Baltimore Police Union Blames City's Murder Rate On Defunding Efforts That Never Happened

from the kindly-shut-your-noisehole dept

In response to the killing of a Baltimore police officer, the head of the Baltimore police union, Mike Mancuso, has decided to accuse everyone who doesn't love cops as being responsible for her killing. The statement from the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) was delivered via Twitter, portraying itself as an "Open Letter to the People of Baltimore."

It's not really an open letter. It's a rant that makes false claims, punctuated with one particularly meaningless statistic to drive its point home: the Baltimore PD no longer feels it has the support of the city government, nor the people it serves. FOP President Mancuso is probably correct on both counts. But nowhere does he even hint that part of the problem might be the Baltimore Police Department.

Here's where the letter goes off the rails. It starts in the second paragraph which means you won't have to read much of the "open letter" [PDF] before your eyes start rolling. Let's turn it over to the head of the FOP:

In this time of contemplation, I have come to realize that Baltimore and its citizens have reached a crossroads in the path toward the future. You can no longer be still, as the path ahead has so completely diverged as to make silence no longer an option. The politicians running Baltimore and Annapolis have defunded the police in a now obvious way allowing attrition and recruitment to be ignored, causing our ranks to fall some six hundred officers short of what is needed.

First off, there has been no defunding. This claim is clearly contradicted by the city's annual budget numbers, which are posted publicly. Mancuso obviously hopes no one will check his math. Certainly the choir he's preaching to won't.

The Baltimore PD has never been defunded. It didn't happen during the recent wave of defunding efforts across the nation. And it didn't happen during any of the years Macuso has chosen to bracket his arguments with:

What has happened to our city is devastating. Since 2015, there have been 2318 victims of homicide and 4848 victims of shootings, all while in conjunction with a mass exodus of dedicated members of our agency.

I wonder what happened in 2015 that would have possibly led to (1) more gun violence and/or (2) a mass exodus of Baltimore police officers?

On April 12th, 2015, a 25-year-old black man from the west side of Baltimore named Freddie Gray was arrested for possession of a “switchblade,” put inside a Baltimore Police Department (BPD) transport van, and then, 45 minutes later, was found unconscious and not breathing, his spinal cord nearly severed. Following a seven-day coma, Gray died on April 19th; his untimely death and citizen video of his arrest, which showed Gray screaming in pain, prompted both the peaceful protests and headline-grabbing riots. The subsequent two-week police investigation ultimately concluded that Gray’s injury happened sometime during the van’s route – over six stops, with two prisoner checks, and another passenger pick-up.

This killing of Freddie Gray by BPD officers resulted in protests and backlash against the police department. The intervening years did nothing to improve the PD's reputation nor its relationship with Baltimore residents.

In 2017, body camera footage of an officer planting drugs led to a department-wide investigation that resulted in the indictment of eight officers on racketeering charges for stealing money, fabricating evidence, and other misconduct. Hundreds of criminal cases were dismissed.

At that point, the PD was already subject to a consent decree from the DOJ, following its investigation of the department, which found:

BPD engages in a pattern or practice of: (1) making unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests; (2) using enforcement strategies that produce severe and unjustified disparities in the rates of stops, searches and arrests of African Americans; (3) using excessive force; and (4) retaliating against people engaging in constitutionally-protected expression.

By 2020, the number of indicted or convicted police officers had reached 14, adding in even more allegations (many sustained) of evidence theft, evidence planting, falsified paperwork, and a ton of rights violations.

So, it was not simply the backlash caused by the "rough ride" death of Freddie Gray, a man arrested for carrying a legal knife. The results of the DOJ's investigation were published in 2016. The consent decree arrived January 2017, followed shortly thereafter by reports of corrupt cops planting drugs and stealing evidence.

Back to the FOP's president's statement. He claims the PD has been shedding officers steadily since that point. According to Mancuso, it's the city holding the department back by somehow preventing the department from recruiting or hiring cops. But there has never been a hiring freeze. Some expenditures were put on hold during the COVID crisis. But, for the most part, the PD has had five out of the last six years to hire as many officers as it can.

There are several reasons the BPD might be leaking cops. Some of its worst officers might have left the force, realizing even a minimal amount of scrutiny might uncover their wrongdoing. Others may have left the force because they no longer wished to be associated with the corruption observed in several high-profile cases.

The same can be said for the PD's inability to outpace departures with new hires. Good cops most likely would prefer to steer clear of a department with a reputation as terrible as Baltimore's. Bad cops most likely steered clear of the BPD because officers were being overseen by a DOJ consent decree and the heightened scrutiny that always follows massive scandals. Realizing it might be more difficult to engage in lawless behavior, potential officers likely looked elsewhere.

With that out of the way, we can get back to looking at the department's budget, which the FOP claims has been "defunded." The stats are easily available, compiled and published by the City of Baltimore. Here's how the years in question break down in terms of dollar amount and number of officers, which are the only stats the FOP cares about.

2015
Budget: $440,793,081
Employees: 3,470

2016
Budget: $467,608,064
Employees: 3,125

2017 (report for this year returns a 404 error, est. budget from 2016 request listed below)
Budget: $451,472,227
Employees: 3,125

2018
Budget: $486,079,670
Employees: 3,243

2019
Budget: $499,575,448
Employees: 3,243

2020
Budget: $508,291,238
Employees: 3,241

2021 (budgeted)
Budget: $500,357,075
Employees: 3,193

2022 (requested)
Budget: $521,725,791
Employees: 3,197

The FOP's statement about defunding is a lie. So is its count of officers. It claims 600 have walked away and never been replaced. At best, the actual numbers show the BPD has shed less than 300 employees (not all of them officers) since 2015. As of last August, the BPD was only short 108 officers, nowhere near the number stated by the FOP.

Meanwhile -- despite lower labor costs -- the department's budget has increased by nearly $81 million over the past five years. There was a slight dip between 2020 and 2021, but that dip is purely conceptual at this point. The BPD may end fiscal 2021 having spent more in 2021 than in 2020. Its budget may have been slightly lower than 2020 but its actual expenditures have yet to be tabulated.

There is no evidence of defunding here. And there's no evidence the situation -- in terms of officers -- is anywhere near as dire as the FOP portrays it.

These are the factors the FOP ties to the increase in homicides. One has been exaggerated. The other is nonexistent.

It's true the murder rate in Baltimore has been climbing since 2015. The FOP boss wants to blame it on everyone turning against the cops, resulting in a mass exodus of officers (isn't happening) and the stripping of funding (isn't happening either). Baltimore's murder rate is the highest its been since the mid-1990s, which was a highwater mark for criminal activity almost everywhere in the country.

Maybe the explanation is closer to home than the FOP wants to admit. It could be the murder rate is rising because would-be murderers know the odds are with them. Even at its own, self-reported best, the PD only solves half the murders committed in Baltimore.

The official clearance rates for those years have been reported as 51% (2017), 43% (2018), 32% (2019), and 40% (2020).

At worst, the odds are even better for murderers. These clearance rates are inflated, according to the former Deputy Attorney General of Maryland, Thiruvendran "Thiru" Vignarajah. Vignarajah has examined the BPD's reported crime stats and has some insight into how the department handles clearances. A cleared case doesn't always mean the perp has been arrested or convicted. In some cases, the clearance means nothing has happened.

Vignarajah calculates it — without “exceptional clearances” and without arrests in homicides from previous years — the clearance rate for each of those years was much lower. “Less than a quarter [24%] of all 1,336 murders from the beginning of 2017 through the end of 2020 resulted in an arrest,” Vignarajah says.

Even if we give officers credit for closing cases that began the previous year, the abuse of "exceptional clearances" allows the PD to overstate its effectiveness.

The most common use of "exceptional clearances" is to pin murders on corpses. Subject only to a cursory review by supervisors and prosecutors (both of which clearly benefit from higher clearance races), investigators can claim a body in the morgue was responsible for the death of others. Sometimes they may be correct. But it certainly looks like an easy way to juice clearance rates, all without having to actually prove the cadaver committed the crime.

The actual number of exceptional clearances may seem small compared to the ~300+ murders committed in Baltimore every year, but it's enough to turn a disappointing number into something that appears to show a supposedly undermanned and underbudgeted homicide unit is exceeding expectations.

The number of cases closed by exception in Baltimore has increased in each of the last four years, data obtained by The Sun through a Maryland Public Information Act request show, from 11 in 2014 to 18 in 2015 to 26 in 2016 to 34 last year. The practice has helped police improve their homicide clearance rate over that time, from 30.7 percent in 2015 to 51.4 percent last year.

In 2018, there were 309 murders in Baltimore. The PD allowed more than 10% of those cases to be closed by blaming it on someone who could no longer defend themselves against these charges. In some cases, this may have been true. But the easy out dead-ends investigations and allows the PD to rack up unearned wins. It also, obviously, allows some murderers to go free.

All of this undermines the breathless conclusion to Mike Mancuso's open letter. If the claims he makes and the correlations he implies are false, then this is all just pro-cop agitation, completely devoid of meaning.

This is not a political issue of left vs. right, nor is it a rift between Baltimore's citizens and their sworn protectors. This is simply a fight between good vs. evil, and we must decide where we stand.

Sorry, Mr. Mancuso. The PD has proven capable of housing plenty of evil. And the murder stats cited are meaningless without the uncomfortable context that the BPD is just kind of terrible at solving murders. The claim about defunding is flat-out false. If the PD can't find a way to attract and retain officers despite remaining fully funded for the last half-decade (this includes the governor's $150 million budget boost for 2022 -- one delivered by the governor with verbal attacks on defunding efforts), the problems are mostly internal. Heal thyself, BPD. And kick this ridiculous charlatan to the curb. He's useless and he's a liar.

Filed Under: baltimore, baltimore police department, defund the police, fraternal order of police, mike mancuso, police unions

Fraternal Order Of Police Opposes Biden FCC Nom Because She....Supports Encryption

from the people-against-math dept

We'd already noted how telecom and media giants eager to keep their spoils from the Trump era have been waging a not so subtle smear campaign on Biden FCC Commissioner nomination Gigi Sohn, using loyal GOP lawmakers as marionettes. Sohn is broadly popular across both sides of the aisle, but she's also a fairly fierce advocate of functional regulatory oversight, transparency, and market competition. So companies like AT&T and News Corporation have been seeding a lot of gibberish in DC and in select press outlets about how she's a "radical" who wants to "censor conservatives" and hurt puppies.

Last week the Fraternal Order of Police joined the fray with a facts-optional missive opposing Sohn's nomination, claiming it creates "serious public safety considerations." Their problem? Sohn supports (gasp!) encryption:

"the FOP and many others in the law enforcement community at large are deeply troubled by the active and enthusiastic leadership role of Ms. Sohn as a board member for Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in their forceful advocacy of end-to-end encryption and “user-only-access”—often referred to in the law enforcement world as “going dark.” These new encryption methods for communications are causing Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to rapidly lose the capability to obtain information necessary to protect the public from crime and violence."

As Techdirt has long noted, this position is baseless nonsense pushed by fans of hyper surveillance (and the illusion of safety that creates). Encryption is simply math. It's just another useful tool in a tool chest, used by anybody looking for heightened security and privacy in transactions. The fact this sometimes includes terrible people is not the fault of the encryption itself, yet the folks who engage in mindless opposition to the technology perpetually struggle to understand this. Worse, they fail to understand (or just don't care) that weakening encryption increases the risk of abuse, decreasing privacy and security for everyone.

Amusingly, FOP's positioning on this stuff isn't what you'd call consistent. Whereas the group claims that Sohn simply being on the board of an organization that supports end-to-end encryption (the EFF) is some kind of cardinal sin, the organization itself has fought tooth and nail against the decryption of police radios for transparency's sake. In other words, useful tools are only sacred when we use them. When others advocate for consistent and meaningful security and encryption integrity, they're unqualified for public office. Funny how that works.

That said, the encryption stuff is possibly just misdirection from the start.

Telecom lobbyists have a long, detailed history of cozying up to various interest groups and encouraging them to support certain positions, even if they have nothing really to do with the group's subject matter (or undermine their constituents' best interests). This sort of "astroturf" work often involves co-opting existing groups (from cattlemen's associations to civil rights groups), and encouraging them to support a company's position in exchange for a new event center or other perks. These sort of quid pro quo relationships are rarely put in writing, so it's easy for groups to deny there's any direct financial link. But the tactic itself is documentable, and is designed to create the illusion of broad support for bad policy (like say, scuttling the nomination of a largely popular regulatory appointment interested in reining in telecom and media giants).

That's not to say FOP couldn't have come up with its terrible argument without prodding (the organization has a long history of terrible arguments). But the fairly hollow letter does come at a time where AT&T and News Corporation are desperately trying to outsource opposition with an eye on delaying or derailing Sohn's nomination. The real goal is to keep the unpopular favors gleaned during the Trump era (the death of net neutrality, the erosion of the FCC's consumer protection authority, the dismantling of decades-old media consolidation rules with bipartisan support) and keep the agency mired in 2-2 partisan gridlock for as long as humanly possible. They can't just come out and admit that's the game, so they utilize a long line of ethically-malleable proxy organizations wielding flimsy pretexts and baseless arguments.

Again, Sohn can be confirmed by Democratic vote alone, but the longer the appointment is delayed, the less time the Biden FCC has to implement reform companies like AT&T and News Corporation won't like. And if this phony and farmed opposition gets loud enough to sway some centrist Democrats like Sinema and Manchin, all the better for media and telecom giants terrified of meaningful oversight and actual reform.

Filed Under: encryption, fcc, gigi sohn, police, police unions
Companies: eff, fraternal order of police

External Investigation Finds Small Number Of Aurora PD Officers Create The Most Problems (Plus 98 Other Reason To Improve)

from the things-the-PD-already-knew-but-didn't-want-to-deal-with dept

Maybe cops are too close to the action? Perhaps that's why it always seems it takes an outside entity to discover the problems (and problem officers) in police departments. The US Department of Justice frequently does this (less frequently from 2017-2020), although the long-term effects of its consent decrees and investigations seems to be pretty much negligible.

So, why can't the police police themselves? The most obvious answer is there's no reason to. Few politicians are willing to go head-to-head with law enforcement agencies and even less willing to do so with their unions. Appearing to be tough on crime usually plays well enough it won't cost them votes. Looking the other way keeps legislators employed.

Accountability activists are doing the work we're paying professional government employees to do, for the most part. But recent events have made some legislators realize sucking up to cops isn't as likely to result in lifetime employment as it used to. Changes will be made, if only because they're politically expedient.

But back to the original question: why can't cop shops determine what's holding them back or which cops are a detriment to the force? We're still left to speculate, but there's no speculated answer that makes these agencies look good. And neither do the outside reports, which highlight tons of stuff that should have been obvious to those closest to the action.

This report deals with a single agency in a Colorado city with a population of 369,000. And yet…

Here are the 99 ways Aurora police can improve, according to a comprehensive review launched by the city

Ninety. Nine. Only Jay-Z had this many problems and he was able to subtract at least one.

The Aurora PD has problems. It cannot pretend it doesn't. There's too much on the record. And yet, it refuses to do anything about it. Prompted by a series of incidents in 2020 -- including an officer passed out drunk behind the wheel of a police car, the killing of Elijah McClain, and the wrongful detainment of a black woman and her four children, the City of Aurora decided to engage in some long-delayed oversight.

Its findings are things the PD should have known. (And likely knew, but did nothing about.) There are terrible officers. And there are the rest of the officers, supervisors, and top-level management who look the other way, which definitely does not make them "good" cops.

Just 35 officers accounted for 40% of the officer misconduct cases between 2017 and 2020, a "disproportionately large share," according to investigators.

Can the PD operate without these officers? Most likely, yes. But it refuses to get rid of its worst employees, which turns city residents into ATMs for lawsuit settlements.

Why haven't these officers been ousted? Well, it's the department itself, which is most likely hamstrung by its contract with the Aurora Police Association, the local union that stands as a bulwark between bad officers and the accountability that would result in a better police department. The report also states there's too much red tape for discipline to be effective, and that internal investigations take too long.

And so, having ignored the problems for years, the list of problems is exceedingly long. (And, to be fair, it is, at times, somewhat repetitive.) One of the main areas needing improvement is the PD's use of force policies. What's in place is minimal and provides very little guidance. It needs more specifics and limitations. The report lists a large number of improvements, including de-escalation as the default and giving people the opportunity to comply with commands before handing out beatdowns.

This, of course, will require more training, which the report recommends.

And there should be a lot more transparency and accountability.

APD should require officers to document, and provide specific information about, all interactions with the public that are not voluntary.

[...]

APD should make information about complaints relating to bias, profiling, and discrimination available on its website, along with information about the adjudication of investigations of such complaints.

A large part of the report deals with the APD's handling of complaints against officers. The way it works now is that it doesn't work. It's (perhaps intentionally) convoluted, complex, and unlikely to result in thorough or timely investigations. The report says nearly everything about this needs to change.

Complaint and discipline procedures should be codified in separate directives with an emphasis on enhanced clarity.

The current process for handling external complaints should be streamlined. Currently, it is convoluted and substantially more complex than it should be. Policies relating to administrative investigations and external complaints should be consolidated.

Allegations of misconduct against employees that may result in discipline or other corrective actions should be identified and categorized by the severity of rule, policy, practice violation in the rewritten directive.

These are all recommendations. It's unclear whether the APD is under any obligation to implement them. And if the city does make these mandatory, it's unclear how much its existing agreement with the APD's union will prevent some of these from moving forward. But it's clear the department needs to change. The disappointing thing is that it took the city (and city residents' tax dollars) to point out problems the APD already should have been aware of… and problems it should have already been making efforts to address.

Filed Under: aurora, aurora pd, colorado, police, police unions

DC Court Dumps Police Union's Attempt To Block Release Of Recordings, Officers' Names Following Police Shootings

from the maybe-just-shoot-fewer-people-if-this-transparency-is-such-a-problem dept

Last year, a number of police reforms were passed by the city of Washington, DC. These efforts angered the Fraternal Order of Police -- which represents a number of DC Metro police officers -- enough for it to sue. It sued over two reforms in particular: the release of police recordings (body cam or otherwise) and the names of officers involved in shootings of residents.

The FOP insisted this was a bad idea. According to the union, releasing this information would place officers in danger. The FOP speculated making officers' names public would subject them to humiliation, possible armed retribution by city residents, and make it ever so slightly more difficult for them to be employed by other law enforcement agencies.

It also suggested releasing footage would violate the privacy rights of citizens, including victims and witnesses at the scene. And it insisted the entire thing reeked of due process violations, since there was a chance (probably a pretty good one) that officers would be cleared of any wrongdoing.

Well, the court has rejected all of the FOP's arguments and Metro PD officers are going to have to get used to the new level of transparency that now surrounds their use of deadly force. The court likes exactly zero of the FOP's arguments. First, the court [PDF] points out the police union has no standing to bring this suit, no matter which version of standing it attempts to use.

Speculating that the FOP will be involved in more defense of officers accused of wrongdoing following use-of-force incidents isn't an injury the court's willing to recognize. (And it's unclear how releasing footage and names would result in more litigation or internal investigations.)

Simply stating that more resources will be expended is insufficient because the passing of the Temporary Act did not prevent the plaintiffs from performing tasks or actions that they previously could prior the Temporary Act.

[...]

Further, plaintiff’s alleged future injuries are too speculative to establish organizational standing. The plaintiff alleges that it will have to expended resources to challenge improper transfers of Detectives, but as the defendants pointed out, such an allegation is based a series of potential future events. It is not concrete or imminent injury when the allegations involve a chain of events that essentially start from the Mayor’s release of the footage, to less witnesses willing to testify, to a more difficult investigation, to a lower closure rate, to potential transfers or disciplinary action, and then to plaintiff’s decision whether to represent the officer, assuming that the officer is one of plaintiff’s members. [...] Therefore, plaintiff’s pure speculation about potential future harm is insufficient to establish organizational standing.

The court says the FOP also can't sue because it feels release of footage will infringe on the privacy rights of residents who aren't cops.

In the Complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the Temporary Act will infringe on the rights of citizens of the District, such as infringing on their privacy rights. However, it is unclear how the plaintiff can establish a close relationship with every member of the general public who are not members of the plaintiff’s organization. Furthermore, there is no allegation of any “hindrance” to the ability of the public to protect their own interests.

There's no associational standing either.

In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the release of the camera footage and names of officers will result in “unjust reputational harm, result in “immediate risk of a significant bodily harm,” and lead to “psychological trauma” to an officer and his/her family. However, these allegations are purely speculation and conclusory allegations that the Court has no obligation to accept under the relevant standards. The pure possibility that something might happen does not constitute an injury.

In addition, there's nothing connecting this speculation to the actions of the city government, which passed the order governing the release of footage and names.

Further, the Amended Complaint also fails to allege how any alleged injuries can be “fairly traceable” to the defendant’s actions. The defendants are not in control of public opinion and cannot be held responsible if a citizen or citizens criticizes or condemns an officer’s use of force in a particular incident.

The court saves the best for last in this dismissal. It dispenses with the union's due process violation allegations by pointing out there's no difference between the officers' body cameras and cameras operated by citizens. You can't say one is protected speech but the other somehow violates the privacy rights of police officers.

In Count II, the plaintiffs contend that Subtitle B of the Temporary Act “violates the fundamental right to privacy held by D.C. Police Union members.” Specifically, the immediate public release of names of officers and body-worn camera footage “will allow criminal suspects and their associates to identify the officer and potentially seek retribution.” First and foremost, there is “no authority that the Constitution imposes on the government an affirmative duty—untethered to specific constitutional provisions such as the First Amendment—to ‘safeguard personal information’ from the criminal acts of third parties.”

Importantly, as the defendants mentioned, MPD policy explicitly states that members of the general public have a First Amendment right to record MPD members during official business, unless they interfere with police activity. See MPD General Order 304-19 at § 1. If the public is legally able to record officers during official business, it is unclear how any reasonable officer can assume that they have the right to privacy when conducting said official business.

The lawsuit is dismissed. Presumably this will be appealed, but even when given two chances to fill a lawsuit with actionable claims and firmly establish standing, the FOP failed. Once this is appealed, it's stuck with the arguments that have already failed once. It should probably save its time and money for future Hail Mary litigation in the event of impending release of footage and names.

Filed Under: body cameras, dc metro police, fraternal order of police, police, police recordings, police unions, transparency

Police Union Gives 'Officer Of The Year' Award To A Cop Who Spent Last Year Suspended

from the pretty-on-brand-for-a-police-union dept

If you'd like some more anecdotal evidence about the useless and general disconnectedness of police unions, have I got something for you. We all know police unions take the worst aspects of policing and amplify them. We know they fearlessly defend even the worst officers from lawsuits, firings, and public criticism. We know they're the main barricade to true accountability, having tied up most cities in protracted legal language that allows cops to do all they can to avoid being fired and, in the off-chance they do get canned, get their jobs back via the arbitration process.

Via the Free Thought Project comes this painful howler of a story -- one that involves a police union, an officer awaiting discipline, and an annual award for the top cop in the city. Here's how it went down, as explained by Joe Nelson of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune:

Detective Eric Walterscheid stood at a podium before the El Monte City Council during its last meeting in June, touting the work of Officer Carlos Molina before honoring him as the Police Officers Association’s Officer of the Year for 2020.

Walterscheid (who is also the police union president) spoke at length about Molina's early days as a promising young investigator. He didn't have much to say about Detective Molina's more current work… because there wasn't much of that to discuss.

But Molina seemed an odd choice for the honor, primarily because he didn’t work a single day in 2020. He spent the entire year on paid administrative leave that ultimately lasted 19 months — from September 2019 to April 2021, according to Tom Madruga, a contract attorney for the city.

Officer of the Year for not working a single day. That's really something. And, almost unimaginably, the El Monte police department likely got more done with Detective Molina sidelined.

You see, Molina was suspended for spending more than a year working a single child abuse investigation that "yielded little work product." And he couldn't even manage to not move this investigation forward during regular work hours. He racked up 42 hours of overtime not getting the job done, adding another $4,400 to the taxpayers' tab for services un-rendered.

The case was pulled from Molina and handed to another detective, Pedro Yanez. Yanez closed the case in 44 days and the two suspects are now awaiting trial.

The police union has refused to comment on the public embarrassment. City officials have commented, mainly offering up variations on "what even the fuck."

Some of the rank-and-file, however, have speculated this award was given to a suspended cop as a "message of dissatisfaction" with current police chief David Reynoso. That's according to Sgt. Jamie Pitts, who included this theory in his email asking the city council to pull the award ceremony from its agenda before it embarrassed everyone involved in it.

If it was a joke or a way to use the disgraced detective to send a message, that seems to have been lost on Detective Molina, who appears to be very appreciative of the award he very definitely didn't earn.

Despite the sergeant's pleas to end this embarrassment before it began (and make public the fact that Molina took home not only the Top Cop award, but nearly $205,000 for doing nothing), the show went on. Mayor Jessica Ancona (who, the Tribune notes, is "endorsed by the police union") refused to pull the agenda item, telling concerned council members they were welcome to try to get it voted down while the council session was underway -- something they would have had to do in front of Molina and his friends and family. The farce was allowed to continue. And now an officer who went 0-for-365 last year is officially the police union's 2020 MVP.

Filed Under: carlos molina, el monte, eric walterscheid, officer of the year, police, police unions, suspended

Police Union, Lax Oversight Allow Florida Cop To Survive Three Arrests And Seven Firings

from the when-you-think-'The-Shield'-is-something-to-aspire-to dept

How do you respond if you've just been notified you lead the state in discipline cases? Well, if you're Sergeant German Bosque of the Opa-Locka (FL) police department, you take perverse pride in your inability to be a good cop.

“I can’t believe that,” he said. “I’m not trying to smile. I just ... damn!”

That was in 2011, when Sgt. Bosque wasn't seen as quite as terrible as he is now. At that point, the officer who seemed to see himself as the second coming of Vic Mackey only had five firings (and three arrests) to his name.

Accusations of misconduct have piled up against this officer. The Herald-Tribune found 40 internal affairs cases involving Bosque, including multiple excessive force claims. Those reports found that Bosque head butted a man, splitting his lip open. Or that he cracked open another man's head with a leg sweep. Or the time he smacked a juvenile detainee. On top of that they note that he's been caught defying orders, lying to supervisors, and falsifying paperwork. His off-duty life seems just as horrifying, with Bosque facing multiple accusations from women alleging domestic violence and stalking.

He was apparently bounced out of the police academy twice and still somehow managed to become an officer. One of his early exits was prompted by his arrest on charges of stealing a car and impersonating an officer. I guess the Opa-Locka PD figured it was better to have him become an actual police officer, rather than allow him to roam the city pretending to be one.

Since his hiring in 1998, Bosque has been accused of engaging in pursuits in violations of direct orders, something he apparently tried to cover up by making an "anonymous" 911 call from his personal phone after the suspect crashed into a tree. He also was accused of falsifying his report to cover up his continued pursuit of the suspect.

Following a string of incidents that finally led to his suspension in 2008, Bosque's vehicle was inspected by officers who found an empty vodka bottle, cocaine, and crack pipes. They also found a bunch of IDs Bosque had apparently unlawfully seized.

That led to one of Bosque's firing. But the police union got him his job back, and the state's law enforcement commission took no action to strip him of his certification despite -- as the 2011 investigation by the Herald-Tribune notes -- Bosque's police record more closely resembled a rap sheet.

By all appearances, Bosque hasn't improved over the last ten years. First reported by the Miami Herald (and amplified by the Daily Beast), Sgt. Bosque has again been fired.

German Bosque, the Opa-locka police sergeant who became notorious for repeatedly getting fired and getting his job back, has been canned yet again.

“I’ve lost count. I don’t know if it was the seventh or eighth time,” Bosque said when reached on Wednesday evening. “It’s a wrongful termination. Again, I’ll be getting my job back again.”

It's Bosque's seventh firing. His latest involves more claims of lies and shady behavior. It also involves what appears to be some incredible incompetence by officers handling criminal evidence.

It stems from a shooting that happened back in October, when a gun believed used in the incident was discovered under a boat in someone’s back yard in Opa-locka. Officer Luis Serrano was assigned to watch the gun until Miami-Dade detectives got there to process the scene. But Serrano left to go to his police car briefly — and someone on the street took the gun and replaced it with a toy pellet gun.

Sgt. Bosque arrived on the scene and began mentoring Officer Serrano as only Bosque could. The body cam recording caught Bosque telling Serrano to make up a story about why he left the gun unattended.

“What do we tell them you get to get in the car?” he asks, according to body-camera footage. When Serrano repeated that he’d gone to the car to look [for] some paperwork, Bosque said “No. No. Something else, anything else ... you thought it was going to rain and you came to get a tarp.”

For all the cops who complain the "system" allows criminals to get off on "technicalities" (the nickname cops give Constitutional rights), they seem to lack the self-awareness to recognize they have their own set of technicalities that frequently allow them to escape punishment for their actions. And here it is, via Andrew Axelrad, Bosque's police union attorney.

“The idea that the department is going to terminate him for this is truly unbelievable ... I have very little doubt that he will be reinstated,” Axelrad said. “”This is more a function of his reputation.”

That seems about right. Bosque's reputation is garbage and has been for a couple of decades. The only thing slightly surprising about this is that he actually was fired. If history is any indication, Bosque will be back on the streets before too long.

And Bosque's own lack of self-awareness is pretty notable.

“It’s sad because I love policing,” he said. “I don’t like corrupt cops. I hate when I’m portrayed as a dirty cop who slipped through the cracks.”

But that's exactly what Bosque appears to be: a dirty cop who slips through the wide crevasses his union and his supposed oversight create for him. No matter how much the PD and the city want him gone, they can't seem to get rid of him.

Then there's the question of how much the PD actually wants him gone. Sure, it's been forced to reinstate him thanks to the union's continuous intervention, but if it really wanted Bosque gone, it could have made it happen. Years of indifference by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement -- which has continually refused to strip Bosque of his certification -- has turned a bad hire into permanent Opa-Locka urban blight.

Then there's the officers he works with. Some, if not most, must be ok with Bosque's behavior. No officer has stepped forward to offer their commentary on his actions. And it appears some officers take pride in being bad. Law enforcement has cultivated an us vs. them attitude that takes all the wrong messages from pop culture icons like Dirty Harry and The Punisher and applies them to their daily work. Everyone who isn't a cop is an enemy in a war zone. Busting heads and breaking rules is perceived to be the most efficient way to enforce the law. Violence is encouraged in training and rewarded with wrist slaps, reinstatements, and shit tons of exonerative reports and public statements.

Bosque is a symptom of the disease. And he didn't make it in the law enforcement business for 28 years without the help of those around him. Most of us can go 28 years without being arrested or fired once. A public servant entrusted with this much power shouldn't be tolerated for this long ever.

Filed Under: firings, florida, german bosque, opa-locka, police misconduct, police unions, reinstatements

Illinois Legislature Sends Massive Police Reform Bill To The Governor's Desk

from the it's-broken-so-start-fixing-it dept

A serious set of police reforms has passed through the Illinois legislature and is headed to the governor's desk. You can tell it's a good set of reforms because the police union hates it.

In the final hours of the legislative session, state senator Elgie Sims did no one any favors by introducing a 764-page amendment to the reform bill that had already passed. That's not a cool move, no matter what the ends are. No one can possibly hope to read and comprehend something of that size with only a few hours left in the session, as another state senator pointed out on his Facebook page.

But it's not as if the state senators had no idea what was contained in the bill. More than a week earlier, one of the state's police unions was already complaining about its contents and asking legislators to vote the bill down. The union's list of complaints looks like a comprehensive set of reforms -- something almost any other person or entity in the state would view as positives. Here's the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police's bitch list about the earlier, 611-page police reform bill, followed by commentary:

Eliminates Qualified Immunity for police officers, making them civilly liable to siren chasing trial lawyers

Qualified immunity needs to go. It has encouraged bad behavior by cops by making it almost impossible for them to be held accountable for their actions. As one Appeals Court judge recently pointed out, qualified immunity turns civil rights litigation into a rigged game citizens almost always lose.

Eliminates Officer’s rights to Collectively Bargain, creating a “special class” of public employee who does not have these rights in Illinois

A step towards eliminating police unions is a step towards accountability. This point can't be argued. History has proven this much.

It Eliminates impartial arbitration over burdensome residency requirements

Asking cops to live near the people they serve shouldn't be burdensome. When cops are commuting from distant suburbs and neighboring towns to protect and serve, it's pretty tough for them to feel any empathy for the people they police or contribute to any sense of community.

Allows for unrestricted and ungoverned disciplinary policies of law enforcement officers

Likely hyperbole, just like the line that opens the FOP's post:

Late on January 5th, the Illinois General Assembly filed a 611 page bill that eliminates law enforcement as we know it from every community in the State.

LOL. Ok.

Prohibits departments from taking advantage of cost-saving federal surplus programs

An less-dishonest phrasing would explain that this bill prevents cops from acquiring military gear like assault rifles, grenade launchers, and armored vehicles. The Defense Department's 1033 program has driven a wedge between the police and policed, and has delivered no measurable improvement to law enforcement safety or crime reduction.

Allows officers to be punished or fired based on anonymous and unsubstantiated or unverifiable complaints

Oh, I doubt that.

Mandates that those unsubstantiated and unverified complaints be kept to be used against officers forever, with no destruction and no limits on how they can be utilized to inflict harm on officers

Stop your crying. Arrest records are permanent, even if arrestees are never convicted of the alleged crimes. There's no reason officers shouldn't have a permanent record that reflects their years of service -- both the good and the bad. Files will note claims that are unsubstantiated and unverified. Those won't hurt officers because, well, verified/substantiated complaints rarely have a negative effect on law enforcement officers' careers.

Substantially increases both initial and ongoing education requirements with no money to pay for the increased costs and no assurances that the courses will even be offered

That's a problem that needs to be addressed. But dismissing it out of hand because all the details aren't in writing yet is counterproductive.

Mandates the use of body cameras by all departments for every officer with no money to pay for the cost of those cameras

Pretty sure the police will pay for the cameras. They'll pay for it the way they pay for everything else: tax dollars. Or, if money's tight, maybe cops could free up some of their asset forfeiture funds to buy this equipment.

Defunds any department that does not comply 100% with the draconian requirements of the legislation

Again, hyperbole. There should be consequences for not complying with [checks notes] state law, but very few local governments are actually willing to defund police departments. Losing some of your budget because of compliance failures is not "defunding."

Eliminates funding for law enforcement agencies

LOL. No.

Eliminates Cash Bail

Cash bail simply allows the less fortunate to see their fortunes suffer even further. It's pretty difficult to keep your life running while in jail and it's impossible to earn money to pay bail while behind bars.

Enacts multiple benefits for felons

Who even knows what the FOP is saying here. The FOP might be referring to the felony murder rule, which is curtailed by this legislation. Felony murder is a hell of a thing, allowing people to be charged with murder if some act they committed resulted in the death of a person -- even if they never directly interacted with that person. For instance, selling drugs that later result in someone's fatal overdose can trigger the felony murder rule.

Prohibits use of force in almost all situations, and makes officers criminally liable for virtually any use of force

No. It doesn't. It tempers the use of force by ensuring it's justifiable. And when it isn't, it can result in criminal charges. The implementation of standards for force deployment is not a "prohibition" just because it eliminates some officer discretion.

Removes prohibitions against obstructing police officers

It doesn't do anything of the sort. It simply makes it a misdemeanor not punishable by more than 48 hours in jail or 100 hours of community service. This makes it less likely obstruction charges will be used to punish people for not being sufficiently deferential to cops.

Charges officers with Official Misconduct, a class 3 felony, for banal and incidental issues

One man's banal is another man's egregious offense. What cops may think are "banal" violations are actually disturbing to those outside of law enforcement and often surface indicators of systemic problems departments aren't dealing with properly. Increasing the severity of the punishment is a good deterrent.

That's the FOP's take. And the FOP really didn't need to be so worried about it. No one was going to be able to pass a bill with all of this included. The last-second amendment stripped out a bunch of the really good stuff.

Some more controversial elements were eliminated from the final version of the bill to secure its passage. One would have reduced the power of police unions to bargain over disciplinary procedures. Another would have ended qualified immunity for civil rights violations, which would have made individual officers — instead of taxpayers — financially liable if a court found they intentionally violated the constitution.

Dammit. Passing a qualified immunity ban somewhere in the nation would be a great start -- a test case to see if it actually would result in the parade of litigation horrors cop officials claim it would. That will have to wait for another day and another legislature.

But a lot of good stuff remains. The passed version expands the state's officer misconduct database and lengthens the retention of disciplinary records. It gives the state board more power to strip misbehaving officers of their certification. It forces police officers to provide more details on arrests whenever resisting arrest is one of the charges. It adds a duty to intervene when officers witness other officers violating rights. It enacts new procedures for no-knock search warrants. And it mandates body cam use across the state by 2025.

The governor has stated he will sign the bill. This is good news for Illinois residents. And it should be good news for cops… at least the good ones. This doesn't change anything good cops already do. It only makes things worse for bad cops, despite the FOP's hysterical claims about it being the end of law enforcement. It should be a new beginning -- one that can be used to rebuild failing agencies and help them rid themselves of their worst components.

Filed Under: 1033 program, cash bail, elgie sims, illinois, law enforcement, police militarization, police reform, police unions, qualified immunity

Federal Court Temporarily Extends The NYPD's Famous Opacity, Blocks Release Of Misconduct Records

from the dammit dept

The NYPD barely bothers to punish officers who misbehave. This "misbehavior" often includes violations of rights and extrajudicial killings, but it appears the NYPD feels New York's "finest" should be above reproach. Consequently, NYPD internal investigations often conclude no officers should be reproached, allowing them to remain the "finest" even when they're really the worst.

A new wrinkle in the law fabric might change that. After years of doing nothing (and after years of the NYPD never bothering to invoke the law), the state repealed "50a," the statute that allowed the NYPD to withhold misconduct records from the public. For several years, the NYPD posted the outcome of internal investigations. Then it decided it was no longer going to do that. First, it blamed the high cost of printer ink. Then it cited the law that allowed it to stop posting reports where the press could access them.

Lawsuits followed. And -- as is the case whenever law enforcement opacity is threatened -- the NYPD's unions have intervened. It was too little too late. An injunction was sought and obtained, but ProPublica -- which wasn't a party to the lawsuit over 50a records -- published what it had already received from the NYPD. But the battle continues because future opacity is at stake. Unfortunately, a federal court has decided opacity must win out for the moment.

A federal court has halted the release of police misconduct records until a coalition of New York City’s police, fire and corrections unions can make their case to the United States Second Circuit of Appeals.

The ruling came Wednesday afternoon — just days after Manhattan Federal Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled on a lawsuit brought by the unions over the repeal of the law shielding police personnel records known as 50a.

That's right. The union doesn't just want records blocked from release. It wants the law back on the books. This is all very procedural so it probably doesn't wipe away Judge Faila's distaste for this lawsuit. Five days prior to this temporary injunction, Faila had this to say about the union's challenge of the repeal.

The lawsuit, brought by the coalition of unions over the repeal of 50a, argued that releasing unsubstantiated or unfounded allegations would put officers and firefighters at risk and would affect their employment prospects if they leave their department.

But Failla said the unions failed to explain why an “officer in charge of hiring would be incapable of interpreting the records” and she had been “presented with no evidence of increased violence or threat of violence.”

The disclosures plaintiffs’ argument also seems to overlook the disclosures that have historically been made,” Failla said, noting that the NYPD had previously published disciplinary records in recent years at NYPD headquarters.

“Any injunctive relief that I would order, could not put that particular horse back in the barn,” she added.

And yet this ad hoc collection of union legal cowboys is desperate to do just that. The horse cannot be re-barned but maybe enough union members' money can be blown delaying the inevitable. This will be the trophy brought back to the rank-and-file. Money was spent in an attempt to thwart transparency. And -- in the absence of any real victories -- this will have to do.

Maybe in the end the courts will decide the repeal of 50a violates the many, many collective bargaining agreements the city has agreed to over the years. If so, New York City needs to let these expire and write new ones that actually give taxpayers a bit more bang for their buck. Accountability is a must. The city's unions continue to insist it's a luxury even the nation's largest city can't afford.

Filed Under: 50a, katherine polk failla, new york, nyc, nypd, police misconduct, police unions, transparency

DC Police Union Sues To Block The Release Of Names Of Officers Involved In Shootings

from the can't-be-making-info-about-public-servants-public dept

Washington DC responded to widespread protests following the killing of George Floyd with a set of police reforms that tried to address some systemic problems in the district's police department, starting with its lack of transparency and accountability.

The reform bill -- passed two weeks after George Floyd's killing -- placed new limits on deadly force deployment, banned the Metropolitan PD from acquiring military equipment through the Defense Department's 1033 program, and mandated release of body-camera footage within 72 hours of any shooting by police officers. The names of the officers involved are covered by the same mandate, ensuring it won't take a lawsuit to get the PD to disclose info about officers deploying deadly force.

But there's a lawsuit already in the mix -- one that hopes to keep the public separated from camera footage and officers' names. Unsurprisingly, it's been filed by a longtime opponent of police accountability.

The Washington, D.C., police union said on Monday it asked a court to block the mandatory release of body camera footage and names of police officers involved in shootings.

According to the union, releasing the names of officers will do bad things to the good names of cops who kill people.

“The release of the body-camera footage and names of officers will unjustly malign and permanently tarnish the reputation and good name of any officer that is later cleared of misconduct concerning the use of force,” the union said in a statement.

First off, it's almost impossible to "permanently tarnish" a cop's reputation. Even the worst cops often have little trouble resuming their law enforcement careers after engaging in egregious misconduct. They may have to shop their resumes around a little bit, but lots of PDs and Sheriffs' offices are more than willing to hire bad cops no longer welcome at their original agency.

Second, nothing about this should hinge on whether or not the force deployment was justified. If an officer is later cleared of wrongdoing, they'll be able to go back to work. If not, they'll probably still be able to go back to work -- either with the DCPD or with any other agency more interested in staffing their forces than performing due diligence.

And it's a little rich for the union to ask that officers' names be withheld on the off chance they might be found innocent. The names of people arrested or cited are public records, even if they're ultimately never convicted of a crime. Suing to get cops held to a lower standard is a terrible use of taxpayer funds. Public sector unions collect dues from paychecks and build their litigation war chests using donations from officers -- all of which can ultimately be traced back to the same public the union is trying to keep in the dark.

The lawsuit [PDF] (which inexplicably isn't included in multiple articles about the lawsuit) raises the specter of vengeful vigilantes hunting down cops who killed or maimed friends or family members.

When officers justifiably use force against a criminal suspect, the immediate public release of the officer's name and the body-worn camera footage will allow the suspect and their associates to identify the officer and potentially seek retribution against the officer and his or her family.

This is a ridiculous reason to withhold officers' names. This is Hollywood rationale -- an uninspired trope that's best left in an undeveloped screenplay. It's not that it never happens. It's that it happens so rarely it can't be raised as a plausible argument for blanket secrecy.

The lawsuit also argues -- equally implausibly -- that there's an inherent right to privacy contained in actions performed by public servants in public.

The release of the officer's name and other identifying information contained in the body-worn camera footage will further impermissibly invade the officer's fundamental right to privacy.

Doesn't seem there would be that much privacy in performing public service, especially when someone gets serviced to death by an officer's force deployment. But that's the argument the union will make to shield its fan base from public criticism. Hopefully, the DC court will route this lawsuit to its OUT box as quickly as possible so DC residents can start benefiting from the transparency the district has finally forced on its police force.

Filed Under: accountability, body cams, police, police unions, protests, transparency, washington dc