this case, it's the government's speech that's being regulated, not citizens'. And the government can regulate its own speech however it wants.

Indiana's personalized license plates are government speech. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles, therefore, does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments in denying an application for a PLP or revoking a previously issued PLP. Furthermore, Due Process Clause protections do not apply because vehicle owners do not have a property interest in their personalized license plates.

In arriving at this conclusion, the court made a number of supporting determinations, some more solid than others. Most curiously, it stated the limited "message" space on a license plate provides a forum too "limited" for protected speech.

Furthermore, the nature of Indiana's PLPs is not compatible with expressive activity. Because PLPs are small and contain a maximum of eight characters, they cannot realistically promote meaningful discourse, communication, and debate.

(And yet, "Fuck the draft" is only 12 characters [with spaces removed] and was recognized as protected speech by the Supreme Court of the United States. Eight letters isn't "discourse," but twelve is?)

It also found that government-issued plates are still government speech, even if individuals obtain plates with their own "messages" on them. While most people recognize the fact that a state agency issues license plates, they associate the messages on vanity plates to be representative of the person driving the car, rather than the entity that printed the plate. The court shrugs this off by saying it's not its fault if observers jump to the wrong "speech" conclusion.

PLPs do not cease to be government speech simply because some observers may fail to recognize that PLP alphanumeric combinations are government issued and approved speech in every instance. [...] The alphanumeric combination, regardless of its content, is government speech specifically identifying a single vehicle.

So, the BMV's highly-inconsistent approval process is once again "Constitutional," but only because it's the government regulating its "own" speech, even if there's a private citizen's personal request somewhere in the middle of all the regulation. No "01NK" plate for Officer Vawter and no plates for other members of the public whose requests somehow "offend" the sensibilities of the BMV office drone processing the paperwork.

Filed Under: free speech, indiana, indiana bmv, o1nk, police, rodney vawter

Australian Police Officials Smacked Around By Judge For Support Of Illegal Surveillance Of A 'Closed' Facebook Account

from the too-much-power-for-tiny-men-with-easily-bruised-egos dept

A New South Wales cop is finally facing punishment for illegally accessing a Facebook account to perform illegal surveillance, but it took a trip to court to make it happen.

A private Facebook account belonging to Rhys Liam Halvey (under the name "Rhys Brown") was surveilled by NSW Police Senior Constable Daniel Moss after it came to his attention that it contained "derogatory" posts. Moss used someone else's login information to access the closed account (likely one of Brown's "friends") and see what was being posted. This began in late 2013 and continued until March of 2014 when a "string" of "derogatory" posts appeared.

The content of the supposedly derogatory posts is laughable and far from what anyone but the most small-minded police force would view as "criminal."

They featured a NSW Police infringement notice together with photographs of several serving officers, taken in a Sydney street setting.

One image carried a large sum of cash and words to the effect of: "Here's my $25,000 for your $101 fine." Another image depicted Miley Cyrus "twerking" in front of an officer.

Nevertheless, the posts did result in charges against Halvey, who has never admitted ownership of the surveilled "Rhys Brown" account.

Rhys Liam Halvey was arrested and charged with three counts of using a carriage service to offend police and a further three counts of publishing an indecent article.

Despite having no legal authority to perform this surveillance, the NSW police force supported Moss's actions. Statements were entered by one of the "highest ranking police officers in the state," and when cautioned by a judge for their illegal activity, police supervisors doubled down on protecting Moss from the consequences of his actions.

Not only did they offer two sworn affidavits in support of his actions, they also claimed that any further public discussion of the methods used by Moss to perform his illegal surveillance would be "injurious" to the "public interest."

The judge was not impressed.

In ordering costs against police, Magistrate Brown described the conduct as "reprehensible" and the charges as "trivial."

"There is no difference to the police trespassing on a Facebook page for four months and my steaming open my neighbour's mail in the hope of one day finding something, anything, to report to police."

The state's rights advocacy agency also questioned the tactics used and the apparent willingness of senior law enforcement officials to support abusive behavior by constables under their supervision.

NSW Council of Civil Liberties president Stephen Blanks said public confidence in the police was being "undermined" by an inability to acknowledge the occasions when "it does the wrong thing."

"How deep in police culture is this willingness to break the law?" he asked. "Even after they have been caught out, it would appear no adverse consequences are going to be suffered by those responsible because the illegal actions are supported by police at the most senior level."

Still, the NSW Police managed to have the last word… by preventing anything further from being said. When the judge refused to indulge their request to keep discussions of Moss's surveillance methods from entering the public record, the law enforcement agency withdrew the case and handed over $14,429 in costs to Halvey... and then walked away from the mess promising to investigate actions it had known about since November of 2013.

Filed Under: australia, daniel moss, police, rhys liam halvey, social media, surveillance
Companies: facebook

Law Enforcement Responding More Favorably To ACLU's Recording App, But Some Still Think It Will Make Policing More Dangerous

from the older,-but-no-wiser dept

The ACLU has released three more state-specific versions of its "Mobile Justice" app. The app, which sends audio and video recordings directly to the ACLU's servers to preserve them in case of any law enforcement "interruptions", is now available in Maryland, Minnesota and Virginia.

This time around, the panic surrounding the apps seems to have subsided somewhat. Back in 2012, the release of a New Jersey-based app for recording police encounters resulted in a California police department's speculation that the app's ability to notify other users would lead to officer-endangering "flash mobs."

Perhaps the inevitability of being recorded has finally sunk in. There's no shortage of footage of police interactions available and the addition of the ACLU's app isn't going to cause a spike in citizen recordings. With many photo and video apps already synced to cloud storage, attempts to delete incriminating footage will be unsuccessful in many cases.

For the most part, law enforcement representatives and officials are greeting the new releases with shrugs, if not open acceptance.

In Virginia, sane comments greeted the ACLU's announcement.

“I certainly don’t have a problem with it,” said Chesterfield County Police Chief Thierry Dupuis. “The vast majority of our police officers do a great job. If for some reason we have an officer that isn’t, we want to know about it,” said Dupuy.

But Dupuis says if you are going to use the app, record positive police interactions too, and don’t leave anything out.

“If you’re going to film, include the entire video,” said Dupuis.

In Maryland, where Baltimore law enforcement officials are blaming the city's climbing murder rate on the "Ferguson Effect," reactions are still mostly positive.

"Maryland state troopers are held to a high standard of accountability for their actions in the performance of their duties. Our troopers understand the importance of video and welcome the opportunity to display their professionalism during interactions with the citizens we serve," Maryland State Police spokesman Greg Shipley said.

Baltimore County police released a statement, saying: "The Baltimore County Police Department respects citizens' right to record. Citizens record us every day. This application does not change our practices."

Another Maryland law enforcement agency actually welcomed the additional accountability the app could bring.

47 ABC showed the app to Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis and he doesn't see a problem with it at all.

Sheriff Lewis continues, “Anything I can do better professionalize the Wicomico County Sheriff Office and our profession, I'm all for it. I don't want rogue police officers working for me.”

Minnesota law enforcement officials, however, seem to be pulling their talking points from 2012's "flash mob" memo. Well, more specifically, certain law enforcement-related officials are taking issue with the ACLU's app. The regular police -- as in law enforcement agencies and not law enforcement officers' putative representatives -- seem to have no problem with the new app.

The Minneapolis police department wouldn’t comment on the specifics of the app, but spokesman John Elder said in a statement that officers are already accustomed to working under surveillance from cell phones and public or private cameras. He also noted that the city is in the process of rolling out a police body cam program, expected to begin early next year, which will provide more visual evidence of how police interact with the public.

It's the police unions that view the ACLU's "Mobile Justice" app as a threat to officers.

“If you create a crowd, it is possible that the crowd could turn on an officer,” said Andy Skoogman, spokesman for the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association. “The mere presence of the crowd could easily make the officer feel intimidated which can quickly increase the tension of the interaction. We have seen such a scenario play out many times.”

Yes, it's the old "flash mob" argument. The app only notifies other users of the app who happen to be in the same area, and the ACLU's app isn't exactly Candy Crush. Chances of the app producing an antagonistic crowd of any size are slim-to-none. Chances of a police interaction in a public area resulting in a crowd not entirely aligned with law enforcement remains at nearly 100%. So, officers should be used to dealing with antagonistic crowds as it's routinely part of the job. That the union would preemptively excuse an "intimidated" officer's reactions is telling.

But it gets even dumber. Another police union spokesman echoed Skoogman's ridiculous assertion.

“It will almost certainly create public safety issues,” said St. Paul Police Federation President David Titus, in a statement. “Encouraging people to flock to an unsecure and possibly dangerous police incident is not responsible or logical. … The ACLU app may require a larger police presence to de-escalate some situations, an outcome neither law enforcement nor the community desire.”

Once again, it's highly unlikely the app will draw a crowd larger than any such public scene would. But the St. Paul Police Federation isn't limiting itself to these paranoid theories. It's contemplating asking the courts to block the app.

The Saint Paul police officers union is looking into whether legal action is possible against the American Civil Liberties Union for a new smartphone app that notifies subscribers of in-progress police actions, so they can witness whether civil rights are being violated.

I'm going to hazard a guess that, while any legal action is theoretically possible, very few of them have a chance at successfully preventing the distribution of the app. The app records video and uploads it to a server -- something countless other cellphone camera apps do already. Cellphones are also communication devices, which means any of them could be used to notify others of an ongoing situation. Other social media apps have a far greater reach than the ACLU's app, which limits notifications only to those with the app installed on their phones, and provides the users with the option to limit notifications to only certain people, like close friends or family members.

At the heart of the matter is the recording of police officers performing their public duties, something most courts have agreed is protected First Amendment activity. It's going to be tough to convince a judge that any fears for officer safety or the privacy bystanders, witnesses, etc. trumps the Constitution. Not that this will necessarily stop the union from blowing its members' money on ridiculous lawsuits. Hopefully, if it does choose to pursue litigation, its members will realize the union really doesn't speak for them and is only interested in walling off law enforcement from the public and ensuring its worst members don't lose their positions or power.

Filed Under: police, recordings, transparency
Companies: aclu

DOJ Says Body Camera-Wearing Cops Aren't Allowed To Partner Up With Federal Agencies

from the cameras-are-cool-and-all,-but-not-really-our-thing,-thx dept

As we've covered before, the DOJ supports the idea of body cameras for local law enforcement agencies. It has set aside over $20 million a year in funding to help these agencies out. But it has no love for body cameras within its own agencies. There are no body cam requirements in place for FBI, DEA, ATF or the US Marshals Service.

In fact, if you're a member of a law enforcement agency which does have mandated body cams, you're no longer welcome to play in the big boys. (Subscription required. For everyone else, here's a way to get around the Wall Street Journal's pay sieve.)

[T]he department is telling some of its agents they cannot work with officers using such cameras as part of joint task forces, according to people familiar with the discussions.

[...]

At a meeting of Marshals supervisors several weeks ago in Colorado, Assistant Director Derrick Driscoll announced that the agency wouldn’t allow any local law-enforcement officers wearing body cameras to serve on Marshals task forces, according to several people who attended the meeting.

Do as we say, not as we do? The DOJ has an excuse for that. Currently, it has no guidelines in place for the use of body cameras. It wants other law enforcement agencies to get right on that, but seems to be in no particular hurry to equip its own personnel, much less even move towards getting the process underway.

A Justice Department spokesman said the agency “is looking into this issue and has been consulting with the law enforcement components” within the department.

I would imagine its "components" would rather not have additional accountability pinned to their chests, but it's not as though the DOJ hasn't had several months to carry out its "consulting." It can't stay abreast of small law enforcement agencies in terms of body cameras despite its access to far more money and power.

The only conceivable reason for this stasis is a lack of desire to move in the direction of additional accountability. More evidence of this reluctance can be found in nonsensical statements made to the Wall Street Journal.

Jon Adler, president of the nonprofit Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, said there are good reasons to keep parts of the Marshals’ work out of the public eye. Witnesses and informants could be inadvertently exposed, he said, and fugitives could learn the Marshals’ tactics and how to evade them.

Ah, the old "expose police methods" excuse. Wonderful. This has been used to keep everything from Stingray surveillance to police department budgets secret. The manhunters would become the hunted… or at least the easily-evaded if body cameras were activated during the apprehension of a suspect. Secret methods like physical force, lots of shouting and handcuffs would be exposed by body camera footage. Adler's a bit more on point when discussing witnesses and informants, but even so, video can still be "redacted." That technology has been with up since the debut of COPS over 25 years ago.

Adler's next contention is even worse.

“The Marshals hunt down and apprehend the most despicable and violent people. When you engage in that type of mission, it wasn’t intended to be pretty and it won’t be pretty,” Mr. Adler said. “We don’t want the great work the Marshals Service does to devolve into bad reality TV or a sequence of bad YouTube videos.

Blame the media/internet indirectly. Because incidents are far more nuanced (supposedly) than the average YouTube viewer could possibly comprehend, let's just keep the Marshals camera-free. This sounds suspiciously like FBI Director James Comey's "Ferguson Effect" copsplaining. The fact that cameras exist makes it harder for police officers to do their job, what with the dangers posed by outside observation.

If local agencies are sporting body cams, so can the feds. There's no reason they should be excepted from this tool of accountability. If anything, the DOJ should be leading by example, rather than saying they're only a good idea for everyone else.

Filed Under: body cameras, doj, federal agencies, police, transparency

Loretta Lynch Essentially Says The Ferguson Effect Is Bullshit

from the no-kidding dept

I have to be honest: I have no idea how this whole "Ferguson Effect" became a thing. The general claim by those touting the theory is that, after the backlash over the Michael Brown shooting and several other high-profile deaths at the hands of law enforcement, police are so fearful of the general public that they are no longer taking the risks necessary to do their jobs properly, which is resulting in an uptick in violent crime in several major cities. It's a fascinating theory in that it is so often promoted by those who claim to be champions of the police, even as the theory itself claims that police are abdicating their primary responsibilities. As with any good theory built to draw on division and emotion, it only helps that this theory is essentially made up of a combination of anecdotal evidence and the simplistic reading of statistics without context.

Now, I won't go so far as to say that anecdotal evidence is entirely worthless. Testimony, after all, is a form of evidence. But those touting the theory so vociferously ought to be able to point to some kind of empirical data as opposed to the rumor mill. Unfortunately, as US Attorney General Loretta Lynch indicated before the House Judiciary Committee, no such data-based evidence for the Ferguson Effect exists.

US attorney general Loretta Lynch said on Tuesday there was “no data” to support the idea that law enforcement officers are policing less aggressively because of increased scrutiny of their tactics following a series of highly publicized killings mostly of black men. Lynch spoke during a House judiciary committee hearing on Tuesday and discussed the controversial theory, termed the “Ferguson effect”, in the wake of the fatal police shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in the Missouri city last year.

“While certainly there may be anecdotal evidence there, as all have noted, there’s no data to support it,” she said during an oversight hearing on the Justice Department held by the committee.

Now, I'm sure nobody would want to suggest that we make policy in a climate completely lacking data for that policy, so this really should table any discussion of the Ferguson Effect pending any actual, you know, data coming to light. What data is available suggests that major cities in America, and indeed America as a whole, have ridden a downward trend in violent crime for at least a decade. In that context, a regression to the mean in violent crime shouldn't be treated as particularly extraordinary. Crime can't always trend downward ad infinitum, after all, and it would be trivially easy to associate any uptick in violence with whatever the news of the day might be. Which is exactly what's happening.

Yet this doesn't work in the other direction. Violence in media, for instance, has been on the rise at the same time as the general downward trend in violent crime, yet few want to argue there's a correlation there. Why? There's no real hard data to suggest that a correlation exists. We ought to treat purveyors of the Ferguson Effect theory the same way. It's not enough to claim that police are too scared to do their jobs properly; they have to show their work.

Filed Under: ferguson effect, james comey, loretta lynch, police, violence, violent crime

We Have The 'Criminal Charges' Patrick Zarrelli Claims He Filed Against Our Writer, And They're Not What He Thinks

from the that's-not-a-criminal-case dept

Earlier this week, we noted that "website reputation management" dude, Patrick Zarrelli had sent us a large packet of papers claiming that he had "filed criminal charges and bar complaints in seven states" against a group of people, including our own Tim Cushing, because Tim had written a blog post making fun of Zarrelli for a spectacular failure in trying to get certain articles about the lawyer Gary Ostrow removed from the internet. You can read all the details at previous posts, but Zarrelli claimed that he was filing "criminal charges and bar complaints" against Cushing and a small group of lawyers -- Scott Greenfield, Mark Bennett, Brian Tannebaum and Sam Glover -- who had all made fun of Zarrelli's ridiculous claims.

As we noted in our original post, the cover letter made these (typo-riddled) claims, but the large packets of paper, showed no details, no explanation of any laws broken, no legal filings, no lawsuit, no "criminal charges" and no "bar complaints." All that it included were stacks and stacks of paper printouts of screenshots of blog posts, blog comments, tweets, Facebook comments and a few profile pages. I hadn't had them scanned originally, but after a bunch of people asked for them, I had a poor, overworked colleague of mine here at Techdirt scan them all in. And, then, the good folks over at PINAC were kind enough to reach out to the Ft. Lauderdale police and get a copy of the "Incident/Investigation Report" that it had on the matter.

In my original post earlier this week, I noted that "it sounds like he may have just whined to some law enforcement folks in Florida who probably filed it in the garbage file where it belongs" and indeed that appears to be the case. These are not "criminal charges." These are Patrick Zarrelli wandered into the Fort Lauderdale Police Department and told someone in the lobby basically "but people on the internet are being mean to me!" and they wrote it all down (not even spelling Zarrelli's name correctly) and almost certainly then did absolutely nothing with it. The filing also spells Tim Cushing's name as Tim Lushing. Here's the crux of it:

Contact was made with the reportee Patrick Zayrelli in the FLPD lobby. Mr. Zayrelli advised that he works for Dependable Website Management which is a cyber bullying and reputation management company. He says that his client Attorney Gary Ostrow hired him because a group of attorney`s were attacking his character and tarnishing him reputation on line due to an incident that occurred with him years ago.

Mr. Zayrelli stated that his company contacts the parties and ask them to take their posts down, which is what he said he did when he called all the listed attorneys but each one of them became defensive and started cursing at him. He was especially concerned because according to him, one of the attorneys Brian Tannebaum who practices in Miami told him that he would have BSO deputies arrest him.

Mr. Zayrelli said that the next day after he called the attorney`s all of his social media accounts (facebook,twitter) were all filled with negative posts about him by all of the attorneys and some had even posted pornographic material on his facebook

The report itself lists Zarrelli's client, Gary Ostrow, along with all of the previously named folks, and one more: a lawyer named Dan Hull, whom we hadn't previously seen connected to all of this, but there he is. Notably, the report says there are "0 Victims" and doesn't list anyone's name as a victim (probably because there was no crime). Hell, it lists Ostrow in the same part as with all of the people Zarrelli was complaining about.

There's not much of a story here other than confirming what we originally suspected: there are no "criminal charges." Whether or not there are "bar complaints" I imagine we'll have to wait to find out. And, again, if Zarrelli is seriously contemplating filing a civil suit in Florida, as he had claimed, he really ought to familiarize himself with Florida's anti-SLAPP statute, because I can assure you that every one of the people he is threatening are deeply familiar with it, and will certainly make use of it to get Zarrelli to pay any of their legal fees for filing a bogus lawsuit.

Anyway, the complaint and all of the contents of the envelope that was sent to us are embedded below. Zarrelli appears to have made a horrible "reputation management" person, and an even worse internet lawyer.

Filed Under: brian tannebaum, dan hull, first amendment, free speech, gary ostrow, mark bennett, patrick zarrelli, police, reputation management, sam glover, scott greenfield

DEA Boss Joins FBI In Declaring 'Ferguson Effect' To Be A Real Thing; Offers Up 'Stuff I Heard' As Evidence

from the Exhibit-A:-Hearsay,-Conjecture,-Guys-At-The-Coffee-Shop dept

Late last month, FBI head James Comey contributed to the "Ferguson Effect" mythmaking, blaming unexplained spikes in violent crime on… citizens filming police officers. His argument? Officers fear for their power and no longer feel like exiting their vehicles to do their job.

A rebuttal from Comey's former boss, Eric Holder, arrived shortly thereafter.

"I don't agree with the comments that he's made about, or the connection he's drawn, between the so-called 'Ferguson effect' and this rise in crime," Holder said, adding that Comey seemed to be relying on anecdotes rather than data.

"You can't base policy on anecdotal evidence," Holder said. "It's hard for us to understand why crime dropped to historic lows over the last 40 years. I think it's probably equally difficult -- or even more difficult -- to explain why crime has gone up in some places, violent crime has gone up in some places, over the past 12 months. But I don't think it's connected to the so-called Ferguson effect."

But anecdotal evidence works best when actual evidence is lacking. The same can be said for the "War on Cops," which has been cobbled together using a regression to the mean following a historic low (2014) and a random smattering of social media posts about "putting wings on pigs," etc.

James Comey remains resolute that this "effect" is leading to spikes in crime (themselves possibly a regression to the mean after years of historic lows). Now he has another federal ally in the "War on Logic."

Chuck Rosenberg, head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, said Wednesday that he agrees with FBI Director James Comey that police officers are reluctant to aggressively enforce laws in the post-Ferguson era of capturing police activity on smartphones and YouTube.

“I think there’s something to it,” Rosenberg said during a press briefing on drug statistics at DEA headquarters in Arlington. “I think he’s spot on. I’ve heard the same thing.”

Rosenberg doesn't offer any evidence to back up his belief. Neither does Washington Post writer Todd C. Frankel, who inexplicably follows Rosenberg's baseless assertion with one of his own.

The comments offer more support for the theory that, faced with increased scrutiny, the nation’s police officers are pulling back.

No, they don't. Evidence that isn't strictly anecdotal or suffering from correlation/causation issues would "offer more support" for the "Ferguson Effect" theory. Another law enforcement official saying he's heard some stuff does not offer any additional support for this law enforcement theory.

In fact, Rosenberg spends more time hedging his assertion than defending it.

Rosenberg allowed that while he’s “not entirely sure what’s going on” with the sporadic increases in crime seen in some places, he believes “we should talk about it.”

If Rosenberg and Comey want to "talk about it," they have to stop excluding the general public from the discussion. They need to stop publicly pushing narratives backed by nothing more than the vague unhappiness of law enforcement agencies that are no longer viewed as faultless pillars of their respective communities.

And as long as these two are "talking" about it, they might want to check in with the rest of the government. The recently-departed DOJ head said the "Ferguson Effect" is bogus. So did the White House.

“Mr. Rosenberg is the second administration official to make that kind of claim without any evidence,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

"The fact is, the evidence does not support the claim that somehow our law enforcement officers all across the country are shirking their duties and failing to fulfill their responsibility to serve and protect the communities to which they are assigned.”

What should be an insult to cops everywhere is instead being used by law enforcement agencies as a FUD delivery vehicle. The nation is already suffering from a rift between its citizens and its law enforcers. Comey and Rosenberg are making the situation worse by driving a wedge between their agencies and the White House. The instinctual move to blame any increase on crime on a loss of faith in law enforcement feeds into the Us vs. Them mindset that created the problem in the first place.

Filed Under: chuck rosenberg, crime rates, dea, eric holder, ferguson effect, james comey, police

Police Department Says It Would Rather Have A Good Relationship With The Community Than Cheap Military Gear

from the correctly-ordered-priorities dept

Here's something worth reading: the Burlington, Vermont Police Department has announced it will no longer be participating in the Dept. of Defense's 1033 Program. This program is the well-intentioned effort to somehow make use of excess/old military inventory. Unfortunately, along with desks, computers, file cabinets and other office staples, the government also allows police departments to pick up mine-resistant vehicles, assault rifles, grenade launchers and other military gear -- often at a steep discount that's made even more inexpensive by Homeland Security grants.

The full press release by the says several things those within its jurisdiction need to hear, along with the rest of the nation's law enforcement agencies (via Information Liberation)

The Burlington Police Department announced today that the Department has severed its ties with the much-scrutinized “1033 Program,” a Department of Defense initiative that allows aging military equipment to be repurposed for domestic policing. Until this summer, the Burlington Police Department possessed two military-issued night vision devices, which were the extent of its holdings under the Department of Defense (DOD) program.

“The militarization of local police departments is a genuine concern in our nation,” said Burlington Chief of Police Brandon del Pozo. “There are times when military-style equipment is essential for public safety, but they are very rare. Between our partners in the Vermont State Police and the Vermont National Guard, as well as the other federal and local agencies the Burlington Police Department partners with, we have the resources to handle all but the most inconceivable public safety scenarios. Amassing a worst-case scenario arsenal of military equipment results in officers seeing everyday policework through a military lens. When I realized what a small role the military played in equipping our police, I concluded it was better to return the items and let our 1033 Program memorandum of understanding expire.”

The Burlington Police Department has no plans to acquire tactical or military items beyond the types of conventional policing equipment it already possesses.

Mayor Miro Weinberger offered his support of this decision: “Today’s announcement cements the Burlington Police Department’s long-standing practice of avoiding the use of military equipment, in contrast to many other police departments. Our focus instead is on the basics of good policing in the 21st century: foot patrols, strong relationships between the officers and the community, and the use of modern tools to increase public transparency and police effectiveness."

One thing should be clarified: the 1033 Program is by no means mandatory. "Severing ties" really means just deciding not to participate. The MOU may have expired but it could have run on forever without the PD feeling obligated to order anything from the 1033 catalog.

What's more important are the sentiments expressed by the Burlington police chief. He recognizes that acquiring military gear only leads to a military mindset that turns public servants into an invading force. Even better, del Pozo recognizes that using worst-case scenarios as justification for heavily-armored vehicles and military weaponry is a bullshit tactic. As we've seen time and time again, local law enforcement will claim anything and everything is a "potential terrorist target" just so they can acquire cheap MRAPs and M4A1 rifles. Del Pozo isn't going to take his force down a similar path.

The mayor's vocal support of this decision is a pleasant surprise as well. Mayor Weinberger won't be making himself any friends in other law enforcement agencies after calling them out for their (ab)use of the 1033 program. Hopefully, other agencies will see Burlington's very public opt-out as worthy of emulation. But considering the latest narratives to take hold (Ferguson Effect, War on Cops) both paint police officers as under siege, it's highly doubtful many will recognize the goodwill they could generate simply by treating residents as human beings, rather than enemy combatants.

Filed Under: 1033, burlington, community policing, military equipment, police, relationships, vermont