Detroit Police Commander Emails Female Officers' Measurements To Entire Police Force

from the just-Detroit-being-Detroit,-I-suppose dept

An unfortunate and cautionary tale of inappropriate data "leakage" has emerged from Detroit (itself an unfortunate and cautionary tale). The lessons here are many, but one of the first is ALWAYS CHECK EVERY PAGE OF YOUR ATTACHMENT BEFORE FORWARDING TO THE ENTIRE MAILING LIST.

Police sources said about three weeks ago, Commander Dwayne Love was asked to notify the officers that their bullet proof vests were ready to be picked up. So he forwarded an email to the commanders, who then forwarded it to the supervisors, who then forwarded it to the officers.

White claimed Love didn't know the weight, height and bra cup sizes of the women were included on the attached Excel spreadsheet until it was too late.

The personal information was on the third page of the spreadsheet, something Love failed to notice before he forwarded the information. Apparently, everyone else in the chain of command failed to notice it as well. Or ignored it. Long story short, nearly every officer in the Detroit police department had access to the measurements of nearly every female officer on the force.

As is to be expected, certain officers decided to misuse this information.

[S]everal female officers, who say they have faced ridicule from fellow officers, with the help of their union are filing two grievances against the department and one complaint with EOC. Even if Love made an innocent mistake, the damage they feel has already been done.

There's one lesson: no matter what standard certain people are supposed to hold themselves to, there's always several who will willingly let that standard slip.

But there's a larger lesson here as well. The anonymous tipster who sent this in included the following statement with the submission.

Nice article to link to when you need an example of just how "professional" officers can be when they have access to sensitive/personal information.

First off, members of the police department weren't even professional enough to handle their own data without abusing the details that fell into their hands.

Now, extrapolate.

Thousands of police departments across the nation have access to the personal details of millions of citizens, including everything coughed up in order to get a driver's license. Add to that the information gathered by thousands of CCTV cameras, license plate scanners, red light cams, etc. and you've got a ton of data, most of it unrelated to any criminal activity, just laying around waiting for a "bad apple" to root through it for his or her own nefarious ends.

Extrapolate further.

Our nation's intelligence agencies have also gathered tons of data on Americans, much of it under dubious readings and interpretations of standing laws and elastically-defined words like "relevant." When we complain, the defenders explain that it is all handled very carefully and the agencies themselves take extraordinary safeguards against abuse of the gathered data.

But let's all be honest with each other. Every single one of these agencies hires from the human race, and the human race is stocked all too well with people prone to abusing the power and information under their control.

Rather than craft strict rules on the care and disposal of "non-relevant" information, these agencies tends towards amassing the data carelessly and holding it indefinitely. There are exceptions, of course, but the general feeling is grab it and hold it. Just in case.

So, you see the problem. Data is collected and left in the hands of humans. But we're expected to believe abuse is such a rarity that considering stricter safeguards or collection limitations is laughable.

When we see that a single police department can't even handled a botched internal email without finding itself on the receiving end of harassment claims, it doesn't give us much hope for larger data collections held by larger agencies, especially those with previous abuses on their rap sheets.

Filed Under: abuse, detroit, police, privacy

LAPD Detains A Photographer For 'Interfering' With A Police Investigation... From 90 Feet Away

from the also-possession-of-camera-with-intent-to-distribute-recordings dept

Words like "interference" or "obstruction" seem to be thrown around quite frequently when law enforcement officers decide they'd rather not be filmed while on duty. How the passive act of filming can interfere with investigations or obstruct officials is left to the imagination. Fortunately (I guess...), law enforcement officials have very vivid imaginations. This allows them to arrest, detain, hassle or confiscate devices as needed, in order preserve the peace by chilling speech.

The latest definition of "interference" stretches the limits of credulity -- to nearly 100 feet.

Shawn Nee is an award winning street and documentary photographer living in Hollywood, California. He says that on June 2, 2013, his right to take photos under the First Amendment was violated when the Los Angeles Police Department officers detained him while working in Hollywood.

Nee was standing on a residential sidewalk taking pictures of a man he had been photographing for years when LAPD officers showed up about 90 feet away to investigate a domestic dispute.

The whole incident, caught on "tape" thanks to the three body cameras Nee wears, shows officers covering a lot of ground to reach the "interfering" photographer. As is almost always the case, the officers' first move is intimidation, with one demanding Nee identify himself and his employer.


When this fails, the officers demand he stop filming and put his camera down. Nee asks why he's being detained.

OFFICER: For interviewing ... interfering with a police investigation.

Hmm. Passively operating a camera from 90 feet away seems like the least efficient way to "interfere" with a police investigation. Maybe the sound of the shutter was distracting.

Nee was then taken to the station and detained while officers attempted to question him. Unfortunately for the interfered, Nee asserted his right to remain silent and refused to speak until his lawyer was present. After 90 minutes he was released -- without being charged.

After being released, Nee spoke to a police supervisor who offered this "insight" on the interference claims.

NEE: My understanding is that I was detained for taking photos in a public space.

VIDAL: When it interferes with the job of police then it becomes a problem. At that point, you no longer have that freedom to go ahead and take your pictures.

Possibly. Possibly not. Vidal makes it seem cut-and-dried, but it really isn't. This all depends on the laws governing the police department. California's penal code gives law enforcement officers a lot of leeway when deciding what does or doesn't "interfere" with an officer performing his duties, but it's still hard to see how this fits a person standing 90 feet away taking pictures.

148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

In fact, it would seem that any "delay" was caused by the officers' decision to hassle a photographer, rather than continue in their "discharge of duty." Another way to look at this is that the officers felt that questioning and detaining Nee was actually the "duty" they were "discharging," and his refusal to state his name "obstructed" or "delayed" them. Of course, that assumes the photography itself was a criminal activity, which it certainly wasn't.

Either way, the line of reasoning being pushed by Vidal is suspect, if for no other reason than Vidal himself isn't the most trustworthy of cops.

Sergent Vidal was named as a "problem officer" by the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (Christopher Commission) in the early 1990s, as reported by the Los Angeles Times in 1995. The Commission named 44 officers with "six or more complaints of excessive force or improper tactics between 1986 and 1990."

More disappointing, this specious line of reasoning was upheld yet again by another member of the LAPD.

Reason TV showed the video to Andy Neiman, the officer-in-charge at the Media Relations Section at the LAPD. He said he could not comment on the video specifically but said of individuals taking pictures, "If their physical proximity to the investigating officers becomes interfering where an officer has to stop what they're doing to admonish that individual that they're too close or could you stand back because they are distracting from the officer's business, then that's where it becomes an issue."

90 feet away can't be remotely considered "physical proximity" unless we're talking building locations. It's pretty tough to sell the better part of 100 feet as being close enough to interfere with police business. Neiman probably knows better than to comment on a video showing officers confusing 90 feet of separation for "standing between the officer and the door," as the LAPD is currently being sued by Nee and two other photographers for past abuses.

At some point, the perceived benefits of shutting down citizens with cameras are going to be outweighed by the millions of dollars in lawsuit settlements. Until then, it appears the LAPD is going to continue allowing officers to use the term "interference" to violate the public's First Amendment rights.

Filed Under: filming, first amendment, lapd, photographer, police

Zero Tolerance Policies Put Students In The Hands Of Bad Cops

from the everyone's-'protected'-but-the-students dept

Over the past several years, there's been a rise in the number of law enforcement officers taking up residence in public schools. This rise corresponds with the proliferation of zero-tolerance policies. Combined, these two factors have resulted in criminalization of acts that were once nothing more than violations of school policies, something usually handled by school administrators. As infractions have morphed into criminal acts, the severity of law enforcement "liaison" responses has also escalated.

Here's a recent example of the severity of the response greatly outweighing the actual infraction.

The incident started when a Delaware State Police trooper, who was on assignment as a school resource officer in the Cape Henlopen School District, questioned the third-grader and a fifth-grader while investigating the theft of $1.

According to court papers, the questioning was so intense, complete with threats of the children being sent to a juvenile facility for lying, that the 8-year-old — who was not a suspect — burst into tears. His parents pulled him out of school because of the January 2008 incident and filed a lawsuit in January 2010 charging the officer violated the child’s rights.

The theft of a dollar shouldn't have warranted much more than a visit to the principal's office, if that. But, because of these policies, the school automatically turned it over to a state trooper, who then interrogated two children, presumably attempting to get the 8-year-old to testify against the fifth-grader. Unfortunately, incidents like these are far from rare.

- A water balloon fight towards the end of the school year results in seven students arrested.

- A high school student who changed another student's last name to something inappropriate in the school yearbook is arrested and facing first degree property damage charges, a felony.

- A 14-year-old student is arrested on two charges of "disrupting the educational process" and one count of "obstructing an officer" after wearing an NRA shirt to class -- something that did not violate the school dress code, which bans "depictions of violence" but not guns.

- In Mississippi, kids have been arrested (and incarcerated) for "dress code violations, flatulence, profanity and disrespect."

- In Stockton, CA, a 5-year-old with ADHD had his hands and feet zip-tied by the on-duty officer while he waited for the parents to show up. The child was then charged with "battery on a police officer."

- A cop who was not on duty at a Washington, DC school gave a 10-year-old student a concussion when he "grabbed the back of [the student's] head and slammed his head forward into the table." The student had been sent to the cafeteria for not participating in music class.

- A diabetic student who fell asleep in class claims the school police officer slammed her face into a filing cabinet before arresting her and taking her to jail.

There's more. That's just a sampling. This all builds up to the inevitable end result of cops vs. students, as detailed in this wrongful death suit.

Denys Lopez Moreno sued Officer Daniel Alvarado, Police Chief John Page and the Northside Independent School District in September 2011 for the death of her 14-year-old son, Derek Lopez.

The incident unfolded on Nov. 12, 2010, when Lopez allegedly exited a school bus and, in view of Alvarado, punched another student. Lopez ignored Alvarado's order to freeze and fled the scene with the school officer tailing him in a patrol car, according to the amended complaint.

With Lopez hiding in a shed at a nearby home, Alvarado drove back to the scene of the fight but allegedly refused to give up the search.

"Ignoring his supervisor's orders to 'stay with the victim and get the information from him,' Alvarado placed the second boy into the patrol car and sped into the neighborhood to search for Derek," the complaint states. Local homeowners then directed Alvarado to the shed, Moreno claimed.

"In violation of NISD police department procedures, Alvarado drew his weapon immediately after exiting the patrol car," the complaint states. "With his gun drawn, he rushed through the gate and into the back yard. Within seconds from arriving at the residence, Alvarado shot and killed the unarmed boy hiding in the shed."

Officer Alvarado disobeyed direct orders and school policy in order to pursue an unarmed teen, ultimately ending his life. Alvarado claims he fired at the student because he felt the teen "was coming after him" when the door to the shed the student was hiding in was pushed open and hit him in the face.

But the teen wasn't a threat at any moment up until that point, according to Officer Alvarado himself. Tracking down the teen to a shed in someone's yard, he told the homeowner that the boy "posed no threat" to the homeowner. He also testified that if he thought the teen was a threat he would have called for backup.

Despite these assurances and his own belief that the teen posed no threat, he approached the shed with his weapon drawn. The unexpected swing of the door suddenly turned the unarmed teen into a threat, something Alvarado felt could only be mitigated by shooting.

The whole situation might be deemed "unfortunate" if it wasn't for Alvarado's disciplinary record, which calls into question why he was still employed by the police department, much less allowed to work in a school.

"In approximately a four (4) year period leading up to the shooting, defendant Alvarado had been reprimanded sixteen (16) times," according to the complaint. "Specifically, he had been reprimanded for insubordination and failure to follow supervisors' directives seven (7) times. Due to his poor service record, Alvarado was suspended without pay on five (5) occasions. On May 21, 2008, Alvarado was recommended for termination by Page. Despite being recommended for termination for insubordination and for refusal to follow supervisor directives, Alvarado remained on the force without remedial training."

There's the other problem with bringing police officers into schools. Law enforcement agencies have earned the reputation over the years for protecting their own and allowing "rogue" officers to go largely unpunished. Termination is rare and prosecution even more so. When you turn over low-grade disciplinary issues to law enforcement, you run the very real risk of handing a student over to a cop like Alvarado -- someone who's been slapped on the wrist multiple times and sent back into the general population.

On one hand, you have schools with zero-tolerance policies. On the other, you have law enforcement agencies with all the tolerance in the world. And in the middle, you have kids as young as five being zip tied and charged with battering an officer and unarmed teens being pursued and killed over fistfights.

School administrators are wilfully handing their students over to law enforcement members that aren't even properly vetted by their own departments and then using "zero tolerance policies" to absolve themselves of the dismal results. There seems to be no real push to roll these policies back or for administrations to take charge of student discipline again, so odds are this will get a whole lot worse for students before it gets any better, much to the detriment of the next generation.

Filed Under: police, students, zero tolerance

DailyDirt: Swatting Is Not A Harmless Prank

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

What do people like to do with their free time? Most people probably enjoy doing normal things like reading, surfing the web, watching TV, playing sports, or playing video games. And then there are some who apparently like "swatting" -- a potentially deadly prank where phone hackers make emergency calls reporting violent crimes, life-threatening hostage situations, etc., while spoofing their caller IDs to make it seem like the calls are coming from their target's phone number. Unfortunately, for the targeted victims, this means heavily armed police SWAT teams descending on their homes, sometimes breaking down doors and bursting into their homes. Here are a few eye-opening stories about swatting.

• One of the best phone hackers out there might be a guy named "Li'l Hacker," who happens to be blind and started "phone phreaking" when he was just 14. What started as an "innocent" hobby turned bad when he started associating with a gang of phone hackers led by an ex-con. [url]
• Security reporter Brian Krebs may have been one of the first journalists to have been the target of a swatting. Having reported about hacking crimes for over a decade, Krebs was used to being the target of attacks. His website is frequently disrupted by DDoS attacks. But this time, at least a dozen police officers showed up at his door with pistols, shotguns, and assault rifles pointed at him. [url]
• Even celebrities can't escape swatting. Victims have included Tom Cruise, Clint Eastwood, Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Selena Gomez, Justin Timberlake, Russell Brand, Rihanna, and Chris Brown, just to name a few. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: attacks, brian krebs, phone hacks, phreaking, police, prank, swat team, swatting

Cops And Union Rep Lie About What Video Shows Because Judge Never Allowed Recording As Evidence

from the sometimes-evidence-isn't-evidence dept

The video recording of St. Louis police officer Rory Bruce's unprovoked attack on a handcuffed suspect speaks for itself. Within the first 15 seconds of the video captured by the police van's camera, Officer Bruce slams a forearm across the face of his arrestee. The attack was "unprovoked" in any legal sense of the word. The audio quality is negligible but it appears to be a response to the handcuffed teen's contemptuous (of cop) laughter.

For this action, Officer Bruce lost his job. Not only was Bruce fired by the St. Louis PD, but he was charged with assault, something rather uncommon in the police world. Of course, Bruce was still in his probationary period, something that made his firing much easier.

What's captured on the video doesn't mesh with statements made by Bruce's lawyer.

Bruce's attorney, Joseph Hogan, said his client was squatting down, performing a search, when the "guy makes a move," and Bruce jumped up and hit him with a forearm.

This clearly isn't true. The suspect makes no move and neither officer is squatting at any point before Bruce struck the handcuffed teen. Hogan also suggested police officers shouldn't be held accountable for actions performed under the influence of "adrenaline."

Hogan complained that police and prosecutors didn't take into account the shooting before the teen's arrest, saying that adrenaline must have been pumping for both officers.

This shooting involved Bruce's partner Jacob Fowler (another rookie who was fired for this incident) firing his weapon at the suspect after the teen pointed a gun at him.

While this video clearly shows an attack on a handcuffed suspect, this recording was never viewed by the presiding judge, Theresa Counts, who found Rory Bruce "not guilty" of assault. Plenty of outrage has bubbled up over this fact, but Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice details the events that led to a crucial piece of evidence being ignored.

There was nothing life or death about the decision Rory Bruce made to pound this cuffed teenager in custody. Yet, he was acquitted by Associate Circuit Court Judge Theresa Counts Burke. Not because she found this conduct acceptable, but because she never watched the video.

"Prosecutors had also tried, but failed, to get the teenager on the stand. First they couldn’t find him, then when they did, he asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

But the video never made it into evidence because the law required prosecutors to authenticate it with someone who had personal knowledge of the events. Bruce refused to testify against himself, on the same constitutional grounds as the teen."

The teenager involved was never charged, leaving the prosecution with nothing to trade off for his testimony. As for doing the right thing against Bruce, well, the right thing on the street can sometimes be a bit different than what some of us might hope for.

But what of the other officer present, Bruce's partner, Jacob Fowler?

"That left Fowler, who claimed the same but was forced to testify after prosecutors granted him immunity from charges and obtained a last minute order from another judge.

When Fowler viewed the footage, he testified it differed from his recollection of events."

Maybe he recalled rainbows and unicorns. Who knows? What he clearly didn't recall was anything that could be used against his partner. What a surprise.

"Burke ruled she thus couldn’t authenticate it. That left only the testimony of a few police employees, who couldn’t say much because of hearsay rules."

So, now we know, if we weren't clear before, a recording of an event sometimes just isn't enough evidence. It may be crystal clear in the court of public opinion (and it certainly seemed "authentic" to the St. Louis PD, which fired Bruce and his partner) but can turn absolutely useless when it catches in the gears of the justice system.

But the most troubling (read: repulsive) aspect of this whole debacle isn't the fact that Bruce wasn't charged, or that Judge Theresa Burke didn't watch the video. It's the words of Jeff Roorda, the business manager of the St. Louis Police Officers Association, who not only flat out lies about the events clearly captured by the camera, but claims this sort of footage is being used the wrong way.

Words are exchanged and then; “It’s one forearm blow as he’s trained to do,” said Jeff Roorda with the St. Louis Police Officer’s Association.

Roorda says he can see Bruce crouched down and the suspect moving forward. He says Bruce was only defending himself.

Again, at no point before Bruce hits the suspect are either of the officers "crouched down." Both are completely upright for the entire 15 seconds before Bruce's attack.

Roorda says the judge did right—he told News 4, police videos like these should be used to protect police. "Now, it’s become a “gotcha-head hunter” tool that we’ve seen internal affairs go over-board with."

That's the most disgusting sentiment. Roorda feels video captured by police cameras should only be used when what's recorded justifies police actions. If St. Louis cops can't behave themselves, despite knowing they're on camera and despite believing internal affairs is prone to "going overboard," the problem isn't with the cameras or internal affairs. Roorda wants these two officers reinstated, even though the St. Louis PD itself doesn't want them around. After all, they've been exonerated by the court, so in Roorda's mind, there's no reason to keep two bad cops off the street any longer.

Filed Under: evidence, judge, police, police brutality, videos

Court Skeptical That LA Cops Can Just Look At Any Motel Guest Record Without A Warrant

from the no-time-to-make-this-legal!-we've-got-laws-to-enforce! dept

It seems that no matter where you leave behind some sort of personal data, there's a member of law enforcement or a security agency looking to get ahold of it. Much of this happens online (where various corporations do plenty of their own data harvesting), but even back in the physical world, everything is up for grabs until someone makes enough noise to get it stopped.

The city of Los Angeles has enacted a law that further loosens the already rather lax restrictions on gathering information voluntarily provided to a third party. The information in question here is motel guest records, which the LAPD can currently search without a warrant or a subpoena.

Motels owners fighting a Los Angeles ordinance allowing warrantless searches of registration records told the 9th Circuit that the law is unconstitutional.

The ordinance requires owners to record guest information, including names and addresses; total number of guests; make, type and license number of the guest's vehicle; date and time of arrival; scheduled date of departure; room number; rate charged; method of payment, and name of employee who checked the guest in. Upon request, motel owners must then give such information to police.

As the ordinance stands now, police have "boundless authority'" to search and seize these records. The plaintiff's lawyer argued that because the records serve a "crime control" purpose for Los Angeles law enforcement, there needs to be additional requirements written into the law. The judges went back to U.S. vs. Jones to see if law enforcement's requests for these records constituted a "search" or "trespass," which led to some rather interesting defensive moves by the city's attorney.

Weiser said that the ordinance is unconstitutional under Jones because it allows trespass on the motel owners' private property of registration records. Judge Milan Smith told Todd Leung, the deputy city attorney for Los Angeles, that the papers are supposed to be private unless there is an exception under Jones.

Though Leung said there may not be an exception, he added that requiring production of the motel records would have to cause "meaningful interference" under case law, and the ordinance did not do that. Judge Consuelo Callahan asked how the city could "possibly come in look at the records and not have a physical interference with private property." Leung replied: "It's not so much a physical interference. Things of this nature are kept in electronic format." Unmoved, Callahan said, "well, you still have to get at it. I can't envision a circumstance where they wouldn't have to at least manipulate a computer."

This sort of goalpost-moving wordplay is often found on both sides of courtroom arguments, but it doesn't make Leung's linguistic maneuvering any less ridiculous. The interference isn't "meaningful," and even if it is, it isn't "physical" because nobody has to dig through file cabinets. Sooner or later, though, the motel owners have to do something to comply with the requests that they wouldn't be doing otherwise.

Judge Callahan also told the city's lawyer that the city needs to look at the Jones case in regards to this ordinance.

Callahan also told Leung the city must look at the Jones decision. "Whether we like it or not, it is the precedent," she said. The decision holds that a person does not have to show a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when the government physically trespasses on their person, papers, house or effects, Callahan explained.

"Don't the police physically trespass on the Patels' papers or effects when they search their guest register?" she asked. Leung responded that papers are different than peoples' homes.

Papers are different than homes, but all are included under the decision and, more importantly, under the Fourth Amendment. Leung went from this misstep to something even worse when attempting to portray compliance with the ordinance as somewhat optional for motel owners as nothing is actually "seized."

He told the panel that there is no "seizure" under the ordinance. He said that owners who refuse to turn over the registration details to police officers would be cited for a misdemeanor and required to appear in court. Then they could challenge the ticket if they felt their Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

Wrong move. Cue Kozinski.

"Oh that's so much better!" Chief Judge Alex Kozinski sarcastically exclaimed. "So this is the coercion - they say show me your computer, or I will write you up and you go to jail. Why is that not a trespass?" he asked.

At that point, Leung finally coughed up the real purpose of the ordinance.

Leung then explained police might need the registration information to investigate illegal activity. He said officers "find out there's activity of this nature going on through sting operations or because of what they see."

Berzon said: "Then they don't need the statute. They can get a warrant."

This isn't done being argued yet, but the details emerging clearly indicate that law enforcement, much like many other government entities, would prefer to take the path of least resistance, even if that means violating civil liberties or skirting existing laws. Once resistance appears, their route alters, but almost always seeks the quickest route around the new roadblock. It's almost as though these entities assume they have an innate right to access personal data without warrants, subpoenas or any consideration for the rights of those whose information they're sweeping up.

Filed Under: los angeles, motel records, police, privacy, warrants

Texas Trooper Shoves 74-Year-Old Then Arrests Her For Felony Assault When She Hits Him With Her Purse

from the entitled-children-in-grown-ups-clothes dept

On what was presumably a hot, sweltering night in the nation's Texas' capital, a senator's epic filibuster temporarily derailed an abortion bill. This all went far from smoothly as time stamps were changed post-vote, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (whose pet legislation was being talked over) briefly threatened to have media members arrested for "inciting a riot" and a 74-year-old woman was arrested for assaulting an officer.

According to the Probable Cause Affidavit, the Lt. Governor order that the gallery be cleared and the Troopers were enforcing that order. When they got to Martha Northington and told her to leave, there was a problem.

What kind of "problem?" Well, the kind of problem posed by 74-year-old women who just don't move as fast as the trooper thought she should. Here's video of the incident.

According to the arrest affidavit, Northington resisted by grabbing her seat. Unfortunately for the Trooper, the scene was being videotaped. At 0:02 in the video, you can clearly see Northington reach down to pick up her purse and newspaper. Almost immediately after this the Trooper on her right grabs her arm and you hear Northington protest that he’s hurting her. You can see that the black Trooper is not concerned by her picking up the purse, but the white officer has a death grip on her right wrist.

The arrest affidavit carries its own narrative, which is at odds with what was captured on video.

She attempted to resist by grabbing the chair, not standing, and pulling back from me. We broke her hold of the chair and got her up and as I escorted her up the gallery steps Trooper Hall released her. I was escorting her by the arm up the steps by myself and she continued to try and pull away from me. At the top of the stairs, she spun and slapped my face with her open hand and told me to let her go. The intentional slap to the face by Northington was offensive and I was currently wearing a State Trooper uniform...At this point i spun her around and proceeded to handcuff her for the assault. While trying to handcuff her she continued to resist by pulling her arms and attempted to twist away from me...Ms. Northington was transported to Travis County SO without further incident...

As was already pointed out, Northington was gathering her belongings rather than holding on to her chair. In fact, it looks as if she's voluntarily leaving, right up to the point that the trooper ups his aggression level.

At the 11-second mark, she does hit the trooper in the face, but with her purse (and that from an angle where she didn't have much of a wind-up). But the officer refers to it as an "open hand slap," something that sounds undeniably more threatening (and "offensive") than "At the top of the stairs, the 74-year-old woman hit me with her purse..."

After hustling an obviously dangerous elderly woman out of the building, the trooper attempted to book her on a felony charge.

Northington was apparently originally charged with Assault on a Public Servant, a third degree felony, but the arraigning magistrate reduced the charges to Resisting Arrest and Assault by Contact, Class A and Class C misdemeanors, respectively.

Because Contempt of Cop has yet to be codified into our criminal statutes, the trooper allegedly drew a blank at first when filling out his report. But even the final reduced charges are ridiculous, especially the resisting arrest charge. If you're going to charge someone with resisting arrest, it should logically follow that an arrest was already in progress.

OK, even if we give the trooper the benefit of the doubt, if she is resisting arrest, there has to be an underlying charge. What was she being arrested for in the first place?

Second, any assault on a peace officer is a felony, even if that is just by contact (i.e., an offensive touch)... Here, Northington supposedly slapped the trooper with an open hand. Yet the black trooper does not make a move to help the trooper who was just “assaulted” by Northington.

An assault charge should only cover actual threats to officer safety, rather than just be used to add additional charges to the arrest, one for every unapproved bit of contact between the arrestee and the officer. Even if it was technically assault, shouldn't a trained officer be willing and able to "walk off" being hit by a woman's swung purse, especially if the person swinging it is elderly?

Apparently not. Once you've overreacted, the only way to save face in the law enforcement world is to push forward, trumping up charges and rewriting the narrative. And if you think that might be problematic, don't worry. The cleanup crew will be right behind you, ready to condemn the public for thinking bad thoughts about law enforcement.

In response to criticism, [DPS spokesperson Katherine] Cesinger wrote in a statement that troopers only took “actions they deemed appropriate” when responding to protesters that night.

“Our DPS troopers work every day to ensure that all visitors and staff at the Texas Capitol remain safe and that order is maintained,” Cesinger wrote. “It’s unfortunate that some find it is easy to pass judgment on the officers who are risking their lives every day to protect and serve Texas.”

The lesson is: because law enforcement members perform a dangerous but necessary job, they are never to be questioned or criticized for their tactics, actions or words.

That's very simply a complete load of self-serving crap. The badges these officers wear aren't a shield against criticism or permission slips to perform their jobs however they see fit. There are oaths to uphold, rights to protect and policies to follow, all of which seem to be ignored once someone triggers the very low threshold to unofficial "contempt of cop" charges. The statement from the DPS is profoundly wrongheaded and only serves to widen the gulf between law enforcement and the people they serve.

Filed Under: assault, police, texas

UK Police Routinely Spy On 9000 'Domestic Terrorists' Very Loosely Defined

from the self-sustaining-activity dept

In the wake of the news that spies at GCHQ -- the UK equivalent of the NSA -- have been tapping into every fiber optic cable that comes into and goes out of the country, downloading and storing phone calls and Internet traffic for up to 30 days, you might think the British authorities have enough information at their disposal, without needing to turn to other sources. But it seems not, according to the latest revelations in The Guardian:

A national police unit that uses undercover officers to spy on political groups is currently monitoring almost 9,000 people it has deemed "domestic extremists".

The National Domestic Extremism Unit is using surveillance techniques to monitor campaigners who are listed on the secret database, details of which have been disclosed to the Guardian after a freedom of information request.

A total of 8,931 individuals "have their own record" on a database kept by the unit, for which the Metropolitan police is the lead force. It currently uses surveillance techniques, including undercover police, paid informants and intercepts, against political campaigners from across the spectrum.

Senior officers familiar with the workings of the unit have indicated to the Guardian that many of the campaigners listed on the database have no criminal record.

Aside from the scale of this surveillance, one of the most disturbing aspects of this operation is the way it redefines campaigners as "domestic terrorists". This is not a new trope, but it's depressing to see it deployed on such a massive scale.

That has the corollary that the UK's authorities can conveniently claim that "terrorism" is a major threat, as evidenced by the thousands under observation -- omitting the fact that these have nothing to do with the headline-grabbing terrorism that is used to justify bringing in laws that makes such assaults on the privacy of ordinary citizens possible in the first place. In other words, it's a self-fuelling system of exaggeration leading to a disproportionate response which is then used to justify that response in the future.

But it gets worse. It turns out that the undercover police referred to above have adopted highly unethical techniques in order to infiltrate political groups, possibly breaking the law:

Dozens of police officers could be put on trial for stealing the identities of dead children, and sleeping with female activists they were spying on, according to the police chief leading an inquiry into Metropolitan police undercover work against protest groups.

Another troubling aspect of this undercover operation is that it was used as part of a smear campaign against the family of a victim of a racist attack, and against those who were trying to expose corruption in the police force itself:

Scotland Yard deployed undercover officers in political groups that sought to uncover corruption in the Metropolitan police and campaigned for justice for people who had died in custody, the Guardian can reveal.

At least three officers from the controversial Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) spied on London-based activist groups.

That is, the activities were purely to cover up the police force's own failings, rather than to tackle any kind of serious threat to the nation or public.

It's interesting that these undercover operations are finally being exposed now, alongside ones about pervasive online surveillance. It suggests that Edward Snowden's highly public act of whistleblowing is maybe creating an atmosphere where other whistleblowers feel they can finally come forward after hiding dark secrets for so many years. Let's hope they keep doing so until we know the full extent of these morally-questionable and probably illegal activities -- and that effective new frameworks can then be put in place to stop them happening again.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: domestic terrorists, police, surveillance, uk

New Zealand High Court Orders Kiwi Police & FBI To Return Seized Hard Drives To Kim Dotcom

from the another-failure dept

The investigation and arrest of Kim Dotcom continues to show itself to be an operation that was poorly thought out, where clear liberties were taken by law enforcement who so believed the "Dr. Evil" image that the MPAA set up for them that actually following official procedures seemed of little importance. They really seemed to think that they could do anything and Dotcom would cave. But, as he's challenged a variety of points, and won most of the battles, the carelessness and sloppiness of the whole production keeps getting highlighted over and over again. The latest example: a court has ordered New Zealand police to give Dotcom back "all digital material taken illegally" during the raid, and also "to return anything irrelevant to their investigation" -- and they need to do all of this at their own cost. And, yes, this includes the cloned hard drives that were already sent to the FBI in the US. The court also said that further copies of the cloned hard drives must be destroyed.

The judgement, made by chief High Court justice Helen Winkelmann today, says the seizure of devices without sorting them first was unlawful, and that the police have no right to keep irrelevant material.

[....] "The warrants could not authorise the permanent seizure of hard drives and digital materials against the possibility that they might contain relevant material, with no obligation to check them for relevance," Winkelmann wrote. "They could not authorise the shipping offshore of those hard drives with no check to see if they contained relevant material. Nor could they authorise keeping the plaintiffs out of their own information, including information irrelevant to the offences."

It will be interesting to see how the FBI reacts. Winkelmann told NZ law enforcement that it must inform the FBI of the order. I expect that the FBI will proceed to completely ignore the order, but I imagine that that, too, may complicate the extradition case.

Just a suggestion for the US DOJ and New Zealand Law Enforcement: next time, before rushing off when Chris Dodd and his buddies point their finger at someone and claim they're "evil," perhaps you should actually follow the law, rather than pretending you're a bunch of cowboys setting up a Hollywood-style raid to make Dodd happy.

Filed Under: evidence, extradition, fbi, helen winkelmann, illegal seizures, kim dotcom, new zealand high court, police
Companies: megaupload

Another CA Cop Thinks A Cell Phone Might Be A Dangerous Weapon

from the 'to-serve-and-elicit-incredulous-laughter' dept

Citizens recording police activity often find their subjects in no mood to be photographed. These amateur photographers/filmmakers are threatened, attacked or dragged to the nearest police station and booked, using charges like "interference" or "disorderly conduct" or "walking in an alley" to make sure they don't walk away unintimidated.

A new thought process seems to be taking hold, however. As we covered a few weeks ago, police officers are now trotting out the bizarre theory that the cell phone filming them might be a weapon. Photography Is Not A Crime has rounded up another instance of a cop playing the "cell phone=gun" card in order to prevent being recorded.

A California cop who was being video recorded by a smartphone said she was in fear for her life because the phone could have possibly been a gun, marking at least the fourth time this year a cop in this country has uttered those nonsensical words.

The trend of insinuating cell phones can be guns began earlier this year when Juan “Biggie” Santana had his Sony Bloggie confiscated by Hialeah police officer Antonio Sentmanat in South Florida.

It continued when San Diego police officer Martin Reinhold slapped a phone out of Adam Pringle’s hands and arrested him while writing him a citation for smoking a cigarette on a beach boardwalk.

Then again in Arkansas when a cop ripped an iPhone out of a man’s hands who had been trying to document the Exxon oil spill outside Little Rock.

It certainly hasn't reached epidemic levels yet, but the argument seems to be increasing in popularity. The story we covered contained a statement by the police officer that indicated this new "cell phone=gun" logic is part of the training process.

Now, it's not entirely impossible to make a weapon shaped like a cell phone. It's just highly unlikely. PINAC's article contains a video of a cell phone/gun, but it seems to require a bulky, out-of-date antenna to hide the barrel. The weapon exists (or existed), but it (or any knockoffs) never made an appearance here in the US.

[T]hat weapon never even made it to the United States, according to ExCopLawStudent, a former cop turned law student who firmly believes in the right of officers to ensure their safety, but who also understands police paranoia doesn’t override the Constitution.

In 2000 or 2001, police in Europe discovered a four-shot gun disguised as a cellphone. Since then police officers in the United States have claimed on multiple occasions that civilians who were recording video with their cellphones had to put the phone down. Why? Because it could be a weapon.

Geez, guys, you’re killing us. There have been no cellphone guns recovered in the United States, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

In addition, there are exactly zero court cases that discuss the issue. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in the legal world that discuss the issue. No law review articles, no trial or appellate briefs, nothing.

So, the threat of a weaponized cell phone is hovering at zero, or close enough to it to be laughable when a law enforcement officer uses this "danger" as an excuse to prevent being recorded. Even the supposedly trained-in-the-art-of-phoneguns cops don't take the argument seriously. Or at least no more seriously than the TSA agents who are instructed to consider 3 ounces or less of a liquid "safe," ignoring the fact that any traveler with opposable thumbs could pour 6 ounces of liquid into two three-ounce containers and sail right through the checkpoint with a "dangerous" amount of contraband.

[I]f Detective Shannon Todd of the Newark Police Gang Unit was really so stupid to believe that the phone could have been a gun, then why did she first order the citizen to place it back into his pocket?

The rhetoric is used solely to shut down filming. If this was an actual weapon, one presumes it would be confiscated and the carrier arrested, or at least detained until proper paperwork was produced (cell phone bill?). This also conveniently ignores the fact that many everyday objects that people carry around have also been converted into weapons at one point or another.

The only threat a cell phone presents to an officer making this assertion is the possibility of public embarrassment. I suppose we should be happy that these officers are at least going above and beyond the "you can't film me" argument and showing a little creativity in their shutdowns of amateur policewatchers. But this one crosses the "fine line between clever and stupid" and just keeps running.

Filed Under: phones, police, weapons