Violent, Bigoted Cop Accused Of Beating Another Cop Is Upset His Text Messages Expose Him As A Violent Bigot

from the petard-toting-mfers-getting-themselves-hoisted dept

Lawyers for a cop accused of beating an undercover cop during a 2017 protest are pretty angry prosecutors have let the public know just what kind of bigoted dirtbag the indicted officer is.

St. Louis police officer Dustin Boone -- along with four other officers -- attacked undercover officer Luther Hall. Boone is white. Detective Hall is black. This is relevant information, even if Boone's lawyers are claiming his texts -- which contain plenty of bigotry -- aren't. Boone's legal rep is seeking to have prosecutors sanctioned for bringing Boone's texts to his prosecution.

Boone's attorney, Patrick Kilgore, argues in a court filing that the now-public information is "inflammatory, irrelevant, and highly prejudicial" and disclosing them violates a judge's order to file much of the information under seal. He notes that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote about the texts and other information from the prosecutors' filing and claims it could taint the jury pool and keep Boone from receiving a fair trial.

They're definitely "inflammatory." How could they not be? These are former officer Boone's own words. And they seem relevant as they make it pretty clear how easily a bigot like Boone could "mistake" a black undercover officer for a protester in need of a beating. Here's Boone in a group text [PDF] to other St. Louis police officers a few months prior to the beating he's now facing charges for:

It's already a state of emergency! There are r niggers running wild all across the city and even if/when we catch them..... they don't get in any trouble because there are plate lips running the CAO!

Here's what the CAO reference means:

CAO is apparently a reference to the St. Louis Circuit Attorney's Office, which is under the supervision of the city's first Black circuit attorney, Kim Gardner.

That's not the only one containing the n-word. This term was used in a group text to "Kayla, Kelsea, Mom, Ashley Marie, Dad" that reads:

What city r we in?

These fuckin niggers r the same as St. Louis niggers.

So, the lawyer for this lovely person wants these texts tossed and prosecutors sanctioned for introducing "highly prejudicial" information. And, to be fair, it will certainly make jurors feel things about Boone that they likely wouldn't have felt without them. But is it too unfair? It certainly seems relevant -- not just because of how Boone apparently views black people, but because it also shows how gleefully he participated in the beating of a fellow officer.

Prosecutors say that Boone hooked his phone on his uniform and livestreamed Hall's beating for Ditto. The hour-long video wasn't saved, but prosecutors say Ditto's messages back and forth with Boone prove that she watched what happened — and that Boone was involved. Afterward, Ditto wrote "That was SOOOOOO COOL!!!!"

Perhaps the most memorable part of this exchange (other than Boone's sudden contrition after the news came out he had beaten an undercover detective) is his girlfriend's response to the beating. Everyone tells you "just comply" with cops' orders if you don't want to get hurt. Here's a civilian take, and it's a good one considering it's from someone who was in a personal relationship with a cop:

But damn you guys need to practice more. Even I was confused. One guy was sayin HANDS DOWN, HANDS DOWN.

Next dude saying HANDS UP.

Then HANDS DOWN, HANDS DOWN, GET YOUR FUCKIN HANDS UP.

And that's not the end of the disturbing communications. There are multiple texts celebrating excessive force use -- including Boone's efforts to ensure these beatings weren't captured by nearby CCTV cameras or bystanders. There's a text suggesting Boone stole money from a crime scene. There's a whole string of texts detailing he and his fellow officers' abuse of prescription drugs like Adderall and Concerta.

Here's his recommendation to fellow officer Kyle Santa who was asking on behalf of another police officer.

Depends on if he wants to feel like he feels like seeing in HD and making night turn into day (adderall) or if he just wants to feel a really really focused white guy (concerta). Adderall is essentially cocaine base in a compressed pill form……. It's pretty special. It makes u chew on ur tongue and like ur lips like a crack head and u can't stop talking for the first 8 hours. It is also nearly impossible to get drunk AND cures hangovers in a matter of 11 minutes.

Sure, I can see why Boone's lawyer wants these messages kept out of court. They make his client look like a violent, racist drug addict. That's certainly not going to help -- not when his lawyer is trying to clear him of charges related to the violent beating of a black man… one that Boone seemingly would never have regretted if the beating victim hadn't turned out to be a fellow officer.

Even if Boone's lawyer manages to get these texts tossed and the prosecutors sanctioned, they'll hopefully be enough to prevent Dustin Boone from ever wearing a badge again. And it should serve as a wakeup call for all the officers he worked with -- the ones who ignored his violence, racism, and drug abuse until he made the only unforgiveable mistake: beating up another cop.

Filed Under: dustin boone, luther hall, police, police brutality, racism, st. louis, text messages

South Dakota Court Says Government Doesn't Need To Pay For Home Cops Destroyed To Find A Fugitive Who Wasn't There

from the I-guess-this-is-on-you,-innocent-homeowner dept

Destroying houses appears to be a cop hobby. Somehow searching for suspects involves punching larger-than-man-size holes in walls, shattering every pane of glass that separates cops from perps, and forcibly removing every door that would otherwise open as designed if officers attempted to use the handles.

Maybe some of this is justified if an armed and dangerous suspect is barricaded inside. But law enforcement agencies have made citizens suspected of nothing homeless while attempting to extricate shoplifting suspects, homeless people, and a man armed with nothing more than an ice cream bar. One woman's house was rendered unlivable after it was the centerpiece in a 10-hour standoff between local cops and the only resident located in the house: the family dog. And a house that contained no one was destroyed after its empty interior thwarted cops' efforts to apprehend a nonexistent suspect for more than 19 hours.

Trying to get anyone other than innocent homeowners to pay for this damage is almost impossible. Almost every court has considered this the cost of doing government business -- something taxpayers are always asked to cover. If officers have a law enforcement reason to raze houses, the cost must be borne by those unhoused.

Another case involving the destruction of a house to capture a suspect who wasn't even on the premises has made its way into the court system. And it has (mostly) dead-ended there, thanks to a recent decision by the South Dakota Supreme Court.

In this case, the Hamlin County Sheriff's Department was searching for Gary Hamen, who had an outstanding arrest warrant for felony burglary and violation of a protective order. Gary -- who had threatened to shoot himself and anyone else he came in contact with -- called his father, Gareth, asking for a vehicle to drive to "Canada or Mexico." At that point, he was in a nearby trailer home owned by Gareth, located about 600 feet away from Gareth's trailer.

Officers listened in on this phone call and deputies saw Gary exit the trailer and then walk back inside. The Sheriff's Department requested the assistance of the Watertown PD and secured a drone to fly over the trailer in an attempt to spot Gary or see any exit routes he might take.

A SWAT team assembled and set up a perimeter around the trailer. But this effort appears to have been mostly pointless. From the decision [PDF]:

While the SWAT team attempted to contact Gary, officers received a report that a local resident had observed Gary running towards Castlewood. The resident reported that Gary came out of a tree line near a river and sewage pond, but he had run back into the trees. Sergeant Ellis and the SWAT team tried to locate Gary in this area and encountered another witness who also believed he had seen Gary. An officer inside the armored vehicle called Gary’s cellphone. Gary answered the phone call and claimed he was almost to Minnesota. He sounded out of breath, like he was running.

Law enforcement also spoke to Gary's brother-in-law, who confirmed he had seen Gary the previous night. During this conversation, officers received more information suggesting Gary was no longer in the trailer currently surrounded by a SWAT team.

Not too far away, even more radio traffic suggested entering the trailer wasn't going to result in the discovery of the fugitive.

Meanwhile, Troy Jurrens, who ran a business from his home nearby, was listening to the transmissions among law enforcement on a police scanner as they attempted to locate Gary. He stated: “someone announced on the radio that they were ‘going back to the trailer,’” to which another voice responded, “he’s not in the trailer.” Troy claimed, “The first voice answered back saying they were going back anyway.”

Deputies told Gareth they were going to try to enter the trailer. They did not mention they were planning to destroy the trailer to do this. They also did not ask for consent to enter the trailer, which was the property of Gareth Hamen. Cop-on-house violence ensued.

Not long after, the Sheriff authorized SWAT and the SRT to breach doors and windows on the Hamens’ mobile home. According to Wishard’s affidavit, the “tactical procedure [to secure the mobile home] is to create communication portholes in attempts to call out any subject or subjects that may be hiding inside.” If unsuccessful, gas munitions are used to flush out anyone inside. To create the communication portholes for the Hamens’ trailer, an armored vehicle pulled away the front stairs and deck, which were not attached to the mobile home or secured in the ground, and pushed in the front door with a ram. The second armored vehicle opened three portholes on the opposite side of the mobile home by breaking through windows and a sliding patio door, causing significant damage to the walls and the septic system.

And then:

Shortly after this procedure and before officers entered the mobile home, Gary was seen walking in the river near the Hamens’ residence. Law enforcement apprehended him at approximately 6:00 p.m.

Gareth Hamen sued, seeking compensation for his destroyed property. But there's nothing in the law that says the government needs to pay for property it destroys -- at least not in this fashion. While state law does allow property owners to seek compensation under the state constitution (in order to "ensure that individuals are not unfairly burdened by disproportionately bearing the costs of projects intended to benefit the public generally"), that clause doesn't apply to cops destroying a house to find someone who wasn't even in it. And it's that way because this court has always said that's the way it is.

[O]ur prior decisions have consistently applied the public use language in article VI, § 13 to both the takings and damages clauses, while rejecting a right to compensation under article VI, § 13 when the action involved the state’s police power.

That eliminates one of the allegations. But there's still qualified immunity to consider. Unfortunately, the state Supreme Court says only one of those two allegations will survive.

There were two egregious Constitutional violations: the warrantless entry and the excessive destruction of personal property. Guess which one gets to go forward.

We conclude that, at a minimum, the Sheriff’s warrantless entry into the mobile home required an objectively reasonable belief that Gary was living in and present in the home at the time of entry.

[...]

Given that law enforcement’s last contact with Gary suggested he was no longer in the home, coupled with the fact that law enforcement had surrounded the mobile home for several hours without incident or any materialized threat from Gary, we cannot determine as a matter of law that exigent circumstances existed at the time the Sheriff decided to enter the mobile home.

Since there's plenty of information on the record that suggests at least some officers involved had reason to believe Gary wasn't in the home, there could not possibly be exigent circumstances to enter the home without a warrant to locate someone arrested a couple of hours later outside of the home. This goes back to the lower court for more development of the record.

Unfortunately, the court somehow doesn't consider the damage caused during the search to be worthy of further examination. The officers are granted qualified immunity for the excessive force, even though the court says the entry itself may have been unconstitutional. Walking through a front door without a warrant is no good. Forcibly removing the door (along with windows, walls, part of the septic system, etc.) is just fine because no "reasonable officer" would have been aware that destroying a house to facilitate an illegal search was unconstitutional.

Regardless of whether the Sheriff used excessive force, the Hamens cannot prevail because they cannot show that the Sheriff’s use of force, even if it was excessive, violated a “clearly established” right.

The dissent says this makes no sense. If the entry was unlawful, everything that connected to that entry is similarly unlawful.

Regarding the § 1983 excessive force claim, as a starting premise, if the court determines on remand that the Sheriff’s entry into the mobile home was unlawful, then the nature and extent of force used is immaterial. In such case, the Sheriff is liable to the Hamens’ for the damage caused by the entry.

Furthermore, even if the entry is ultimately proven lawful, the damage caused was excessive, given the facts of the case.

Viewing the underlying facts in a light most favorable to the Hamens, it is questionable whether the use of “communication portals” of the sort made here were required given the small size of the trailer, particularly when considering that, up to the point of their decision to enter the trailer, law enforcement had been using a loudspeaker to attempt to communicate with Gary. Viewed in this light, the resulting damage to the trailer was intolerable in its intensity and unnecessary to execute the burglary warrant at issue.

That's how it stands in South Dakota: law enforcement can destroy a house to engage in an illegal search without having to worry about paying for the damage. A single claim survives this trip through the court system, which likely isn't going to produce a decision or settlement large enough to replace the home. And even if it does, it will come years after the damage was done.

Filed Under: gary mhamen, hamlin county, houses, police, south dakota, swat team, wrong suspect

Lawsuit: Cops Trashed An Attorney's Home In Retaliation For Successfully Defending A Suspect Against Murder Charges

from the system-never-likes-being-beaten dept

An attorney in Virginia found out what happens when you make cops angry. According to Cathy Reynolds' lawsuit, the Roanoke PD targeted her for some extra attention after she successfully defended her stepson from murder charges.

Prosecutors really wanted Darreonta Reynolds for murder, but security camera footage from the convenience store where the shooting took place appeared to show Reynolds shooting Jean De Dieu Nkurunziza in self-defense when Nkurunziza came after him with a gun. The jury agreed with the defense's case, acquitting Reynolds after ninety minutes of deliberation.

This apparently angered someone somewhere in the Roanoke Police Department because this is what happened next. From the lawsuit [PDF]:

Just three days after D. Reynolds acquittal, Defendants targeted Ms. Reynolds for retaliation. Defendants broke down the front door of Ms. Reynolds‘ home after she had offered to let them in, "searched" Ms. Reynolds' home for an individual by destroying her personal possessions, including those entirely irrelevant to a search for a person and left Ms. Reynolds traumatized, knowing that she could be targeted by police for engaging in constitutionally protected activity.

There may be some open dispute about the motivation for these actions, but the actions themselves can't be denied. The raid drew a crowd, some of whom filmed the PD's violent entry into the unlocked house -- the same house Reynolds had left unlocked and invited the officers to search. It also attracted the attention of a local news crew.

The lawsuit fills out the details of the raid. And the narrative throws a considerable amount of shade at the participating officer with one impeccably worded paragraph.

Despite both screen door and storm door at the front entrance of Ms. Reynolds' home remaining unlocked, SWAT officers used an entry tool attached to the front of an armored vehicle to puncture the screen door and rip it free from Ms. Reynolds' home in its entirety.

In so doing, SWAT officers damaged the screen door beyond repair, heavily damaged the door frame surrounding the front entry, and tore vinyl siding from the exterior of Ms. Reynolds' newly remodeled home.

SWAT officers then entered Ms. Reynolds' home by turning the doorknob of the storm door which remained on Ms. Reynolds' home, still unlocked, and pushing the door open in the manner a door is designed to operate.

Nice.

But that wasn't the end of the destruction. Remember, officers were searching for a 17-year-old murder suspect, not an easily hidden amount of contraband.

During the search of Ms. Reynolds' home, SWAT officers opened and searched all the drawers in Ms. Reynolds' kitchen and detached Ms. Reynolds' appliances from the walls of her home.

SWAT officers flipped the mattresses off all the beds in Ms. Reynolds' home and tore all of the clothes from the closets in the bedroom.

SWAT officers tore the cushions off Ms. Reynolds' furniture and emptied the contents of open soda cans onto the floor.

What the fuck.

On top of that, Reynolds alleges the warrant affidavit was nothing but a bunch of lies stitched together carelessly to give the PD permission to destroy her house -- a warrant rendered unnecessary by Reynolds' consenting to a search hours earlier. The narrative in that affidavit involves an ATF officer, their CI, and the assumption that the most likely place for a wanted murderer to be hanging out would be at the house of an attorney who had just successfully defended someone from a murder charge.

Given the timing and the three hours of apparently gleeful destruction, this certainly looks retaliatory. And, of course, it will be portrayed by the PD as just regular old cop stuff completely unrelated to local prosecutors and PD detectives "losing" a murder case. The end result of these efforts can't be denied. Neither can the violent entry which was captured by citizens' cameras. All that's left is the defensive assertions of "reasonable" officers -- all of which felt tearing apart an attorney's house was the best way to locate a human being.

Filed Under: cathy reynolds, darreonta reynolds, intimidation, police, police brutality, roanoke, search warrant, swat teams, virginia

Fifth Circuit Strips Immunity From Cops Who Ended A Mental Health Crisis By Restraining A Man To Death

from the unfortunately-it-took-a-death-to-obtain-this-result dept

The Fifth Circuit is the worst place to bring a civil rights lawsuit against law enforcement officers. But that may slowly be changing, thanks in part to the Supreme Court, which has played its own part in making qualified immunity an almost insurmountable obstacle in civil cases. Over the past few months, the Supreme Court has reversed and remanded two cases handled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling that the lower court's extension of qualified immunity was the incorrect conclusion.

This case [PDF] may reflect the Supreme Court's qualified immunity attitude adjustment. Or it just may be that there's no excusing what happened here: a man suffering a mental health crisis being helped to death by San Antonio (TX) police officers.

Jesse Aguirre was reported to dispatchers by drivers on a heavily traveled eight-lane highway. Drivers noted Aguirre seemed to be "mentally disturbed" and possibly in danger of being injured or killed since he was walking on the thin media strip dividing the eight lanes of traffic. Officers arrived at the scene and things just kept getting worse for Aguirre. Fortunately, it was all documented by the dashcam on an officer's vehicle.

Here's the first "offer" of "help" Aguirre received from a police officer:

Officer Gonzales was the first to arrive. She left her vehicle blocking the left-most eastbound lane and approached Aguirre on foot with her firearm pointed at him, ordering him to “come here” and threatening, “I’m going to shoot you, m-----r-f----r.”

Lovely. Gonzales continued to walk after Aguirre, joined by Officer Morgan (also pointing a gun) and Mendez (pointing a Taser). Aguirre then stopped and placed his hands on the concrete median barrier. All three officers rushed Aguirre, grabbing him and placing him in handcuffs. According to the video, Aguirre did not "visibly resist" being handcuffed. The officers then tossed the handcuffed man over the cement barrier, causing him to land on his head.

More officers arrived. And they apparently felt the unresisting man needed more "assistance" dealing with his apparent mental health crisis.

After one or two more officers arrived, they assisted in moving Aguirre from the car hood to the ground onto his stomach next to the median with his hands still cuffed behind him. The video does not show that Aguirre resisted during this maneuver, but instead that he stumbled with the Officers toward the median. After Aguirre was placed prone on his stomach, Officer Gonzales pushed his legs up and crossed them near his buttocks and kneeled forward on Aguirre’s legs, holding them near Aguirre’s bound hands in a hog-tie-like position. Officer Mendez knelt with one knee on the ground and the other on Aguirre’s back, later changing position to hold Aguirre’s shoulders and cheek down against the pavement with his hands. Officer Mendez testified that he was using part of his body weight to hold Aguirre down, thus applying pressure to Aguirre’s back and neck. Officers Morgan and Arredondo then joined Gonzales and Mendez, placing their hands on Aguirre’s arms and back to hold him prone in the maximal-restraint position.

More officers arrived, including a supposed "medical tech officer" (Benito Juarez) but there's nothing on video suggesting he handed out any medical advice or paid any attention to the handcuffed man's condition. One officer noted Aguirre's lips were turning blue but chalked that up to "drug use," rather than the ongoing asphyxiation that was actually occurring.

Aguirre remained hogtied face-down on the pavement for more than five minutes. At some point during that time he stopped breathing, but it was only noticed by the large group of officers after he had spent five-and-a-half minutes in that position. Once they realized he had stopped breathing, the officers turned Aguirre over and the "medical tech officer" jogged off to get some medical equipment.

But no one really seemed to care.

At this point, the Officers appear to be in good spirits; according to the Plaintiffs, in the dashcam videos, Juarez can be seen smiling as he jogs to his vehicle, and several other Officers likewise appear to be smiling and laughing as they await Juarez’s return around Aguirre’s body. Juarez returned at a walk with his medical bag approximately one minute after he left.

It wasn't until more than four more minutes had elapsed that any officer attempted to perform CPR. But it was too late. Aguirre was dead. The autopsy report confirmed what the dashcams had caught: the restraint method had asphyxiated Aguirre. The conclusion: "due to restraint by police, this case is classified as a homicide."

Despite this direct link between their actions and Aguirre's death, the officers wanted qualified immunity. The court refuses to extend it. The amount of force used to restrain Aguirre was excessive. The situation did not call for maximal restraint of a cooperative subject, especially given the criminal act (which is still a stretch) at the center of it.

Defendants do not attempt to show that the severity of any crime committed by Aguirre weighed in favor of the level of force used by the Defendant Officers. In fact, defendants do not articulate any criminal investigatory function justifying their actions, and instead rely on the existence of a threat to the public safety—namely, the potential danger to motorists and himself that Aguirre’s mental disturbance and walking along the median of the eight-lane highway caused. At most, the crime at issue was a traffic offense.

[...]

This factor thus weighs against it being reasonable or necessary to place Aguirre in the maximal-restraint position for over five minutes.

And the cops can't swing the court their way by providing testimony that was often directly contradicted by their own dashcam recording.

In their declarations below, the Defendant Officers stated that Aguirre was resisting and they feared that he would break away and run into traffic, causing a dangerous collision and potentially dragging one of the Officers with him. But the Plaintiffs’ summary judgment evidence and this court’s own review of the video evidence at minimum raise genuine questions about whether it was objectively reasonable to believe Aguirre was actively resisting or even physically capable of posing an immediate safety threat that would justify the Defendant Officers in using extraordinarily dangerous force by placing and holding him in the prone maximal-restraint position that led to his death.

The court also points out that the fact the officers suspected Aguirre had recently used drugs should have resulted in more caution being taken while restraining him, rather than less. Even the go-to excuse for in-custody deaths -- "excited delirium" -- is supported by plenty of documentation that shows hog tying suspects or holding them down with body weight increases the risk of death.

But at the end of it, the thing that undoes these officers' planned exit from this lawsuit is their own video. The court brings it up again in support of its qualified immunity denial.

Although the Officers presented their own version of events that included claims of Aguirre’s resistance—including, for example that he “was resisting and trying to pull away from” the Officers while walking near the westbound side of the median, “was still resisting” when placed on the hood of the car, and “continued to resist by shifting his body around and trying to break free” while pinned against the hood of the patrol car—these averments in contravention of what the police dashcam videos show do no more than reinforce that genuine disputes as to material facts exist at this stage of the litigation.

Clearly established enough, adds the Fifth, even without a case directly on point. The difference between "hog tying" and "maximal prone restraint" isn't enough to make it unclear to these "reasonable" officers whether the use of these nearly identical techniques in situations like this would be "excessive."

Whether or not the Supreme Court's recent hints nudged this in the right direction, at least the correct conclusion was reached: restraining someone to death -- especially an unresisting someone -- clearly violates their rights.

Filed Under: 5th circuit, jesse aguirre, mental health, police, qualified immunity, san antonio, texas

Law Enforcement Officials Confirm Clearview's Facial Recognition Tech Is Mostly Useless

from the well,-you-get-what-you-pay-for... dept

A stash of public records recently obtained by BuzzFeed shows far more law enforcement agencies have experimented with Clearview's facial recognition software than previously acknowledged. The searchable data shows Clearview is still something law enforcement is interested in experimenting with. And there's probably more to this story, given that nearly 1,200 agencies refused to respond to BuzzFeed's requests.

Clearview boasts something most other facial recognition tech companies can't: billions of images and a host of other personal info attached to those images. Unlike other databases that usually draw from public records like mugshot databases and DMV files, Clearview scrapes the web to compile its database, pulling photos and other info from the billions of public posts/accounts hosted by platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

As the amount of input increases, so does the margin of error. But Clearview routinely overstates its accuracy. Last year, it claimed it "passed" the ACLU's facial recognition test. The ACLU disputed this claim, pointing out Clearview had not actually run the test as designed and that its software used things not commonly used by law enforcement, like clear photos and a database full of scraped images and personal info. Clearview's ability to properly recognize photos of senators and Congressional reps wasn't a sign of success, but rather the end result of playing with a loaded deck that linked clear, high-quality photos to Congressmembers' social media accounts and official websites.

But the experimentation continues, urged on by Clearview's baseless claims of miraculous facial recognition technology. Jake Laperruque -- writing for the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) -- points out the company has routinely overstated the tech's effectiveness.

Clearview AI’s pitches to law enforcement disclosed in public records requests are shockingly boastful. The company claims to have “the most accurate facial identification software worldwide” and to consistently produce accurate results “in less than five seconds.” The company even goes so far as to tell police that using its software will make them “realize you were the crazy one” for not believing face recognition would perform the same as it does in outlandish TV depictions like “NCIS, CSI, Blue Bloods.”

You can make these outlandish claims when you're not willing to submit your tech to examination by outside experts. Sure, you can make them. But you shouldn't expect people to believe them. All the free passes handed out to law enforcement officers haven't resulted in a showering of accolades and a bunch of closed cases. First-hand experiences reported to BuzzFeed show law enforcement remains unimpressed with Clearview's product. Here are just a few of the damning quotes compiled by POGO:

“Photos entered were of known individuals, including themselves and family members. The software did not yield accurate results and they ceased using it prior to the end of the 30 day trial period.” —Kathy Ferrell, public information officer, Smyrna Police Department

“We didn’t find it to be very useful so we stopped using it. Half the searches were on us to see what it would pull up. We were getting very poor results.” —Barry Wilkerson, police chief, St. Matthews Police Department

“We had one detective who had access two or three years ago after attending a social media investigation course. He said he used it several times but was never successful in finding accurate matches and discontinued its use.” —Brian Gulsby, spokesperson, Daphne Police Department

Despite this, Clearview continues to overstate its accuracy. Its pitches remain aggressive and highly imaginative. The reality, however, is still disappointing. And that is reflected in its internal memos, which acknowledge the limitations that affect all facial recognition tech also affect Clearview's product. The only "advantage" it has is a database containing more than a billion scraped photos.

But bigger doesn't mean better. And it sure as shit doesn't mean more accurate, as law enforcement officers who've test driven the product can attest. All it means is Clearview is trying to turn its internet Xerox into the go-to product for rights violations.

Filed Under: facial recognition, police
Companies: clearview

Appeals Court: No Immunity For Cops Who Punched A Man Hanging From A Second Story Window And Tased Him When He Hit The Ground

from the I-didn't-see-a-weapon-but-I-didn't-*not*-see-a-weapon-either dept

It takes a lot to lose your qualified immunity, but these cops -- who punched a man's head while he hung from a bedroom windowsill ten feet off the ground and tased him after he fell and broke his leg -- managed to do it.

This Second Circuit Appeals Court decision [PDF] also contains one of the most astounding bits of cop-speak I've ever seen, but we'll start where it starts: with cops chasing a man clad only in boxer shorts, a t-shirt, and flip-flops.

The suspect was startled by officers serving a search warrant and made a run for it. Officers originally suspected Jose Peroza-Benitez had a weapon on him. One officer saw the suspect drop the gun on the roof during the pursuit. Other officers at the scene said the gun then fell to the ground in an alley. Peroza-Benitez denied having a firearm on him at any point, but officers did recover one from the scene.

But where exactly at the scene remains disputed. The report said it was found in the suspect's possession. But every officer sued agreed it was not on his person when they finally arrested him. The chase ended when Peroza-Benitez climbed out of a second story window and then ran out of escape options. As he dangled by his hands (which clearly did not contain a gun), he was approached by C.I. (Criminal Investigator) Kevin Haser who, despite recognizing a fall from that height might injure the suspect, decided to get physical.

According to Peroza-Benitez, as he was hanging from the windowsill with his hands, his feet “dangling,” C.I. Haser “repeatedly” punched him in the temple region of his head with a closed fist. App. 173. C.I. Haser testified that he punched Peroza-Benitez “[o]ne or two times . . . . [p]robably two,” with the purpose being to “stun” and “disorient” Peroza-Benitez into compliance “to help him out.”

That's a weird way of helping. Haser's next attempt to "help out" was even weirder.

It is unclear from the record when the officers let go of Peroza-Benitez. Nevertheless, at a certain point, C.I. Haser thought “we’re like, screw it, you want to fall, you’re gonna fall. So we let go of him.”

Peroza-Benitez fell. And as he fell, Officer Daniel White made quite the set of observations:

Officer White indicated to his fellow officers that he was ready to assist should Peroza-Benitez fall. Officer White did not observe a weapon, or “the absence of one,” in Peroza-Benitez’s hands as he fell from the window.

Schrodinger's weapon: one that exists in two states until an officer feels comfortable testifying one way or the other. Officer White's did/didn't statement was made to excuse his response to the suspect falling and breaking his leg: the deployment of his Taser.

Officer White tased Peroza-Benitez after he struck the concrete steps. Officer White, without providing a verbal warning, deployed his taser in dart mode for a 5-second cycle. Accounts differ as to the exact duration of time that elapsed between Peroza-Benitez landing in the stairwell and getting tased, ranging from “as soon as he hit the concrete” to “less than five seconds.” However, the parties agree that Peroza-Benitez was tased either immediately or almost immediately upon landing.

Some of the cops (including Officer White) claimed the suspect "lunged forward" as if he was going to start running on his broken leg. The plaintiff claims he was temporarily knocked out after his head hit the concrete. Both Officer White and C.I. Haser claimed qualified immunity shielded their actions. The Second Circuit says they're both wrong.

Here, Peroza-Benitez was unarmed, injured, covered in his own blood, and hanging from a second-story window by his hands, feet dangling, when C.I. Haser – knowing Peroza-Benitez to be unarmed – punched him “repeatedly” in the head with a closed fist. C.I. Haser’s punches “stunned and disoriented” Peroza-Benitez, causing him to fall over ten feet into a below-ground concrete stairwell. Accordingly, we rely on a modification of the District Court’s definition: The Fourth Amendment right of an injured, visibly unarmed suspect to be free from temporarily paralyzing force while positioned at a height that carries with it a risk of serious injury or death.

Previous case law dealing with stunning suspects in precarious positions all deal with Taser deployments. The end result is the key, not the method used.

Officer Smith – who was with C.I. Haser at the window – testified that it is “against protocol” to “tase someone on the roof” because if “they fall off, that’s not going to be good. We’re not gonna tase someone that’s on a roof.” App. 53. The same exact logic applies to deliberately punching someone “to stun” them, App. 187, when that person is hanging out of a window.

The same goes for Officer White. Case law may not be exactly on point but a reasonable officer should know that tasing a possibly unconscious person was excessive force.

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Peroza-Benitez – again, as we must do at summary judgment – Peroza-Benitez was tased by Officer White while lying unconscious after having fallen over 10 feet into a below-ground, concrete stairwell. The duration of time that elapsed between Peroza-Benitez hitting the ground and getting tased does not change the fact that, in the light most favorable to Peroza-Benitez, he was tased while visibly unconscious and after multiple seconds had elapsed, App. 264, such that a reasonable jury could find that Officer White should have known that he was tasing an unconscious individual.

The case heads back to the lower court and -- if this law enforcement agency chooses not to settle -- a jury will get to decide whether or not rights were violated. According to what the court sees here -- and the admissions made by the officers involved -- there's a pretty good chance this will end in the plaintiff's favor. More factual development isn't going to change the fact one cop said "screw it" and let the suspect fall. And it won't change Officer White's response to someone falling off a second-story windowsill into an alley filled with cops: a swift tasing of someone in no position to escape.

Filed Under: 2nd circuit, police, qualified immunity

Federal Court Tells Minnesota State Police To Stop Attacking, Harassing, And Arresting Journalists Covering Protests

from the really-shouldn't-have-to-be-told-this dept

Minneapolis, Minnesota was still on edge when a cop shot another unarmed black man. The trial of former officer Derek Chauvin is still underway. Last May, Chauvin knelt on the neck of George Floyd for over nine minutes -- including two minutes after another officer was unable to detect a pulse.

With this hovering in the air, another senseless killing by an officer set everything off. Again. 26-year-veteran officer Kim Potter (who served a year as the head of the police union) turned a "routine traffic stop" into a homicide when Daunte Wright broke free from another officer and jumped back into his car. Potter yelled "Taser! Taser! Taser!" while pointing her gun at Wright. She shot him once, which was enough to kill him. Potter's service weapon was holstered on her right side. The Taser she supposedly thought she had in her hand was holstered on her left. The Taser was bright yellow. The gun she shot Wright with was not.

Officer Potter resigned but it didn't change anything. She has been arrested and charged with second-degree manslaughter. Potter's error -- which seems completely inexplicable given the location, distance, color, and weight of the weapons she confused -- turned Brooklyn Center, Minnesota into ground zero for more protests and riots. And the Chauvin trial continues, promising more of the same if the end result is unsatisfactory.

More of the same is also being observed by protesters and the journalists covering them. Protests around the country following the George Floyd killing were greeted by police violence. Journalists and legal observers were often targeted with the same crowd control efforts deployed against protesters and rioters. In far too many cases, officers (especially federal officers sent in to "help") appeared to specifically target journalists for abuse, including harassment and close-range deployments of pepper spray, tear gas, and other crowd control efforts.

This targeted harassment of well protected First Amendment activity has resulted in lawsuits. So far, the government has always come out on the losing end. The same goes for Minnesota, where a judge has just approved a restraining order forbidding officers from targeting or arresting journalists. Here's Tony Webster's coverage of the mid-protest litigation:

A Minnesota federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order barring Minnesota state law enforcement from using force against journalists or ordering them to disperse while covering protests. The ruling does not apply to local law enforcement or the National Guard, however.

[...]

In a 22-page order, Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright cited examples of police treatment of the press over the past week, including police orders specifically directed to members of the press to vacate protest areas, and incidents of journalists being pepper sprayed, physically grabbed, or hit by projectiles.

There are limitations and it doesn't affect every agency policing protests. But the allegations aren't theoretical. There's plenty of evidence cops are going after journalists specifically. A letter [PDF] sent to Governor Tim Walz and the heads of three state law enforcement agencies on behalf of multiple press outlets contains disturbing documentation of officers targeting journalists.

The letter follows the restraining order put in place by a federal judge -- one that appears to have been immediately violated by officers, including those specifically told by their agency (the Minnesota State Police) to leave journalists alone.

[A]s discussed on our call, reports from journalists on the ground indicate that over the last several days—and even last night after the TRO was in effect—law enforcement officers have engaged in widespread intimidation, violence, and other misconduct directed at journalists that have interfered with their ability to report on matters of intense public interest and concern.

The letter contains a long list of violations committed by law enforcement officers who knew they were dealing with journalists.

Two separate photojournalists on assignment for The New York Times were harassed by officers. In one instance, a Minneapolis State Patrol Captain recognized the photojournalist, rushed out of a police line, and grabbed him. The officer then pulled the journalist behind the police line where another officer held his hands behind his back and took his phone. When the journalist asked “why,” the officer said: “Because that’s our strategy right now.”

[...]

Carolyn Sung, an Asian-American CNN producer, was thrown to the ground and arrested by state troopers Tuesday night while trying to comply with a dispersal order. As Sung tried to leave the area as directed, troopers grabbed Sung by her backpack and threw her to the ground, zip-tying her hands behind her back. Sung did not resist and repeatedly identified herself as a journalist working for CNN and showed her credentials.

[...]

On April 13, while in a car with others, police officers surrounded the car, banging on the windows and doors with wooden sticks and yelling to get out. The driver of the car was dragged out and arrested; another photographer in the car was taken out and talked to. The New York Times journalist was repeatedly hit by officers while in the car, and the officers also tried to break his camera.

On the night the restraining order went into effect, journalists were kettled by Hennepin County deputies. After they were released, they ran into another set of officers one block north of where they were first detained. These officers ordered them to "line up for processing," which took the form of each journalist being ordered to produce ID, lower their face masks, and be photographed by the officers.

Then there were incidents like these, where press members, clearly marked as "press" in fluorescent "press" vests, were pepper-sprayed by an officer standing just a few feet away from them.

The Minnesota State Police issued its own orders following the approval of the restraining order. It admits its policy used to be to temporarily detain and photograph journalists. That's no longer the case. Officers may still ask to see credentials but they're barred from taking pictures of press members or their press passes. The rest of the MSP's orders follow the specifications of the restraining order, which says officers will no longer be able to arrest journalists for not complying with dispersal commands while noting this is the "primary change" affecting how MSP officers "interact with the press."

But there have been no similar pledges to respect journalists and their rights from other law enforcement agencies. Perhaps they're all waiting to be told specifically by federal judges to stop violating rights, even though it's clear similar actions by government agencies not named in the suit would be just as much of a violation.

This remains unsettled and journalists will continue to be targeted and attacked by law enforcement officers. And if it's this bad now, it's only going to get worse once the Derek Chauvin verdict is delivered. Journalists can provide crucial documentation of police activity during these protests. And it seems clear many officers would prefer this didn't happen.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, arrests, derek chauvin, free speech, george floyd, journalists, minneaplolis, police, protests

Released Body Cam Footage Shows Chicago Cop Shoot And Kill An Unarmed 13-Year-Old

from the why-not-get-the-facts-*before*-making-claims-of-'armed-confrontations' dept

Another shooting of an unarmed person by police officers will likely see parts of Chicago burn over the next few days. But to get to where we are in the aftermath of this very disturbing shooting, we have to start at the beginning.

Adam Toledo, a 13-year-old Latino seventh grader, was shot dead in an alley by a Chicago police officer on March 29 following a foot chase. His mother had reported Adam missing. When officers came knocking on her door two days later, it was to identify his body. It wasn’t until after that that she was informed he was killed by police.

That's one version. Here's the Chicago PD's take on the killing of Toledo by Officer Eric Stillman:

A Chicago police officer has been placed on administrative duty after fatally shooting a teenager in an incident labeled by one official as an "armed confrontation."

The boy was Adam Toledo, who died by homicide from a gunshot wound to the chest, according to the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office. Toledo, identified by the medical examiner’s office as a 13-year-old white male, lived in the city’s largely Hispanic Little Village neighborhood on the West Side.

Here's how the prosecutor framed it when handling the criminal charges against the other suspect in the alley that night:

During a bond hearing for 21-year-old Ruben Roman, who was with Adam the night of the shooting, Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney James Murphy described the altercation in a proffer: “The officer tells [Toledo] to drop it as [Toledo] turns towards the officer. [Toledo] has a gun in his right hand.”

The officer who shot Toledo was wearing a body camera. And it wasn't until the city released this footage that the Chicago PD and prosecutors admitted Toledo wasn't armed. In fact, as can clearly be seen in this disturbing footage, he also had his hands in the air. The officer who shot spent 20 seconds in pursuit and gave Toledo less than a second to respond to his orders before pulling the trigger.

Now that the truth has come out, the backtracking has started, starting with the prosecutor's office:

"An attorney who works in this office failed to fully inform himself before speaking in court…"

The footage shows an officer -- responding to a report of fired shots -- chasing Toledo down the alley. Surveillance footage from a nearby building showed Toledo tossing something on the ground by the fence seconds before he was shot. It appears Toledo had been carrying a gun but abandoned it. When he followed the officer's instructions -- "Show me your fucking hands! Drop it!" -- and showed him his empty hands, he was killed.

The Chicago PD apparently doesn't feel like talking about it. Most of the statements following the release of recordings by the Civilian Office of Police Accountability have come from the victim's family or Mayor Lightfoot. And the Mayor still appears to be taking the PD's side in this, even when all evidence shows this was not a justified killing.

[W]hile Lightfoot and other city officials expect tensions to flare after the video is released, she still called for deference to the police. "As the investigation in the police shooting . . . continues, I urge everyone: reserve judgment until the Civilian Office of Police Accountability, that's COPA, has done its work," she said.

The only entity to state publicly that the cop was 100% in the right is, of course, the local police union.

John Catanzara, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said the officer was justified.

“He was 100% right,” Catanzara said. “The offender still turned with a gun in his hand. This occurred in eight-tenths of a second.”

First off, here's John Catanzara's pedigree:

Catanzara is one of the most frequently-disciplined officers in the history of the Chicago Police Department. He is believed to be the first police union president ever elected while stripped of his police powers.

Second, the "offender" did not "turn with a gun in his hand." The body cam footage clearly shows his hands were empty. The discovery of the gun several feet away shows it wasn't in his hands when he was shot.

That's where this ends for now. A 13-year-old hanging out with the wrong person ran from the police. Then he did everything he was supposed to. He dropped the gun. He stopped. He turned around with his hands up. And it still wasn't enough to keep him alive. Maybe if the officer had given it another half-second of scrutiny, this kid might still be alive. But the choice to shoot appeared to be a foregone conclusion. Alex Toledo never had a chance.

Filed Under: adam toledo, bodycam, chicago, police

I Guess They're Not All On The Same Side: Cops Brutalize Soldier For [Checks Notes] Leading Them To A Well-Lit Area

from the whatever-doesn't-kill-you-makes-you-more-of-an-asshole dept

But for video.

The twist? This time the cops brought their own damnation to the party.

Cops like to pretend they and the boys in actual camouflage uniforms are BFFs, united against the constant threat of evil. Cops think they're soldiers. It's unclear whether soldiers think they're cops, but the people sending them orders certainly think they are. I mean, we don't go from zero to "Team USA America: World Police" without some nudges from those on and off the battlefield.

Here's where this all intersects: two Windsor (VA) officers decided the best response to what appears to be a routine traffic stop was a whole lot of violence, both physical and mental. The body cam video shows just how much at least one officer overreacted to a man who just wanted to survive the unexpected interaction with law enforcement.

This is what happened to Caron Nazario -- an Army medic. He bought a new car. And, as everyone knows (including the cops who pulled him over) new cars don't have rear plates. They have temporary paper tags located inside the rear window where they won't be destroyed by, say, any weather whatsoever.

Despite this being common knowledge, these officers (Joe Gutierrez, Daniel Crocker) effected a traffic stop. Things were unnecessarily escalated because Nazario chose to do something everyone -- even cops -- say is a good idea. From the lawsuit [PDF]:

On or around December 5, 2020, at approximately 18:34, Defendant Crocker initiated a traffic stop of Lt. Nazario on US 460 westbound in the Town of Windsor, near the Food Lion, where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour, by activating his emergency lights. The traffic stop was ostensibly for the lack of a rear license plate4 , though the temporary tags were affixed to the back of the vehicle and visible to Crocker during the pursuit. Defendant Gutierrez then joined in the pursuit.

Within seconds, Lt. Nazario submitted to Defendant Crocker’s display of authority and began to slow down. Lt. Nazario also activated his turn signal, to signal his compliance with Crocker’s implied directive to pull over. Crocker admits in real time that Lt. Nazario was complying, by relaying to dispatch that Lt. Nazario was slowing down. Gutierrez, who was listening to Crocker over the radio, was aware of both the reasons for the stop as well as Lt. Nazario’s compliance with Crocker’s signal to slow down and pull over.

It was dark, however, and it appeared to Lt. Nazario that there was no good location in the immediate vicinity to stop safely. So, for the benefit of the officer’s safety and his own, Lt. Nazario continued slowly down US 460, below the posted speed limit, for less than under a mile, until he spotted a well-lighted BP gas station. He pulled over in the parking lot. From the time that Defendant Crocker initiated the traffic stop until the time Lt. Nazario pulled over into the BP parking lot, approximately 1 minute and 40 seconds elapsed and Lt. Nazario had traveled less than a mile.

That's how long it takes for cops to take things to the next level. No one wants to stop on a dark street. Cops who are concerned about their safety don't want to perform traffic stops on dark streets. And cops who are concerned about their safety make the rules. (See also: a shitload of qualified immunity decisions.) So, to make sure everyone was safe, Lt. Nazario found the nearest well-lit area and stopped.

I guess that was the wrong decision. According to police spokespeople, Nazario's careful move towards a lighted area turned this into a felony stop: one that justified whatever paranoia the officers engaged in. There was no pursuit. There was less than two minutes of activated lights before Nazario pulled over and attempted to comply with the officers' shouted commands.

If you paid attention to the videos, you may have noticed (several) concerning details. First, the cops rolled up like they were dealing with a dangerous criminal -- one who led them at low speed to a well-lit, heavily-trafficked area. Then they told him to do things that would endanger his life.

They told him to exit the vehicle. They also told him to keep his hands outside of his vehicle. Lt. Nazario's seatbelt was still fastened. His door was locked. Complying with one order (exit the vehicle) would result in a violation of other orders (keep your hands outside of the vehicle).

You can't win, as Lt. Nazario suspected. He pointed this out.

One officer said non-compliance of the conflicting orders would result in Nazario "riding the lightning," presumably referring to the officer's Taser. (But it also could refer to an instant death sentence, as being strapped into the electric chair is also referred to as "riding the lightning." But we'll stick with the "less lethal" option because we're being overly charitable here.)

Then there's the other comment made by the same officer. Nazario -- recognizing the situation he'd been forced into by an officer who saw fit to escalate before having any facts in hand -- said: "I'm honestly afraid to get out."

He received this response:

"You should be."

So, faced with these limited facts, he stayed in his car. For that, he was pepper sprayed and tased. And for that, these officers were sued.

"Command control," will say any officer worth their suddenly-jeopardized pension. That's why cops charge into scenes with guns drawn and repeated shouts of contradictory commands. What options did Lt. Nazario have? Lower his hands to unlock the door? Move his hands out of the officers' sight to undo his seatbelt? He did all he could to avoid being shot. And, saints be praised, he wasn't. But he was brutalized because Lt. Nazario failed to handcuff himself and teleport into the backseat of the nearest cruiser.

This is American policing. It happens every day. Sometimes, it gets captured on camera. And it shows the cops treat everyone -- even those they consider to be comrades in arms in the fight against universal evil -- to be nothing more than criminals who haven't been convicted yet.

A citizen concerned about their own well-being will make officers safer. Instead of recognizing how everyone benefited from moving the stop to well-lit area, the officers chose to view it as a "felony stop" and reacted as though someone was leading them into danger. But the only person they put in peril was a guy just trying to drive his new car home. Hopefully, the court will see through any assertions about "training and experience" or "officer safety" and send these cops back to face a jury.

Filed Under: caron nazario, daniel crocker, joe guitierrez, police, police brutality, traffic stop, virginia, windsor