Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence

from the maybe-just-don't-partner-with-the-MPD-from-now-on,-St.-Paul-PD dept

The city of Minneapolis, Minnesota is temporarily ending the use of no-knock warrants following the killing of 22-year-old Amir Locke by Minneapolis police officers. The city's mayor, Jacob Frey, has placed a moratorium on these warrants until the policy can be reviewed by Professor Pete Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University and anti-police violence activist DeRay McKesson.

This comes as too little too late for Locke and his surviving family. The entire raid was caught on body cam and it shows Amir Locke picking up a gun (but not pointing it at officers) after he was awakened by police officers swarming into the residence.

Locke, who was not a target of the investigation, was sleeping in the downtown Minneapolis apartment of a relative when members of a Minneapolis police SWAT team burst in shortly before 7 a.m. Wednesday. Footage from one of the officers' body cameras showed police quietly unlocking the apartment door with a key before barging inside, yelling "Search warrant!" as Locke lay under a blanket on the couch. An officer kicked the couch, Locke stirred and was shot by officer Mark Hanneman within seconds as Locke held a firearm in his right hand.

Locke was shot once in the wrist and twice in the chest. He died thirteen minutes after the shooting. As you may have noticed from the preceding paragraph, Locke was not a suspected criminal. And for those who may argue simply being within reach of a firearm is justification for shooting, Locke's handgun was legal and he had a concealed carry permit. His justifiable reaction to people barging into an apartment unannounced is somehow considered less justifiable than the officers' decision to kill him.

In most cases, that's just the way it goes, which -- assuming the warrant dotted all i's and crossed all t's -- means the Second Amendment is subservient to other constitutional amendments, like the Fourth. Here's how Scott Greenfield explains this omnipresent friction in a nation where the right to bear arms is respected… but only up to a point:

The Second Amendment issue is clear. Locke had a legal gun and, upon being awoken in the night, grabbed it. He didn’t point it at anyone or put his finger on the trigger, but it was in his hand. A cop might explain that it would only take a fraction of a second for that to change, if he was inclined to point it at an officer, put his finger on the trigger and shoot. But he didn’t.

This conundrum has been noted and argued before, that if there is a fundamental personal right to keep and bear arms, and that’s what the Supreme Court informs us is our right, then the exercise of that constitutional right cannot automatically give right to police to execute you for it. The Reasonably Scared Cop Rule cannot co-exist with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

"Cannot co-exist." This means that, in most cases, the citizen bearing arms generally ceases to exist (along with this right) when confronted by a law enforcement officer who believes they are reasonably afraid.

There's another point to Greenfield's post that's worth reading, but one we won't discuss further in this post: the NRA's utter unwillingness to express outrage when the right to bear arms is converted to the right to remain permanently silent by police officers who have deliberately put themselves in a situation that maximizes their fears, no matter how unreasonable those fears might ultimately turn out to be.

But this is a situation that could have been avoided. A knock-and-announce warrant would have informed Locke (who was sleeping at a relative's house) that law enforcement was outside. As the owner of a legal gun and conceal/carry permit, it's highly unlikely this announcement would have resulted in Locke opening fire on officers.

It didn't have to be this way, but the Minneapolis Police Department insisted this couldn't be handled any other way.

A law enforcement source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case, said that St. Paul police filed standard applications for search warrant affidavits for three separate apartments at the Bolero Flats Apartment Homes, at 1117 S. Marquette Av., earlier this week.

But Minneapolis police demanded that, if their officers were to execute the search within its jurisdiction, St. Paul police first secure "no-knock" warrants instead. MPD would not have agreed to execute the search otherwise, according to the law enforcement source.

If it had been handled the St. Paul way, Locke might still be alive. There's no evidence here indicating deployment of a knock-and-announce warrant would have made things more dangerous for the officers. If this sort of heightened risk presented itself frequently, the St. Paul PD would respond accordingly when seeking warrants.

St. Paul police very rarely execute no-knock warrants because they are considered high-risk. St. Paul police have not served such a warrant since 2016, said department spokesman Steve Linders.

Contrast that with the Minneapolis PD, which appears to feel a majority of warrant service should be performed without niceties like knocking or announcing their presence.

A Star Tribune review of available court records found that MPD personnel have filed for, and obtained, at least 13 applications for no-knock or nighttime warrants since the start of the year — more than the 12 standard search warrants sought in that same span.

This is likely an undercount, the Star Tribune notes. Many warrants are filed under seal and are still inaccessible. But it does track with the MPD's deployment stats. According to records, the MPD carries out an average of 139 no-knock warrants a year.

This happens despite Minnesota PD policy specifically stating officers are supposed to identify themselves as police and announce their purpose (i.e., "search warrant") before entering. That rule applies even if officers have secured a no-knock warrant. If officers wish to bypass this policy that applies to no-knock warrants, they need more than a judge's permission. They also need direct permission from the Chief of Police or their designee. That's because no-knock warrants were severely restricted by police reforms passed in 2020. But it appears those reforms have done little to change the way the MPD handles its warrant business.

We'll see if the mayor's moratorium is more effective than the tepid reforms enacted following the killing of George Floyd by Officer Derek Chauvin. The undetectable change in tactics following the 2020 reforms doesn't exactly give one confidence a citywide moratorium will keep MPD officers from showing up unannounced and killing people during the ensuing confusion. It only took nine seconds for officers to end Amir Locke's life. Given what's been observed here it will apparently take several years (and several lives) before the Minneapolis PD will be willing to alter its culture and its day-to-day practices.

Filed Under: amir locke, minneapolis, minnesota, no knock warrant, police, police shooting

The Corruption Is In Congress: When Your New Bill Exempts The Biggest Employers In Your State, Perhaps There's A Problem

from the look-at-that dept

Karl wrote a bit about how the new antitrust bill from Amy Klobuchar and Tom Cotton pretends that the only industry that has competition issues is the internet industry -- despite evidence suggesting other industries are much worse off -- and briefly mentioned the fact that their bill conveniently excludes Walmart and Target. But the setup of the bill and those particular exclusions are so nefariously done, and so obviously corrupt, that they deserve a second post to call it out.

First off, when the House version of this bill came out, we highlighted that the $600 billion threshold seemed curiously specific, since it seemed specifically drawn just above a ton of politically powerful companies -- including Walmart, Disney, AT&T, Verizon, Visa, Mastercard, JP Morgan Chase, Disney, Bank of America and others. But notably the House version of the bill would put down the $600 billion line as a marker, and if those companies reached that threshold, then they too would be subject to the same rules, and prevented (or, significantly hindered) from buying other companies.

And that's where the Senate version is so nefarious. Under the terms of the Klobuchar/Cotton bill, it only applies to companies who are over the $600 billion line on the day the bill is signed. In other words, while the House version would eventually impact Walmart (largest employer in Tom Cotton's state) and Target (largest employer in Klobuchar's state), Klobuchar and Cotton conveniently changed the rules in the bill so that they would not impact the biggest companies in their home states.

There is no way to look at that other than as corrupt.

And, as Pat Hedger points out, Walmart has been growing like crazy over the last five years or so (which seems odd, considering we keep hearing that Amazon has "monopolized" commerce and is driving out all the competition):

So, as I type this Walmart is valued at a little over $400 billion. That might seem far off from $600 billion, but as recently as 2016 Walmart was valued below $200 billion. $600 billion in the next few years is not at all out of the question. And if this bill passes, it won't matter for Walmart.

Target is somewhat smaller, but also has been growing like crazy:

So both of those companies -- which compete fairly directly with Amazon -- have been growing like gangbusters, and their own Senators are introducing a bill that will block Amazon from acquiring companies, but has a built-in exemption that keeps both of these competitors from being limited in the same way Amazon is being limited.

Is there honestly any way to view this setup other than out and out corruption by Klobuchar and Cotton? Protecting the largest employer in each of their states by shackling the major competitor to each, and making sure their own companies are exempted from the law no matter how large they grow?

Filed Under: acquisitions, amy klobuchar, antitrust, arkansas, corruption, favoritism, mergers, minnesota, soft corruption, tom cotton
Companies: amazon, target, walmart

Investigation: Minneapolis Cops Responded To George Floyd's Murder By Refusing To Do Their Jobs While Still Collecting Their Paychecks

from the get-busy-working-or-get-busy-retiring dept

The police in Minneapolis are giving the public what they think the public wants: fewer police officers, fewers interactions with police, and, of course, MOAR CRIME. Calls to defund the police began following the murder of George Floyd by police officer Derek Chauvin. Law enforcement officers expressed disdain (rather than dismay their actions had provoked this), asking rhetorically who would show up to tell people there isn't much officers can (or will!) do in response to reported crimes.

The disingenuous interpretation provided by most police departments was "Fuck 'em." Let the city fall into criminal chaos if residents continued to express their opposition to excessive force and rights violations. The application of the "defund the police" mentality by the Minneapolis PD is every bit as disingenuous as cop supporters' interpretations of "defund the police" movements -- ones that generally only want to move resources being used poorly by police departments to other entities more suited to handling common calls, like people suffering from suicidal thoughts or mental breakdowns.

Because the cops can't be honest about their own contribution to the current state of affairs in Minneapolis, they're giving residents the part that's easiest to do (fewer cops handling fewer crimes) without doing the difficult part (relinquishing their paychecks). An investigation by Reuters reporter Brad Heath shows cops are doing less cop stuff in the Twin Cities while still collecting the same salaries they always have.

Almost immediately after Floyd’s death, Reuters found, police officers all but stopped making traffic stops. They approached fewer people they considered suspicious and noticed fewer people who were intoxicated, fighting or involved with drugs, records show. Some in the city, including police officers themselves, say the men and women in blue stepped back after Floyd’s death for fear that any encounter could become the next flashpoint.

Ignored in the police response to public criticism is what's driving this fear of "becoming a flashpoint." Millions of police interactions happen every day. Only a minute percentage result in protests. So, the fear of "flashpoints" is overblown. But if Minneapolis cops think it's more likely to happen now -- following the murder conviction delivered to one of their own -- they may be correct. But they're missing the point: the protests following George Floyd's murders were the result of years of racist policing and disproportionate force deployments against minorities. Floyd may have been the flashpoint, but cops were the tinderbox.

Now, having failed to apprehend criminals their contribution to this shitshow -- one governments are now, finally, trying to get under control -- cops are admitting they're too cowardly to face this challenge and too shameless to stop cashing paychecks they haven't earned.

“There isn’t a huge appetite for aggressive police work out there, and the risk/reward, certainly, we’re there and we’re sworn to protect and serve, but you also have to protect yourself and your family,” said Scott Gerlicher, a Minneapolis police commander who retired this year. “Nobody in the job or working on the job can blame those officers for being less aggressive.”

Wrong, recent retiree Gerlicher. I can. I can blame those cops for being "less aggressive." I mean, we want cops to keep their aggression in check when interacting with the public, but the "aggression" this quitter is referring to is nothing more than doing the sort of stuff we pay cops to do… like combat and deter crime.

The upside is rights are probably being violated far less frequently, as stops of "suspicious" people have dropped more than 75% since the murder of George Floyd. On the downside, there's a bunch of self-righteous badge-wearers hanging around the office, bitterly stoking the fires of their self-pity.

“It’s self-preservation,” said one officer who retired after Floyd’s death, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He said the force’s commanders didn’t order a slowdown, but also did nothing to stop it. “The supervisor was like, ‘I don’t blame you at all if you don’t want to do anything. Hang out in the station.’ That’s what they’re saying.”

Wrong. Self-preservation is exiting a career you think no longer suits you or could be damaging to your health (both physical and mental). Self-preservation is not being paid to do a job you're no longer willing to do until the general public's internal "WE [BLANK] COPS" swings back to the ❤️ emoji.

If there's any time cops need to step up and show the public they can not only fight crime but do so lawfully, it's after incidents like these. But when the going gets tough, the people who claim to be the toughest retreat, secure in the knowledge their union contracts will keep the paychecks coming in while the cities they're employed to protect suffer the consequences of their inaction.

There are some solutions out there, but none cops are willing to honestly engage with. And then there are the useless things being done in response to the unofficial slowdown in Minneapolis. As cops continue to abandon their posts, the courts have stepped up to issue mandates that cannot possibly be enforced.

Between retirements and a surge of officers taking medical leaves, the city had 200 fewer officers to put on the streets this year than it did in 2019, a drop of about 22%. A judge this July ordered the city to hire more officers, but officials have said it will be difficult to make that happen because the embattled department has struggled to attract new recruits.

You can't just summon police recruits into existence, no matter how strongly worded the court order. And there's little to draw people to the policing business at this point in time, most likely because the PD can no longer assure potential employees there's almost zero chance they'll ever be meaningfully punished for even the most egregious conduct. When cops get rung up on murder charges, the hiring pool shrinks to bullies and assholes too stupid to understand actions will (every so often) have consequences. The cops need to be at their best. And now, thanks to years of blowing off accountability and discipline, cop shops are discovering the only people who want a job like this are people who should never be given a job like this.

The Reuters report should be seen as a damning indictment of the police officers unwilling to do their jobs while their actions are being actively scrutinized. For far too many cops, the only acceptable work environment is one that combines an immense amount of power with almost nonexistent responsibility. And, like always, it will be the public that pays the price. When the public needs them most, those still wearing a badge in Minneapolis have decided the best thing to do is hang back at the station and play poker with a deck loaded with victim cards.

Filed Under: derek chaufin, george floyd, minneapolis, minnesota, police

Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers

from the gov't-acts-to-protect-citizens-from-their-gov't dept

Well, here's something unexpected, delivered in a somewhat tone-deaf fashion. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety has partnered with a mother whose son was killed by a Minnesota police officer to hopefully reduce the number of times people are killed by police officers for following instructions during traffic stops. (h/t @Ktech)

“License and registration, please." It's what we expect to hear when law enforcement stops us for a moving violation.

But today, many motorists ask themselves when the appropriate time is to reach into their glove box, purse or back pocket for the information.

The Minnesota State Patrol, along with several law enforcement agencies across the state, want to make it easier for drivers to store the information and for law enforcement to see when motorists are reaching for documents.

It's called a “Not-Reaching Pouch." Its intent is to store a person's driver's license, and insurance card in a pouch that's kept in plain sight in the vehicle on an air vent or other visible location.

The Department of Public Safety (DPS) recently purchased some Not-Reaching Pouches, which were created by Valerie Castile in partnership with Jacquelyn Carter, to help reduce deadly force encounters between law enforcement and citizens during traffic stops.

This isn't a new product or one the DPS came up with. Another person whose son was killed by police in Virginia came up with the idea and it was championed by Philando Castile's mother after her own son was shot and killed during a traffic stop. If you don't want to get the pouch from a cop, anyone can purchase one directly from the creator's website.

But the DPS's rollout leaves a lot to be desired. As does the product itself when it's being handed out by government employees, as it implies the solution to easily scared officers isn't better training and less reliance on deadly force, but rather asking citizens to defuse the walking bombs that have pulled them over.

The press release is also written in an exonerative tone, distancing these public servants from the public servants who have killed residents of the state. The problem isn't "people" having trouble figuring out when it's "appropriate" to reach for their IDs and insurance information. They do it when they are asked or instructed to. The problem is that they sometimes get shot while attempting to comply with officers' instructions.

But the most problematic aspect of this partnership between people whose loved ones have been killed by cops and the agency that oversees the Minnesota State Police is the statement that accompanies this tricky rollout:

“We are continually looking for ways to reduce deadly force encounters as these instances can be catastrophic for police officers, and community members ," said DPS Assistant Commissioner Booker Hodges. “By working together with Ms. Castile, who has tirelessly advocated for these since her son was killed in a deadly force encounter with law enforcement, we are hoping these pouches help in some way reduce these instances, even if it's just one."

Appreciate the sentiment, Booker, but these "encounters" always seem to go one way: officer "fears," officer fires. These are routine traffic stops that ended with the killing of someone by police officers -- killings that were done in response to movements made by drivers and passengers attempting to comply with officers' requests and orders. This statement attempts to spread the blame around, as though deadly force is inherent to the "encounter," rather than deployed by officers who seem to believe anytime someone moves while sitting in a vehicle, it's to retrieve a weapon.

It's a well-meaning effort but it's undercut by the agency that's performing it -- one that has already exonerated officers by referring to the killing of drivers by cops as "deadly force encounters," robbing the dead of their agency and understating the severity of officers' actions and overreactions.

Despite those drawbacks, it's a huge step forward for any government agency to hand something like this out. The DPS's decision to buy these and hand them out is an implicit admission it knows there's something wrong with policing in the state, if not the nation. If it is willing to give drivers something that might prevent "even just one" senseless killing, it is making it clear police officers cannot be trusted to remain calm (and nonviolent) during traffic stops without the assistance of those they're interacting with.

Sure, in a perfect world, the government would already be on top of this, firing bad cops, engaging in more prosecutions of violent cops, refusing to indemnify officers being sued over rights violations, and stocking agencies with employees who understand and respect the fact their real employers are the people they serve. But if this was a perfect world, no one would have come up with this idea. So, you do the best with what you have and keep pushing to make it better.

Filed Under: dps, minnesota, minnesota dept. of public safety, minnesota state patrol, not reaching bag, philando castile, police, police s hooting

Minnesota Troopers Decided Being Sued For Excessive Force Was The Perfect Time To Delete Emails And Text Messages

from the mens-rea-me-this,-motherfuckers dept

How do you reform this?

Minnesota State Troopers engaged in a massive "purge" of emails and text messages shortly after the agency was accused of using excessive force during the protests and riots over the death of George Floyd last summer, according to court testimony filed late Friday.

That's according to KSTP reporting by Ryan Raiche, which appears to have broken the news about this defensive effort by the MSP. It's not just defensive. It's illegal. The records purge appears to have been triggered by lawsuits filed against the agency alleging excessive force during policing of the George Floyd protests.

This is some serious misconduct. This is the people entrusted with making sure the rest of us abide by laws abandoning their duty to be law-abiding themselves.

The purge of communication means troopers may have destroyed potential evidence that could be used against the agency in multiple pending lawsuits regarding its use of force on protestors and journalists following Floyd's murder.

When this is done in a civil case, it's sanctionable. When it's done in a criminal case, it's called obstruction. Well, it's called that when civilians do it. When cops do it, it's possibly excusable, especially if it doesn't run afoul of any precedent.

The Minnesota State Patrol certainly seems to believe this conveniently timed purge of communications that might be made public during litigation is acceptable. According to testimony by Minnesota State Patrol official Joseph Dwyer, the agency did nothing wrong. Everything that happened was just the following of procedure. Defending these actions in court, Major Dwyer said the purge was "standard practice."

But how standard? Major Dwyer had no (satisfactory) answer for this question.

[T]he supervisor acknowledged that practice typically varies from trooper to trooper and does not follow any sort of set schedule.

Sometimes, the MSP deletes email and other communications after a set period of time. Other times it deletes communications after being informed it's being sued. We don't know what the normal deletion schedule is, but we do know what this deletion was in response to, thanks (once again) to the Major's testimony.

Kevin Riach, the ACLU attorney, repeatedly questioned the supervisor about the deletion of emails and possible evidence.

"You just decided, shortly after the George Floyd protests, this would be a good time to clean out my inbox?" he asked.

"That is correct," Dwyer testified.

Looks pretty open-and-shut, your honor. Sanctions all around! One can only assume the deletion was an effort to keep incriminating communications from being used by litigants suing the agency. This isn't speculation. This is the only logical reason a law enforcement agency would start deleting stuff after being served with a lawsuit. And by "logical," I mean that it's an action that would eliminate inculpatory communications. I don't mean "logical" as in the equivalent to common sense.

If I'm the judge handling these cases, sanctions are just the beginning. Default judgments in favor of the plaintiffs would really drive the message home. This is heinous bullshit. Hopefully, the judges handling these cases will punish the Minnesota State Patrol just as enthusiastically as its officers punished peaceful protesters.

Filed Under: deleting evidence, excessive force, george floyd, minnesota, minnesota state police, police, protests

Minneapolis, Minnesota Becomes The Latest Major City To Pass A Facial Recognition Ban

from the facial-recognition-lobby-still-incredibly-weak dept

Facial recognition bans are slowly becoming the status quo around the nation. Good.

The tech is faulty. And that's understating things. There's plenty of evidence showing the tech does little but generate false positives. Bogus arrests are starting to pile up.

Just as concerning are the false negatives -- something no one can actually tabulate. But you can't ignore the fact that AI prone to misidentifying people (especially minorities) is capable of letting as many guilty people go free as it's capable of subjecting innocent people to wrongful detainments and arrests.

Pockets of facial recognition resistance have cropped up. They've been mainly relegated to the coasts so far. Following multiple municipal bans, the state of California blocked use of this technology until 2022. The same thing happened on the other side of the country when Massachusetts lawmakers passed a moratorium on the tech -- one that will prevent law enforcement agencies from acquiring or using this tech until at least the end of 2021. This move followed several citywide bans passed by local governments in the state.

But what about the rest of the country? There's a lot of flyover country between the two coasts. And there's been very little activity in America's so-called "heartland." Until now. The Minneapolis city council has decided it's not just going to sit on the sidelines and see how this whole facial recognition thing plays out.

Minneapolis could soon join a small but growing number of American cities that have banned most uses of facial recognition technology by its police and other municipal departments.

The proposal, which has been quietly discussed for months among a coalition of progressive groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, was signed off on without discussion by a City Council committee Thursday. The matter will next be taken up at a public comment session on Feb. 10 before going to the full council for a final vote on Feb. 12.

The ban would prohibit city agencies from acquiring or using the tech. But it wouldn't prevent other agencies operating in the city -- like the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department -- from deploying facial recognition tech. And the Sheriff's Department already has this tech and it's being used regularly by agencies that would be affected by this ban.

Since 2018, police have run nearly 1,000 searches through the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office’s facial recognition system, with more than half of those searches coming this year alone, according to new county figures.

[...]

[O]utside agencies used the Sheriff’s Office facial recognition platform 516 times through the first nine months of 2020, far more than any previous year. The Sheriff’s Office processed 308 such requests all of last year, up from 18 in 2015.

City legislators will need to put some teeth in its enforcement of this ban if it hopes to actually prevent use of the tech by city agencies. In 2018, the Minneapolis PD spokesperson told the Star Tribune it had no plans to use the tech. Then the MPD went and did what it said it wasn't planning to do hundreds of times over the next couple of years.

On February 12th, the City Council passed the ordinance unanimously, adding Minneapolis to the growing list of cities banning facial recognition tech. And its move, of course, prompted some ridiculous comments from the Minneapolis PD, which felt its desire to keep using unproven, biased tech went ignored.

[I]n a strongly worded statement, Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo said that the ban was "crafted and approved without any consideration or conversation, insight or feedback" from him.

Oh well. Maybe try to participate more. The MPD chief attended quarterly meetings with the ACLU and other concerned citizens during the run-up to this vote and the PD is always welcome at city council meetings. That no one specifically gave Chief Arradondo an opportunity to scuttle the proposal isn't a failure on anyone's part. Of course the MPD doesn't want to give up its access to facial recognition tech. And city reps shouldn't be expected to cater to only one of several stakeholders, just because it's the stakeholder that's going to complain the loudest when it doesn't get its way.

Filed Under: facial recognition, facial recognition ban, minneapolis, minnesota, police

Eighth Circuit Strips Qualified Immunity From Cop Who Pulled Over A Driver For Flipping Her Off

from the so-powerful...-and-yet,-so-sensitive dept

It should be pretty clearly established by now that giving the finger to public officials (in every case listed here, police officers) is protected expression. Even if the expression isn't protected, it sure as shit doesn't justify detainment, arrest, or the seizure of someone's property.

Decisions have been handed down by both state and federal courts saying giving a cop the bird is protected expression. And if it isn't necessarily protected (due to courts not seeing anything that justifies deciding this point in certain), it's pretty clearly not evidence of any criminal act, no matter how much offended cops wish it to be.

If you're a cop on the receiving end of this hand gesture, it's best to just move on. Choosing this hill to die on just means the officer now has multiple ways to lose their qualified immunity. First, there's the Fourth Amendment violations, which include detaining people when no actual criminal activity is suspected. Then there are the First Amendment issues, which included illegally retaliating against people for exercising their rights.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest to add to this body of case work that says engaging in any law enforcement response to a flipped bird is unwise, at best. In this case, the officer who decided it was impossible to ignore an erect middle finger has lost her qualified immunity. This decision [PDF] not so gently reminds cops that being an asshole isn't a crime. (If it was, can you even imagine the number of cops under indictment?)

Ruben Garcia sued officers from the New Hope, Minnesota police department after being hassled excessively by Officer Kaitlyn Baker, whom he first encountered near a local school.

The first encounter was innocuous, but somehow laid the groundwork for officious retaliation later in the day.

On February 1, 2016, Officer Baker was on school patrol at Sonnesyn Elementary in New Hope, Minnesota. That morning, Garcia drove by the school and saw Officer Baker motion for him to stop his vehicle. He stopped. Officer Baker shouted for him to slow down, but Garcia responded that he was going the speed limit. Garcia then drove away. Officer Baker did not issue Garcia a citation.

Had this been the end of it, there would be no federal case. But both parties persisted. Unfortunately, the party with the thinnest skin had the power, the gun, and the badge. Ruben Garcia rolled by the school later that day, again encountering Officer Baker. He sent his love.

Later, in the afternoon, Garcia again saw Officer Baker at the school. This time, he extended his hand out of his car window and raised his middle finger at Officer Baker as he drove past her.

This was apparently too much for Officer Baker. She activated her dash cam and followed Garcia. Her only reason for this initial pursuit was captured by her camera: that Garcia had "flipped [her] off" and supposedly had "argued about speed when children" were present.

Engage bullshit. Baker pulled Ruben over and began to make stuff up.

Officer Baker approached Garcia on his passenger side window. Using his phone, Garcia began to video the traffic stop and then asked Officer Baker why she pulled him over. She replied, “You drove by and you flicked me off and I’m curious as to why you did that.” Id. at 01:07–01:11. Garcia asked if his actions were illegal, and Officer Baker replied that there was a woman with her children at the school patrol and that his actions constituted disorderly conduct.

"There was a woman with her children at the school patrol." That was the alleged reason for the stop. The real reason was in the first part of Officer Baker's statement: "you flicked me off and I'm curious as to why you did that."

Baker demanded ID and insurance info. Twice. Garcia refused. Twice. He stated the officer was violating his First Amendment rights. Baker did what cops often do when faced with accusations of rights violations: she called for backup. Garcia escalated.

Officer Baker asked Garcia for his license several more times. He replied that he would give her the license but repeatedly asked her if she was going to shoot him.

Garcia then asked for Baker's badge number. She stated he could find it on the citation she was going to write him.

Two more officers showed up. Baker demanded Garcia hand her his "goddamn D.L." He refused. Officer Anthony Gust approached the vehicle. Garcia still refused to hand over his license. Having run out of lawful options, Officer Baker decided to try some unlawful approaches.

Officer Baker walked around the vehicle to Garcia, yelling for Garcia to get out of his vehicle. She opened the driver’s side door and demanded that Garcia get out of the vehicle. Officer Baker then grabbed Garcia as he stepped out of the vehicle, placed him against his vehicle, and handcuffed him. Officer Baker threw Garcia’s wallet on the ground. Officer Gust helped Officer Baker hold Garcia against the vehicle.

This "suspicion" was helpfully corroborated by another backup officer, but one who had (wisely) chosen not to respond to an extended middle finger with a search and seizure.

Officer Baker also told the arriving officers that Garcia would not give her his license and “that’s why he’s taking a timeout for right now.” Id. at 05:02–05:05. Officer Johnson related that once he saw Garcia’s license plate, he realized that Garcia had raised his middle finger at him before.

Having found nothing criminal about Garcia's admittedly abrasive actions, Baker and the other officers gave him back his wallet and sent him on his way. Garcia got the last word.

Officer Baker held Garcia in the car for around seven minutes, and during that time, he continued to talk to her about how the officers were dangerous and unprofessional. Officer Baker issued Garcia a citation. Officer Gust then took Garcia out of the squad car and removed his handcuffs. As Garcia left, he yelled “f**k you” at the officers. Id. at 12:56–12:58. He then drove away in his vehicle.

A hero drives among us.

Garcia was cited for disorderly conduct and [checks police recording] a license plate violation. Let's hear more about this "violation."

As to the license plate violation, Officer Baker noted in her incident report: “During the traffic stop, I observed the license plate having a plastic cover over the entire plate and a red plate frame obstructing the view of the month and year stickers.” Ex. 1 at 38, Garcia v. City of New Hope, No. 0:17-cv-03574-NEB-ECW (D. Minn. Nov. 19, 2018), ECF No. 51-1. She later clarified that she noticed the license plate during the crosswalk encounter and mentioned the violation in the wrong portion of her incident report. Officer Baker also stated that she did not inform Garcia of the license plate violation because she could not have a conversation with him. Garcia denies that he had a cover or frame over his license plate.

Ohhhhhhhhh. It wasn't about Officer Baker's "curiosity" about Garcia's hand gestures. And it wasn't really about the people in the crosswalk. It was about a license plate violation the court says it can't clearly see on the recording and the protected speech the court says is protected.

The court says the record isn't clear either way when it comes to the license plate violation. It's possible there was a legitimate reason to stop Garcia.

[T]he district court determined that even if Officer Baker made a mistake, it was a reasonable mistake. The court noted that the other officers saw the frame, the license plate was not clearly discernible on the squad car video, and Garcia entered into the Agreement instead of disputing the violation.

But there's also no exoneration. The facts are still disputed. No other officer offered testimony that backed up Officer Baker's claims about a license plate violation. As long as this question remains unsettled, even an honest mistake of the law isn't enough to grant qualified immunity… especially given the other facts at hand.

It is true that we have found that an officer made a reasonable mistake about a license plate violation where the license plate was not centered on the front bumper and “it was dark outside, making it difficult for [the officer] to fully scan the vehicle for a front license plate.” United States v. Payne, 534 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2008). But the blurry video does not show that Officer Baker’s view of the license plate was hindered. In fact, the video depicts a clear day and shows that Officer Baker—who was right behind Garcia’s car—had a clear view of the license plate. Officer Jacobs’s testimony and the blurry video are not enough to show that Officer Baker had an objectively reasonable belief—based on the totality of the circumstances—that the license plate was unlawfully covered.

The court then says Garcia's decision to enter into an agreement on the license plate charge has no bearing here. It's not an admission of guilt. The agreement he signed does not contain any admission or stipulation that Garcia's license plate violated state law. No qualified immunity on the BS "license plate violation" excuse for this stop.

Therefore, at this stage of the litigation, Officer Baker is not entitled qualified immunity based on the absence of a Fourth Amendment violation because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she had probable cause to conduct a traffic stop of Garcia’s vehicle.

That cues a reversal of the lower court's decision. It was clearly established -- and Officer Baker does not contend otherwise -- that probable cause is required for a traffic stop. An extended middle finger is not probable cause.

And there's no qualified immunity for targeting a single finger. The court reiterates that indicating the police should fuck themselves is protected speech.

Garcia’s raising his middle finger at Officer Baker is a rude and offensive gesture but nonetheless, under current precedent, is a constitutionally protected speech activity.

Any detainment originating from this would logically deter people from engaging in protected speech. No qualified immunity here either.

Officer Baker does not dispute that Garcia’s right to be free from First Amendment retaliation was clearly established at the time of his arrest. “Criticism of law enforcement officers, even with profanity, is protected speech.”

[...]

Based upon the record before us, we hold that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to Officer Baker on Garcia’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

There's a dissenting opinion. And it's ridiculous. Judge Shepherd prefers to believe First Amendment speech should be subjected to the same standard as Fourth Amendment violations. If anyone did everything Garcia did during these interactions with local officers, Officer Baker should have been free to believe making some shit up to justify detaining someone for offending her was cool and Constitutional.

In my view, Garcia’s conduct was prolonged and goes beyond that of constitutionally protected speech. Garcia made the obscene gesture while driving through a school zone in broad daylight while a crossing guard was present. He extended his head and entire arm out of the car while raising his middle finger. Further, Garcia’s aberrant and aggressive behavior, which included the obscene gesture, occurred after a previous contentious encounter that morning with Officer Baker at the same school crossing. Although an officer is expected to exercise more restraint than the average citizen in responding to offensive or critical speech, I believe the facts here demonstrate an escalation of offensive and aggressive behavior that both disrupted and interfered with Officer Baker’s ability to monitor the school crossing.

[...]

Further, even if Garcia has shown the violation of a constitutional right, it was not clearly established on February 1, 2016, that driving through a school zone during school hours and in the presence of a crossing guard, leaning his entire head and arm out the window of his vehicle to raise his middle finger, all following a confrontation about Garcia’s rate of speed in the same location earlier that day, was protected by the First Amendment.

Sorry, Judge. But that's not how the First Amendment works. Even under the extremely permissive qualified immunity guidelines, the limits of the First Amendment are pretty clearly defined. And it's pretty clear Officer Baker's -- despite her belated obfuscation -- real reason for pulling over Garcia was to punish him for being rude to her. This addition to the opinion only shows one judge would forgive officers for punishing citizens for hurting their feelings. Ridiculous.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, 8th circuit, anthony gust, free speech, giving the finger, kaitlyn baker, minnesota, new hope, police, qualified immunity, ruben garcia

In Response To George Floyd Killing, Minnesota Schools Dump Contracts With Minneapolis PD

from the rest-in-swill,-coppers dept

We can disagree (vehemently and at length) about the most effective means of societal change. But we've seen a blend of tactics that no one unanimously agrees are helpful or harmful, but are still pushing legislators and other government officials towards meaningful change.

Maybe we'll never fully understand what motivates society as a whole. (And yet we live in one.) Let's celebrate the steps forward -- especially one that have occurred despite certain government officials (including our President) declaring almost any anti-government action to be stupid, criminal, and useless.

No one asked for cops in schools. At least, very few students did. Maybe some parents did. To be sure, a whole lot of school administrators did because it meant they could offload every disciplinary problem -- no matter how small -- to cops trained to handle serious criminal acts rather than underage acts of defiance. It made things easier for administrators who used this void they'd created in their own responsibility to enact a number of "zero tolerance" policies that relieved them of the pressure of using common sense and restraint when dealing with troublesome students. The end result was objectively awful.

Now, with law enforcement agencies having proven themselves objectively awful by badly reacting to a cop-created problem, Minnesota schools are deciding to kick cops to the curb.

The city’s public school board unanimously approved a resolution on Tuesday night that will end the district’s contract with the Minneapolis police department to use officers to provide school security. The Minneapolis superintendent said he would begin work on an alternative plan to keep the district’s more than 35,000 students safe in the coming school year.  

“We cannot continue to be in partnership with an organization that has the culture of violence and racism that the Minneapolis police department has historically demonstrated,” Nelson Inz, one of the school board members, said. “We have to stand in solidarity with our black students.”

Hopefully this will spring a sizable leak in the school-to-prison pipeline, allowing the tax dollars no longer required for the receiving end to be routed to the future of America and those tasked with teaching them.

But it's not just minors being protected from cops. It's also a number of adults.

In a statement Wednesday evening, University of Minnesota President Joan Gabel announced changes in the school's relationship with the Minneapolis Police Department.

U of M will no longer contract with MPD for additional law enforcement support needed for large events. This includes football games.

The school will also no longer use MPD for specialized services such as K-9 Explosive detection units.

As extraneous cop opportunities dry up, so should their funding. This will make it easier for legislators to remove police from situations where their dubious expertise has done more to harm than to help. What used to be just a libertarian fever dream is now a few steps closer to reality. Members of the Minneapolis City Council are actually considering at least a partial dismantling of the city's police force.

Several members of the Minneapolis City Council this week have expressed support for drastic overhauls to the way the city handles law enforcement, ranging from calls to defund the department, to suggestions that social workers, medics or mental health professionals should be sent to some calls currently handled by police.

Council member Jeremiah Ellison, son of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison — who is leading the case against the officers involved in Floyd’s death — took a more radical approach.

“We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department. And when we’re done, we’re not simply gonna glue it back together. We are going to dramatically rethink how we approach public safety and emergency response. It’s really past due,” Ellison wrote on Twitter Thursday.

Council President Lisa Bender joined Ellison’s call to dismantle the department.

“We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department and replace it with a transformative new model of public safety,” Bender wrote on Twitter Thursday.

The police likely won't be disbanded, no matter who's vowing to do what. And the Council -- at this point - isn't threatening to deprive the PD of its funding until it gets its problems sorted out. But the state's Department of Human Rights has sued the PD, demanding a host of changes and a partial blockade on certain enforcement activities until the PD agrees to its demands for increased accountability. This is nothing new for the Minneapolis PD, which was hit with similar demands by the DOJ back in 2003. It appears the federal effort didn't actually result in better officers so more drastic reforms are in the works.

While legislators may not be able to dismantle the PD and rebuild it from the ground up, they are taking steps to steer cops away from situations they've proven they can't handle, like welfare checks and calls relating to mental health issues. Too often when cops are faced with situations they don't completely comprehend, they respond with force, mostly of the "deadly" variety. If these reforms are pushed through, calls like these will turn EMS units and mental health professionals into first responders, giving these at-risk residents a better chance of surviving their encounter with the government.

Things are changing. This is good news. But let's not be dismissive of all the bad news that led us to this point -- including demonstrations (violent and otherwise) that demonstrated law enforcement's inability to properly serve the public they owe their jobs to.

Filed Under: defund the police, minneapolis, minnesota, police, police violence, school resource officers