District Attorneys Have Figured Out How To Turn Criminal Justice Reform Efforts Into Revenue Streams

from the cash,-money,-records dept

Reform efforts targeting cash bail, plea deals, and life-altering criminal charges have occasionally hit on the idea of pre-trial diversion. In exchange for payment and possible an educational class or two, people now have the possibility of satisfying their obligation to the government while keeping their criminal record clean.

It sounds like a good idea. But there's a huge gap between the theory and the practice. In some cases, corporations like Walmart have inserted themselves into the criminal justice system, freeing shoplifters of criminal charges provided suspects pay the store a few hundred dollars and attend mandatory "don't be a criminal" classes. Unlike the government version, there's no chance you'll be found innocent by a jury of your peers. If Walmart accuses you, you pay the fines, do the classroom time, or get hit with criminal charges anyway.

Elsewhere, government agencies are moving forward with pre-trial diversion programs. It makes a limited amount of sense. People don't want to go to jail. And prosecutors don't necessarily want to put in the prosecution work for every rinky-dink case cops toss their way. Yes, there's not a lot of due process in it, but there really isn't much in the system anyway, not when most criminal accusations result in plea deals, rather than jury trials.

These programs could result in positive outcomes for accused citizens, who are able to keep their criminal/driving records spotless despite being cited or arrested for violations. Unfortunately, the programs are being warped to serve prosecutors, rather than the public, as Jessica Pishko reports for Politico.

In Louisiana, the Rapides Parish District Attorney's office asked for $2.5 million in funding from the cash-strapped parish. The treasurer, Bruce Kelly, dug into the DA's numbers to see what had caused this shortfall. Kelly saw a steady decline in the funds collected by the DA's office for court fines and traffic tickets. He also saw an office in good physical condition with a fleet of new cars. None of this added up. So, Kelly dug deeper.

Kelly went through old state audits and other public information, and came to the conclusion that Terrell’s office was bringing in plenty of money but keeping it for itself.

He was right. Under [District Attorney Phillip] Terrell, the DA’s office, as shown by public documents, had ramped up its “pretrial diversion” program, also sometimes called “pretrial intervention,” or PTI. As the website for the Rapides Parish DA’s office explains, the program provides “nonviolent offenders an opportunity to avoid conviction and incarceration” through “tailored” agreements in which the offenders pay money in exchange for their charges being dropped and their cases dismissed. In the program’s simplest form, instead of receiving and paying speeding tickets, offenders were paying fees not to get tickets. And those fees were going directly to the DA’s office—whose website features a prominent MAKE A PAYMENT button.

Ah. So the "diversion" in "pre-trial diversion" refers to the diverting of funds directly from citizens to the DA's pockets. Unlike other areas of the state, diversion fees collected by the Rapides Parish DA go to the DA, rather than a general fund that might make this repurposed reform effort a bit more palatable. But it doesn't, so the first thing you see at the DA's website is a payment button.

This resulted in a lawsuit filed by the parish against the DA's office. The lawsuit contained more details about DA Terrell's personal enrichment scheme.

In 2017, according to the suit, Terrell’s office had brought in $2.2 million through PTI fees—more than 10 times what the previous DA had captured from diversion fees annually—by charging dismissal fees that ran from about $250 for traffic tickets, $500 for misdemeanors and $1,200 to $1,500 for felonies. Those rates were substantially higher than those of the previous district attorney, according to Kelly.

For years, DA's offices have just been leaving this money on the table. Sure, collecting fines and fees is cool, but what's really cool is giving members of the public the dubious opportunity to pay money for fewer due process protections. The DA's office spends less on prosecutions and collects more money -- none of which it has to share with other government agencies.

This isn't just Rapides Parish or Louisiana. It's all over the nation. Whatever the public sector hasn't already stumbled upon, private companies are pitching to prosecutors. It works well enough prosecutors are sort of getting out of the prosecution business. And it may actually help a few people avoid having a momentary, stupid mistake disrupt their futures.

But it's mainly just a cash grab -- one that's more lucrative than over-enforcement and over-zealous prosecution. Government agencies getting shafted by DAs hijacking revenue streams should be angry enough to sue about it. I mean, the public won't necessarily come out ahead, but at least they'll be equally screwed by a number of agencies, rather than a single office with an outsized "MAKE A PAYMENT" button.

Filed Under: criminal justice reform, district attorneys, pre-trial diversion, profit

More Prosecutors Abusing Their Access And Power To Illegally Eavesdrop On Conversations

from the give-'em-enough-leash dept

Last time we checked in with (former) Brooklyn prosecutor Tara Lenich, she was facing state charges for abusing wiretap warrants to listen in on conversations between a police detective and one of her colleagues. This stemmed from what was termed a "personal entanglement" between her and the detective.

The wiretap warrants couldn't be obtained without a judge's signature. Since there was no probable cause for the warrant, no judge would sign them. Lenich had a solution. She just forged the judge's signature on the warrant. And then she kept forging judges' signatures, stretching out her illicit surveillance for more than a year, with a faked signature on every 30-day renewal.

Lenich is now facing federal charges. An indictment handed down by DOJ pretty much repeats the allegation of the state charges, detailing Lenich's long-running, extremely-personal wiretap operation.

As alleged in the indictment, for nearly 16 months between approximately June 2015 and November 2016, Lenich created fraudulent judicial orders as part of her illegal wiretapping scheme. Specifically, she forged the signatures of multiple New York State judges onto the illicitly created judicial orders -- orders that purportedly authorized the KCDA to intercept communications occurring over two cellular telephones. Lenich then misappropriated KCDA equipment to intercept, monitor, and record the communications to and from the two cellular telephones. In furtherance of her scheme, Lenich also created fraudulent search warrants, which she then used to unlawfully obtain text messages relating to the two cellular telephones.

Prosecutors have plenty of power and plenty of tools at their disposal. At some point, they'll be abused. Sometimes the damage is minimal and goes unnoticed. Other times, the abuse is discovered inadvertently. Inevitably, when the discovery is made, it's always something that's been happening for months or years, rather than a recent one-off where someone just made a very poor decision.

This time it's federal prosecutors who may be facing charges for illegal eavesdropping. It's not just a few prosecutors and a few isolated cases of misconduct. As Justin Glawe reports for The Daily Beast, it's an entire prosecutors' office and a whole lot of illegal activity.

A court-appointed investigator has found that the United States Attorney’s Office for Kansas is in possession of hundreds of phone and video recordings of communications between attorneys and their clients, inmates at a privately run prison facility in Leavenworth.

At least 700 attorneys are believed to have been recorded without their knowledge, the investigator’s report submitted to a federal court said. Last week Special Master David Cohen asked to expand his probe to determine whether prosecutors regularly listened to and compiled attorney-client conversations. Already, 227 phone call recordings and at least 30 videos of attorney-client meetings have been discovered in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Kansas City.

These recordings, captured by Securus equipment and obtained by prosecutors from private prison company CoreCivic, contained privileged conversations between inmates and their legal representatives. The US Attorney's dirty little eavesdropping secret was exposed when it hauled in a defense lawyer to accuse her of wrongdoing.

Jackie Rokusek told The Daily Beast she was called to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Kansas City last August, where she said she was told by prosecutors that they had video evidence of her providing her client with confidential information about a drug ring case. Rokusek was given a computer and she watched the video, then she says she accidentally clicked on another file. A window opened, and a video showing another attorney meeting with their client at Leavenworth played. Stunned, Rokusek immediately went to the Federal Public Defender’s office in Kansas City and told them what she’d found.

Prosecutors were hoping to push Rokusek towards recusing herself from a case with this supposedly-damning recording. Instead, it showed federal prosecutors had been listening in on discussions between defense attorneys and their clients and possibly using these to stack the prosecution deck.

It's common knowledge prison phone calls and personal visits are recorded. Signs are posted prominently in prisons informing inmates and visitors of this fact. But just because recordings exist doesn't mean prosecutors can avail themselves of privileged conversations between lawyers and clients. Everything else is fair game.

But the recordings do exist. Securus and CoreCivic aren't going to shut off cameras and mics simply because there's a lawyer involved. And if the recordings exist, sooner or later someone's going to abuse this access. The only side that has this access is the prosecution. The side with the most power can eavesdrop with the willing assistance of those in the incarceration business. If they're careful, this abuse could go on indefinitely. If not, they'll enjoy a good run of slanted prosecutions before the hammer falls.

Filed Under: abuse of power, district attorneys, eavesdropping, forgeries, prison conversations, prosecutors, tara lenich, wiretaps

Internal Affairs Departments, District Attorneys' Offices Helping Keep Bad Cops From Being Held Accountable

from the can't-solve-a-problem-if-no-one-wants-to-solve-it dept

A certain percentage of police officers are "bad cops," just like a certain percentage of the human race is composed of thuggish sociopaths. That's an unfortunate fact of life. Whether the percentage of bad cops is greater than the percentage in non-law enforcement positions is still open for discussion, although there's a lot about a cop's job that would attract thuggish sociopaths: power, better weapons, nearly nonexistent accountability, etc.

We often ask why bad cops aren't rooted out more quickly. And the answers are depressing and numerous. Bad cops are protected by their own. Bad cops are also, unfortunately, protected by otherwise "good" cops because "bad cops" are often the most dependable of cops. In the rare cases when bad cops are cut loose from the force, the local police union usually works tirelessly to get them reinstated. But even within police departments themselves, there's little interest in rooting out the bad apples.

Inside every cop shop is an Internal Affairs department. In some rare cases, these departments are effective in rooting out the worst of the force. In return for this service, they are universally reviled by the rest of the department -- even by "good" cops. And they often see their uphill battles undone by police unions or upper management.

In other cases, though, Internal Affairs is just another integral part of the defensive "blue line" that shields bad cops from accountability. Among the many instances of abusive behavior uncovered by the DOJ's review of the Newark (NJ) police department (including racist behavior, stop-and-frisk abuse, intimidation and excessive force being routinely deployed) is this incredibly ugly statistic.

The previous year, the American Civil Liberties Union had filed a complaint with the Justice Department accusing police of misconduct. The group provided statistics showing that only on rare occasions did the department act on complaints against officers accused of using excessive force or conducting improper searches and false arrests.

In 2008 and 2009, only one complaint of 261 filed was sustained by department investigators, the ACLU found.

The Justice Department review appeared to confirm that the trend continued in the ensuing years; from 2007 to 2012, just one complaint of excessive force made by civilians was sustained.

One complaint sustained in five years. New Jersey US Attorney Paul Fishman blamed this on a "dysfunctional Internal Affairs department." Paul: you spelled "corrupt" wrong. The only way this happens is if Internal Affairs is in the business of clearing officers of wrongdoing, rather than investigating allegations. That's not accountability. That's aiding and abetting.

The DOJ uncovered all sorts of misconduct that should have been discovered by IA and corrected by PD management.

Blacks, on average, are 2½ times more likely than whites to be stopped on the street, the report found. While Newark police conducted 111 stops for every 1,000 residents among whites, it made 283 stops for every 1,000 residents for blacks — even though the likelihood of finding evidence of crime was about the same for whites as it is for blacks, the report noted…

The reports also said there were "credible" complaints that police sometimes detained people in their cruisers without filing charges, calling it "a humiliating and often frightening experience."

It also documented so-called "contempt of cop" arrests, a phrase used to describe people charged with a crime because they lawfully objected to police actions or were disrespectful.

Finally, in a sentence that is inadvertently hilarious, the DOJ notes that the Newark PD likes to punch people until they calm down.

And, the report noted, officers were quick to defuse volatile situations by using open and closed fists to the head, even though "in many cases these actions were not necessary … and seemed to be simply retaliatory."

The Newark Police Department is ugly all over and Internal Affairs is as much to blame as every officer who participated in this abusive behavior.

But it's not just complicit Internal Affairs departments keeping bad cops on the force. It's also people outside the department who are equally unwilling to hold officers accountable for their abusive behavior. (via Ben Swann)

The Hartford state's attorney has rejected an arrest warrant submitted by Enfield police to charge one of their own officers with third-degree assault and fabricating evidence.

The seven-page arrest warrant application submitted by Lt. Lawrence Curtis concluded that Officer Matthew Worden hit suspect Mark Maher with punches that "were neither necessary nor needed" during an arrest on April 1.

Hartford State's Attorney Gail Hardy rejected the arrest warrant application late last week, concluding that although Worden's actions might violate police department rules they did not rise to the level of criminal prosecution.

"Although striking Maher may have violated Enfield Police Department's use of force policies, Worden's conduct seemed to be aimed at an attempt to restrain Maher who was resisting officers' attempts to handcuff him, rather than an intention to inflict physical harm," Hardy concluded.

When police departments make proactive moves to not only oust but press criminal charges against one of their own, it should be taken seriously. No one knows better just how abhorrent Officer Worden's behavior was than the Enfield Police Department. But when it tried to do the right thing and hold him accountable for his misconduct, the State's Attorney's office shut it down. And not only did it shut the arrest warrant down, it made excuses for the officer's actions.

Officer Worden said Maher was "clenching his fists" and "tensing his arms" as he moved in to effect the arrest. This supposed resistant behavior led to the following:

Worden told Curtis that he delivered two closed fist punches aimed at Maher's upper right arm "to disrupt the nerves and incapacitate the muscles so the arms could be controlled." Worden said Maher was thrashing on the ground after officers took him down and that "this thrashing caused one of the punches to hit Maher in the right side of his forehead above the eye," the application states.

Except the booking photo shows the punches landed somewhere else, contrary to Worden's assertions.


This looks like the result of a direct hit, not the "right side of the forehead above the eye." Then there's this:

The application states Curtis concluded that the video did not show Maher resisting arrest and that at one point it shows Worden, while Maher is on the ground with one arm pinned behind him, stopping to adjust the glove on his right hand before delivering two of the four punches he threw.

I would think someone has effectively stopped "resisting" if the apparently threatened officer has time to make sure his punching fist is gloved properly.

Adding to the ridiculousness of the State's Attorney's decision is the fact that the entire incident was caught on video. The attorney's excuse for seeing/not seeing the same actions that led to the PD drawing up a warrant for Officer Worden's arrest? The arrest scene was complex, therefore: nothing to see here.

In her letter rejecting the arrest warrant Hardy said the video "depicts many moving parts where it is extremely difficult to keep up with everything that is going on with all parties."

"ALL parties?" Does Hardy mean all both of them? She only had two people to keep an eye on: Maher and Worden. But she makes it sound as though the altercation took place on the Coca-Cola bottling factory floor during a visit by a touring Cirque de Soleil troupe. This willingness to see the forest rather than the trees does nothing to deter future bad behavior by Worden or any other officer on the force. And it's apparent that Worden was one of Enfield PD's worst.

Enfield, a department with nearly 100 sworn officers, has had 26 civilian complaints in the past four years. One-third of those were against Worden, records show. In 2013, Worden had half of the six citizen's complaints against the department.

In his seven years on the force, Worden has been involved in a domestic dispute, fought with another officer, and faced multiple complaints about racist behavior or racial profiling. Notably, not a single complaint filed since 2010 has been sustained. Internal Affairs has played a part in Officer Worden's lengthy, troublesome career.

But this is yet another part of the "bad cop" problem. Worden had been previously suspended and ordered to attend additional training, but those deterrents haven't worked. He's apparently still a problem for the department. So, the department made what appears to be a long overdue move and brought assault and fabricating evidence charges against one of its own -- an incredibly rare move in the world of law enforcement. And when it did, the state's attorney tossed it out because the recording was hard to follow and her office apparently doesn't feel it can win the case. But we can be 100% sure that if the situation was reversed, and the arrestee had dealt out a few punches of his own, Hardy's office would have suddenly found the recording easy to follow and clearly indicative of the citizen's guilt.

The system has been rigged for so long that when a law enforcement agency tries to buck the trend by holding an officer accountable, its efforts are completely undermined by the next step in the legal process. Bad cops are here to stay.

Filed Under: bad cops, district attorneys, internal affairs, police

Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors

from the win-win? dept

We've been quite reasonably bothered by the FBI handing out its seal to copyright holders to falsely imply that mere personal copying is a criminal offense that might get you sent to jail. However, it appears that this handing off of government law enforcement threats to private parties goes much, much further. Over the weekend, the NY Times wrote about the amazingly common practice of local district attorneys' offices allowing debt collectors to send threat letters on their stationary and signed by the local DA -- effectively threatening those who, for example, passed a bounced check, with potential jailtime if they don't pay up.

The DAs office, it appears, is literally selling the use of their stationary. In exchange for letting debt collectors appear both a lot more official and for falsely suggesting that law enforcement is pursuing criminal action, the debt collectors "sell" a "financial accountability" class, from which some of the proceeds get kicked back to the DAs' offices.

The practice, which has spread to more than 300 district attorneys’ offices in recent years, shocked Angela Yartz when she was threatened with conviction over a $47.95 check to Walmart. A single mother in San Mateo, Calif., Ms. Yartz said she learned the check had bounced only when she opened a letter in February, signed by the Alameda County district attorney, informing her that unless she paid $280.05 — including $180 for a “financial accountability” class — she could be jailed for up to one year.

The NYT includes images of some of the documents in question, and they really do look quite official, despite the fact that the DA's office usually is not even aware of the particulars of anyone's case, and is unlikely to pursue any sort of law enforcement activity. As you can see, it certainly looks likes it's coming from the DA's office, and looks extremely "official" even though it's only down in the fine print that it's mentioned that it's actually sent "on behalf" of the office by a third party. Even then, unless you were really aware of what was going on, you would probably think this was law enforcement going after you.

What's really ridiculous is to see various DAs offices defend this kind of thing.

“I view it as quite a win-win,” said Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger. “You aren’t criminalizing someone who shouldn’t have a criminal record, and you are getting the merchant his money back.”

Scott Greenfield's response to this ridiculous claim is dead on:'

Check bouncers should be held accountable. But only in a way that the law provides, after the people in whom we repose trust and responsibility ascertain that a crime has been committed, and after the accused has been afforded the opportunity of a full and fair hearing before a neutral magistrate. Whether the merchants deserve to get money back or not is the end result, not the starting point. It's a burden to do things right? 'Tough nuggies. That's why they pay you the big bucks.

He similarly finds offensive the claim from another (former) DA in the article that these shakedown programs are fair because actually having law enforcement would "overburden the court system or the resources of the district attorneys." Again, Greenfield points out that you don't get to avoid due process just because it's a hassle:

After all, who would want to "overburden the court system or the resources of district attorneys" by expecting them to do their jobs? Who would want courts and prosecutors to afford citizens due process? Instead, let's defer to the excellent judgment and trustworthiness of businesses and debt collectors. They would never lie. They would never get it wrong.

We've talked a lot about problems with forms of "crony capitalism" where businesses have undue power over government, and it happens at pretty much every level of government these days. But, at the very least, we shouldn't just be handing over the power of law enforcement to private parties. Law enforcement agencies are already prone to abuse. Giving it to private, for-profit companies? You're just asking for serious trouble.

Update: Liberty McAteer points out that the offices doing this likely are violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in a very, very big way... Update 2: Some more comments point out that there appear to be direct exemptions in the FDCPA for this kind of thing. Doesn't make it right, but probably not illegal under the act.

Filed Under: bad checks, debt collectors, district attorneys, shakedowns